walton v rbos

[paulwlton]

paul

 

the sense of injustice overwhelms me regarding your situation however i am hoping that - with political intervention - some sort of favourable action shall be forthcoming

 

I am one of the luck ones - i caught them out, had i not foung CAG a couple of years ago i'd have been shafted similar to what has happened to D&D.

 

My case will be investigated by the ICO shortly for breaches of the DPA, i have requested a meeting with the case worker assigned to my complaint. In addition, the FOS are to investigate my allegations with my MP having a copies of my submitted complaint.

 

RBS refused to supply the documents i needed to win my claim although i made the request puruant to CPR 18, this put me to a disadvantage as the judge did not have the documents to be able to make a reasoned assesment. And yes i did make the DJ aware of RBSs non compliance.

 

RBS will have to comply with the ICO though and submit all documents they hold on me.

 

Paul

[The GodMother]

wicked what happens if they dont comply with the ico?

[paulwlton]

wicked what happens if they dont comply with the Information Commissioners Office?

 

I share your frustrations and i have first hand experience of regulatory incompitence. Saying that, I believe it was a complaint from a CAGger to the ICO that resulted in confirmation that data held on Barclaycard's microfiche was deemed a relevant filing system and therefore data for the purposes of a SAR.

 

Pw

[car2403]

Paul,

 

It looks like the RBS House of Cards is about to tumble, looking at the news today, doesn't it?

 

Sir Fred and Sir Tom seem to be the first casualties.

 

The tax payer is going to be the 3rd one, as it looks like we're going to "part-own" (if that is possible) RBS.

 

Could we say this is all down to your efforts?

[paulwlton]

Paul,

 

It looks like the RBS House of Cards is about to tumble, looking at the news today, doesn't it?

 

Sir Fred and Sir Tom seem to be the first casualties.

 

The tax payer is going to be the 3rd one, as it looks like we're going to "part-own" (if that is possible) RBS.

 

Could we say this is all down to your efforts?

 

Hi Car

 

The screw will get even tighter for RBS shortly with political and more media exposure expected.

 

Oh, and the Keane case resumes today.

 

Regards

Paul

Edited October 8, 2008 by paulwlton

[FANTASY CHARGES]

the government will own more than 50% of rbs by 8am in the morning

 

the banks hate the word "partial nationalisation"

see the robert peston blog on the bbc website

 

presumably it is in order to put a link to the bbc ?

 

BBC NEWS | The Reporters | Robert Peston

 

 

 

 

quoting from the blog

 

" Which bank will be first to tap taxpayers?

Well I would expect Royal Bank to raise the capital it needs over the weekend. On paper its balance sheet looks okay. But its board has concluded it needs a further cushion of capital, perhaps as much as £10bn.

This need not spook any depositor or saver with RBS. In fact the contrary is true. RBS will be all the stronger for strenthening its balance sheet and accessing the Treasury's interbank guarantee.

But it's a terrible humiliation for RBS's chief executive, Sir Fred Goodwin - who broke all British records by raising £12bn in a rights issue less than six months ago.

After the eyewatering fall in RBS's share price at the end of last week, RBS's entire market value is now less than the cash it raised just a few months ago. And in terms of what can damage the credibility of a chief executive, it doesn't get much worse than that

Goodwin has told colleagues that his priority is to raise the desirable new capital, and that he wouldn't stay in his job after that if shareholders wanted him to go.

That's his coded way of saying he's off, possibly as soon as Monday - and he'll be replaced by the former Abbey finance director, Stephen Hester, who is currently chief executive of British Land.

But, to be clear, RBS won't be the only bank raising capital in the next few days."

[paulwlton]

Surely, RBS's problems couldn't worsen... or could they? Watch this space.

 

PW

[Sparkie1723]

Surely, RBS's problems couldn't worsen... or could they? Watch this space.

 

PW

 

On PAPER their balance sheet look O.K......but we know what these paper balance sheets are made up of don't we Paul ???? .........sparkie

[paulwlton]

On PAPER their balance sheet look O.K......but we know what these paper balance sheets are made up of don't we Paul ???? .........sparkie

 

We certainly do mate.

[un1boy]

I wonder what will happen with the OFT test case now -will they still have the cheek to appeal the decision(s) or do you think that progress could now be made?

Isn't funny now though - we are basically claiming back our own (tax) money with any payouts we get......lol....

Also, surely now that they are part nationalised, they should HAVE to be transparent and tell us how much it costs them to bounce a payment and surely, as majority shareholders, we have the right to request this information?

I also wonder if the whole unenforceable agreement thing will get easier to fight? I can't see how they can get away with taking their share holders to court for trying to get an unenforceable agreement enforced??

Edited October 12, 2008 by un1boy
Typo's! :-/

[paulwlton]

 

I also wonder if the the whole unenforcable agreement thing will get easier to fight? i can't see how they can get aay with taking their sahe holders to court for trying to get an unenforcbale agreement enforced??

 

 

I beleive Prof Roy Goode and Francis Bennion may have some influence on this subject.

[cashins]

On the news tonight that Fred 'The Shed' is to quit tommorow.

 

No matter how far he falls, I bet he lands on a nice pile of cash.

 

It does however set a good example to the reat who were so reckless with other peoples money and lives.

 

David

[Vulture_Bank]

I beleive Prof Roy Goode and Francis Bennion may have some influence on this subject.

 

 

see gareth thomas MP's 's statement regarding the banks being unable to enforce any agreement whilst in default, under section 78 cca and the fact that

 

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk289/42man_2008/HOC-1.jpg

 

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk289/42man_2008/HOC1-1.jpg

 

 

since gareth thomas is part of the government it is suggested that the

songs to be sung should be "sung from the same hymn sheet" :

 

 

hence the potential minor shareholder in say RBS (eg current management of RBS etc etc ) should act in accordance with the statement made by gareth thomas regarding banks themselves entering into default.

[un1boy]

I beleive Prof Roy Goode and Francis Bennion may have some influence on this subject.

 

Sorry Paul, I don't understand.

[cashins]

I beleive Prof Roy Goode and Francis Bennion may have some influence on this subject.

Wrote the Consumer Credit Act, I think.

David

[paulwlton]

see gareth thomas MP's 's statement regarding the banks being unable to enforce any agreement whilst in default, under section 78 cca and the fact that

 

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk289/42man_2008/HOC-1.jpg

 

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk289/42man_2008/HOC1-1.jpg

 

 

since gareth thomas is part of the government it is suggested that the

songs to be sung should be "sung from the same hymn sheet" :

 

 

hence the potential minor shareholder in say RBS (eg current management of RBS etc etc ) should act in accordance with the statement made by gareth thomas regarding banks themselves entering into default.

 

The problem is that creditors are claiming they have complied with the requests and are continuing their collection activity when they are still obviously in default.

[car2403]

Also, surely now that they are part nationalised, they should HAVE to be transparent and tell us how much it costs them to bounce a payment and surely, as majority shareholders, we have the right to request this information?

 

They may now be considered Public Bodies, so, hopefully, we can use the Freedom of Information Act against them?

 

[andrew1]

Sorry Paul, I don't understand.

 

Bennion drafted the Act back in the early 70's, Goodes been contradicting Bennion ever since. Needless to say, Goode is not on Bennions Christmas card list.

[un1boy]

They may now be considered Public Bodies, so, hopefully, we can use the Freedom of Information Act against them?

 

 

Hmmm.....good point, but would it still be under the FIA if they are only *part* nationalised..........

 

Shall I send thema request under the act and see what happens? If you think I should, I'll need some help so let me know and I'll start a thread!!

[car2403]

Hmmm.....good point, but would it still be under the FIA if they are only *part* nationalised..........

 

Shall I send thema request under the act and see what happens? If you think I should, I'll need some help so let me know and I'll start a thread!!

 

Er, I was joking.

 

[paulwlton]

Bennion drafted the Act back in the early 70's, Goodes been contradicting Bennion ever since. Needless to say, Goode is not on Bennions Christmas card list.

 

The OFT claim it is acceptable to recreate an agreement from internal records in order to comply with a request for a true copy. I wonder if Francis Bennion had this in mind when drafting the Act.

[Goldlady]

Well the true copy I received from one of mine had the current credit limit of 10k on it and not the original amount of about 1k before they went on their irresponsible lending spree:D

[andrew1]

The OFT claim it is acceptable to recreate an agreement from internal records in order to comply with a request for a true copy. I wonder if Francis Bennion had this in mind when drafting the Act.

 

Shouldn't think so Paul and it effectively boils down to the acceptance that anyone working in the legal profession is above reproach. It appears that as long as a declaration has been made that this is a 'true copy' as would have been had they got it then that suffices in court. However, I recently got side stepped as a LIP against a Barrister when I questioned the authenticity of an extremely 'convenient' email appearing in disclosure documents which carried no audit trail (as one might expect on an email) - I recreated an identical copy of what had been submitted using a Word document to show the judge how this 'convenient' email which I never received, but which made a big difference to the balance of the case in favour of the opposing side, could have been blue petered and I was slammed down when the barrister said I was implying that a qualified solicitor-a respectable member of the Law Society blah,blah would lie under oath and a statement of truth - Judge swiftly put me in my place and ignored the whole email argument which discredited me. So given I know that email never went out what does one do? - believe the legal people or ones own judgment and moral fibre? - I know who I trust.

 

Bennion would not be a happy bunny.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello S!

 

So given I know that email never went out what does one do? - believe the legal people or ones own judgement and moral fibre? - I know who I trust.

 

 

I think this may be a good reason to always request the bankers produce Server Logs to substantiate if any such crucial emails were ever sent.

 

IOW, if you get advanced warning of a dubious email you know has never been seen before, make it absolutely clear that you never received this, and make it clear the opposition must produce evidence that the highly convenient email was actually sent.

 

I think the Civil Evidence Act 1995 is applicable, as this would be regarded as Hearsay Evidence, so would need to be supported with some Evidence to validate it. For example, Server Logs would be suitable Evidence to at least prove that an email was sent at exactly that time.

 

The Logs would show the Message being sent from their Mail Server to your ISP's Mail Server, and from there to your PC. The Byte Size of the Message should exactly match the size of the Message that was sent. These Logs should be supported via independent ISP Verification.

 

However, even armed with that, you'll probably still have to contend with a Judge who is as ignorant of IT and Email Servers as they are of the Consumer Credit Act!

 

The Barrister you were up against was using his/her greater Courtroom experience to pull a few strokes, that was all. It was a bluff that, sadly, you could not call at the time (few LiPs could, they knew that).

 

But, this is a very useful thing to hear, as it suggests that we should all demand that any crucial/pivotal emails being submitted as Hearsay Evidence, must be substantiated via accurate and independent Logs.

 

It would've been nice to see the Barrister's reaction if faced with probing questions about their abject failure to notify the Court in advance about this Hearsay Evidence, and their inability to explain the lack of Server Logs to back up the email's authenticity.

 

Then, by all means, let him/her swear under oath the email was genuine!

 

Bennion would not be a happy bunny.

 

I don't think Francis would be too happy at all. From what I gather, he is quite IT Literate these days. Here's his Web Site for a start:

 

Francis Bennion

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited October 14, 2008 by banker_rhymes_with
Tidy up.

[REST ON A SUNDAY]

is this any use ??

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=526

 

Form Number: N268

Form Title: Notice to prove documents at trial