walton v rbos

[mcuth]

The first installment will be aired today at 4.30 with my MP speaking.

 

Radio Sheffield.

 

Paul

 

Not heard anything yet Paul - been listening since 4.30....

 

Cheers

Michael

[TaxedAndConfused]

They have listen again.

 

I've just tried that, I'm remembering why I never listen to local radio...

[paulwlton]

Not heard anything yet Paul - been listening since 4.30....

 

Cheers

Michael

 

I believe the station couldn't get a hold of my MP yesterday.]

 

I'll keep you posted.

[gerona]

I see that RBS have mad huge profits again £10.3bn

 

I've read through at lot of your thread - up to the part where you went to court for the 2nd time

I'll keep reading - good luck

[itsamomentintime]

I believe the station couldn't get a hold of my MP yesterday.]

 

I'll keep you posted.

 

 

flippin eck what a disappointment!!

[paulwlton]

Deleted

[itsamomentintime]

..

[paulwlton]

 

 

After advice could you remove the above post and forget about what i've just posted.

 

Or could a Mod remove it.

 

 

 

Paul

[paulwlton]

..

 

Thanks, i think you'll agree, interesting times ahead.

 

Paul

[paulwlton]

Worth looking at. Section 2 and 4 in particular.

 

 

The CPS : The Fraud Act 2006

[car2403]

After advice could you remove the above post and forget about what i've just posted.

 

Or could a Mod remove it.

 

 

 

Paul

 

I think this particular cat is out of the bag - and won't be getting back in to it for some time...

 

[paulwlton]

I think this particular cat is out of the bag - and won't be getting back in to it for some time...

 

 

Mums the word though.

 

Paul

[Parkvale]

That is a brilliant piece of legislation and i am sure it will be used more often in the future. So bully banks watch this space. Well done Paul.

[paulwlton]

I have been informed that the bank have stated to the BBC that interest which has accrued would be rightfully owed if the account had not been subjected to the judgment. This is a serious misleading statement.

 

Paul.

[The GodMother]

this is not making sense to me.

 

can someone please explain what is going on please

 

the bank are confusing me

[car2403]

I have been informed that the bank have stated to the BBC that interest which has accrued would be rightfully owed if the account had not been subjected to the judgment. This is a serious misleading statement.

 

Paul.

 

Wow. Are they admitting that they can't apply post-Judgment interest there? Stating the bleeding obvious, about 9 years too late, if they are!

 

this is not making sense to me.

 

can someone please explain what is going on please

 

the bank are confusing me

 

Without going in to the technicalities, as I'd have to presume an awful lot anyway, it looks like the Bank are hoping to influence the eventual exposure they'll get from this to their advantage, IMHO.

 

Confusing? Yes, but I'd call it underhand instead.

[The GodMother]

well bad luck maybe we need to introudce them to CAG they would love the exposure then.

[JonCris]

Wow. Are they admitting that they can't apply post-Judgment interest there? Stating the bleeding obvious, about 9 years too late, if they are!

 

 

They can charge interest post Judgment but only if it's in the T's & C's of the original agreement which in this case it isn't. To recap the agreement that the bank incorrectly claimed was a true copy had their much later T's & C's which do allow for the charging of contractual interest after Judgment.

 

If Paul hadn't found the true original sitting in his loft he wouldn't have been able to prove otherwise

 

 

Without going in to the technicalities, as I'd have to presume an awful lot anyway, it looks like the Bank are hoping to influence the eventual exposure they'll get from this to their advantage, IMHO.

 

Confusing? Yes, but I'd call it underhand instead.

See in red above

Agreed but I understand the media have at last cottoned on to their game & are now asking awkward question the answers to which differ each time

 

Whenever they are caught out & have no counter argument they always resort to "it was a mistake & shouldn't have happened & Mr Walton should ignore the paperwork blah blah etc:"

 

I think that even the most credulous person has now got to start understanding that the banks are being, how should I say, 'disingenuous'

[paulwlton]

See in red above

Agreed but I understand the media have at last cottoned on to their game & are now asking awkward question the answers to which differ each time

 

Whenever they are caught out & have no counter argument they always resort to "it was a mistake & shouldn't have happened & Mr Walton should ignore the paperwork blah blah etc:"

 

I think that even the most credulous person has now got to start understanding that the banks are being, how should I say, 'disingenuous'

 

I will be having a chat with my MP tomorrow. Hopefully the Sh** will it the fan on Monday.

 

The program will be aired just after twelve on Radio 4 and early afternoon on BBC Radio Sheffield.

 

My Honourable MP John Healy will be speaking as well as a representative from the CAB. Should be fun.

 

Paul

[paulwlton]

Wow. Are they admitting that they can't apply post-Judgment interest there? Stating the bleeding obvious, about 9 years too late, if they are!

 

 

They're kind of saying..... we have no entitlement to apply post judgment interest to his account... but if we had, this is what Mr Walton would owe.

 

The bank claimed in the Guardian this is a cock-up, i claim conspiracy. And i don't like being labeled as vexatious and a fantasist.

 

Paul

[paulwlton]

 

Without going in to the technicalities, as I'd have to presume an awful lot anyway, it looks like the Bank are hoping to influence the eventual exposure they'll get from this to their advantage, IMHO.

 

Confusing? Yes, but I'd call it underhand instead.

 

Any exposure they receive from this will damaging.

 

Paul

[paulwlton]

I believe banking records are deemed prima facia... in otherwords to be correct.

 

Like joncris as stated i would have been well and truly shafted if i had not found my original agreement.

[TaxedAndConfused]

The program will be aired just after twelve on Radio 4 and early afternoon on BBC Radio Sheffield.

 

Radio 4 today (Saturday) or Sunday ?

[paulwlton]

Radio 4 today (Saturday) or Sunday ?

 

Monday.

[paulwlton]

this is not making sense to me.

 

can someone please explain what is going on please

 

the bank are confusing me

 

 

1 I default on a personal loan and overdraft.

 

2 Whilst in default, and without my knowledge or consent the bank pays my personal loan balance off with a significantly different type of loan, interest is then rebated pursuant to sec 95 CCA 1974 and my personal loan is closed, in addition they convert my overdraft into a loan account.

 

3 The bank then sees me has a bad risk customer and sets up a book debt account which consist of both the above accounts and only ever shows an indebtedness figure. I believe this is required for tax purposes!.

 

4 Both accounts start to accrue quarterly compound contractual interest whilst i'm trying to negotiate a reduced payment. Note, interest is now accruing three months prior to judgment.

 

5 The bank obtain judgment and set up a judgment account,

 

6 The bank are now operating the judgment account independent to the contract. Without ever having legal entitlement!. And are continuing to do so.

 

7 The actus reus was when the bank decided to forward fake agreements which were an attempt to mislead me into believing they have legal entitlement to apply such interest.

 

I hope that comes across a bit clearer to you and especially to the guests.

 

Paul