bank of scotland

Discuss all of your Banking, Finance and "Money" related issues here.

bank of scotland

Postby elemental mechanic » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:42 pm

i have been working on a debt with rbs which can be found in whole under documented cases, but i wanted to bring in particular this letter which i received friday.

rbs seem to be aware of sites like this one and are going all out to discourage this approach, give the whole letter a read, but i draw your attention mainly to paragraph three that proposes web sites such as these is incorrect regarding legal rights.

i feel in one sense they are right, common law is the stance i am learning to execute and stand under; on the other hand if it were not for sites such as these i would not have found out about the deception of debt collectors and how to dismiss them from a legal stand point.

paragraph four goes on to say how the bills of exchange act 1882 does not stand in this instance, unfortunately my learning is slow at best on this matter and i really have no recollection of writing anything with regard to this act, not knowingly anyhow.

this probably suggests (in my thinking) that someone else has undertaken this maneuver (and possibly won?) (i'm not sure) but they seem to fear, (as i comprehend the letter) that the courts could well enforce this.

i wonder if the more well-informed could open up this topic some more, i'm still scratching my head here and would like a sounding board as to what little i have written.

royal bank of scotland edit 1st july p1 09.JPG


royal bank of scotland edit 1st july p2 09.JPG



love & peace

"namaste"
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING
I KNOW THE TRUTH
I DON'T HAVE TO BE WHAT YOU WANT ME TO BE
I'M FREE TO BE WHAT I WANT


Muhammad Ali
elemental mechanic
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:43 pm
Location: greater manchester-shire

Re: bank of scotland

Postby rockape » Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:11 pm

Hi, EM

My point would be your not a "PERSON"(para 4) your a flesh and blood Man/Woman.
my understanding is courts do not have jurisdiction over flesh and blood man, only legal fiction..

what is the debt? civil debt does not come with penalty of prison, if it went to court, just make special apperance and question jurisdiction,

It's a case of "what you afraid to lose" in my case i dont have the mortgage "fear factor", i have had some fun writing to dca and creditors
and it's work in most cases, but i would never had bothered if i hadnt found out the truth, but for a long time i ignored them, as i dont want credit ever again "ive nothing to lose"...

Not the answer you were looking for but hope it helps..

Peace Rockape
User avatar
rockape
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:05 pm
Location: Greater manchester

Re: bank of scotland

Postby lcdenom » Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:55 am

Well, I had a similar letter from them in reply to one of my notices before. They tried to claim that debt validation and verification was something that only applied in America, under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. However, once I'd sent them another notice asking them to disprove the validity of the Bills of Exchange Act, under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury, they seemed to go quiet. In regards to the process of request for clarification/proof of claim, they're definitely lying. You're perfectly entitled to proof when someone is making demands upon you. I've had a solicitor confirm this and that the notices people have been using are perfectly lawful. Honestly, if they didn't need to prove their claim, then that would mean you could also make an identical claim against them without being obliged to substantiate it. Everyone would be pointing the finger at each other and trying to make some easy money. One thing also worth mentioning, when I called to speak to my local solicitor in regards to such matters, it was only the guy who owned the law firm who even knew what an estoppel was. I know that's kinda shocking, but he said it was because it was a slightly out dated concept, though still perfectly lawful. I'd be willing to bet that not all lawyers have too much of an idea what they are on about, or maybe some like to pretend they have a little more power than they do in reality? The first question that popped into my mind when reading that letter was 'do they have a law team to deal with matters like this?' - after all, it's not like people that can't see beyond the legal world are going to be very helpful. Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much. If you've offered conditional acceptance, then it's unlikely to go to court. They will probably just sell it on to debt collectors and we all know they have literally no power. Who did you send your notices to originally? I'm only asking because your letter is from collections and recoveries and a different address to the replies I got from them.
User avatar
lcdenom
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Canvey Island, Essex

Re: bank of scotland

Postby elemental mechanic » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:07 am

rockape wrote:Hi, EM

My point would be your not a "PERSON"(para 4) your a flesh and blood Man/Woman.
my understanding is courts do not have jurisdiction over flesh and blood man, only legal fiction..

what is the debt? civil debt does not come with penalty of prison, if it went to court, just make special apperance and question jurisdiction,

It's a case of "what you afraid to lose" in my case i dont have the mortgage "fear factor", i have had some fun writing to dca and creditors
and it's work in most cases, but i would never had bothered if i hadnt found out the truth, but for a long time i ignored them, as i dont want credit ever again "ive nothing to lose"...

Not the answer you were looking for but hope it helps..

Peace Rockape


hi rockape,

my notice was closely based on the templates and kept all the relavant points of proof of human being, not being a person etc; the problem i have is that i do have a death pledge over my head (mortgage) and i was looking to sell up.
in fact i was so eager to get rid of this ball and chain that i was willing to sell it for cash on the cheap knowing full and well that the firm involved would do me over, but the that cost would have allowed me to move abroad and have a life with a greatly reduced amount of stress. unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you view it, what was supposed to take two weeks to complete took going on three months, each time they came back with some silly delay. in the end i realised it was not their intention to simply do me over, but to straight rob me. after i chased them it turns out they wanted to rent the property back to me at a much high level than the original death pledge, desipite knowing that i had arranged to leave the country.

my way of thinking then as now is i'm not interested in having vast pots of money just enough so i can keep the idiots who believe in that stuff from bothering me every two minutes.

i have been quite successful with dca's myself and have been helping a friend with the same, but i don't like to poke these idiots too much, once they get the message that's it for me too many years of being fucked by these people has made me a little angry (not good for my spirit)
although i do realise i shouldn't be so uptight. :shake:

it may not be the answer i was looking for rockape but your response reminds me that i'm not in this alone and that is worth more than any riches i can think off.

lcdenom wrote:
Well, I had a similar letter from them in reply to one of my notices before. They tried to claim that debt validation and verification was something that only applied in America, under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. However, once I'd sent them another notice asking them to disprove the validity of the Bills of Exchange Act, under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury, they seemed to go quiet. In regards to the process of request for clarification/proof of claim, they're definitely lying. You're perfectly entitled to proof when someone is making demands upon you. I've had a solicitor confirm this and that the notices people have been using are perfectly lawful. Honestly, if they didn't need to prove their claim, then that would mean you could also make an identical claim against them without being obliged to substantiate it. Everyone would be pointing the finger at each other and trying to make some easy money. One thing also worth mentioning, when I called to speak to my local solicitor in regards to such matters, it was only the guy who owned the law firm who even knew what an estoppel was. I know that's kinda shocking, but he said it was because it was a slightly out dated concept, though still perfectly lawful. I'd be willing to bet that not all lawyers have too much of an idea what they are on about, or maybe some like to pretend they have a little more power than they do in reality? The first question that popped into my mind when reading that letter was 'do they have a law team to deal with matters like this?' - after all, it's not like people that can't see beyond the legal world are going to be very helpful. Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much. If you've offered conditional acceptance, then it's unlikely to go to court. They will probably just sell it on to debt collectors and we all know they have literally no power. Who did you send your notices to originally? I'm only asking because your letter is from collections and recoveries and a different address to the replies I got from them.



part of my issue lcdenom is that i did go to court, the advice given at the time was by someone who was a robot and it was before i knew about this site and sites like it.
i did send a notice some months later, it was to rbs litigation department, i did notice however that their original letter had a very similar address and post code as robinson way and co who were the dca's acting for them in the first instance.
when i sent the notice i made an addition as marked below in red.

Dear Sirs,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.

The reason why you need to read carefully is simple. I am offering conditional agreement. This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate. You always have the option of dragging these conditions into a court of law only to be told that they are, indeed, perfectly lawful. That is, of course, always your prerogative should you decide to waste your time.


However as this case has been to court previously I am now aware that it was done without my full comprehension of what was taking place; subsequently having looked into this matter for myself further I have found several anomalies of which I seek clarification. With that standing I am willing to challenge this current situation should you decide to take this matter back into the courts.
For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, and consequently is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.

On the other hand there is a time-limit on the agreement being offered. It is reasonable, and if it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter.

For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance, which means actually addressing the points raised herein.

i have not added the whole notice (that can be viewed under documented cases) but it lays out the template proof of cliams and then finishes with the following:

Furthermore and with this in mind I also seek clarification and request to see the original on these remaining points
• Full disclosure as to how the credit was created and full calculations on the interest.
• The consideration that you brought when the initial credit was first brought into existence as this requires both parties to have an equal value of tradable assets.
• The full terms and conditions.
• The wet signature that you as the corporation placed on the contract when lending the credit.


i could send them another letter regarding the bills of exchange act under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury, but this is something i'm still trying to get my head around, and i'm thinking if i am going to wield it, i need to know how it works.

"namaste"

i'm not sure i have answered all your points i'm going to do a re read but lcdenom, thanks for the heads up; i'm referring to your point about their team of lawyers, at this time i have not received anything from a solicitor acting on their behalf.

i have also been sent a statement which seems to claim i only ever paid £5.00 (that's not true)

royal bank of scotland statement edit 26th june 09.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING
I KNOW THE TRUTH
I DON'T HAVE TO BE WHAT YOU WANT ME TO BE
I'M FREE TO BE WHAT I WANT


Muhammad Ali
elemental mechanic
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:43 pm
Location: greater manchester-shire

Re: bank of scotland

Postby lcdenom » Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:51 am

Well, I'm not sure we could trust their litigation department to tell the truth. Especially after seeing the awful grammar in the second paragraph of their letter. You'd expect a business to be able to at least make sense. Anyway, it's hard enough getting any so called solicitor to own up and the litigation department seem to be slightly confused in regards to your claims. They may well be correct that your notices have not made a liability so, just in case, I'd be inclined to start the process again, with a notice of conditional agreement sent to their company secretary and witnessed by a solicitor - they have to rebut an affidavit, else it becomes lawfully binding. That way you're definitely creating liability with someone and I'm sure he won't fancy paying out any compensation. I have their secretary's name and address if you need it. One thing worth bearing in mind, when sending further notices, is the mention of challenging them in court. It may be worth omitting any such phrases, as they may create some kind of controversy on which the court could adjudicate. If you just offer conditional agreement, upon proof of claim, then I don't see how it could possibly be dragged back into court.

John
User avatar
lcdenom
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Canvey Island, Essex

Re: bank of scotland

Postby huntingross » Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:44 pm

Hi EM

Was thinking I would chip some advice in here, but Icdenom has covered the bases.

Whilst the BoE Act may not be the governing Act under the Agreement, it is certainly relevant to the statement/orders that they issue every month for payment....you could ask them what they call those if it is not a Bill.

I run building contracts and have to ensure that the contractor does as he is asked....the building contract makes no difference between an instruction and something that puports to be an instruction....the same applies to anything else....if it is written or given with only one action in mind, it has to be received as such. A Notice of Fault is just that if the contents of the notice carry the message accordingly.

You could pick their letter apart, and rebut all relevant bits.

Note the arrogance of the court might "in error" award an order permitting the order....heyeah right....they are responsible for their costs to reverse such a decision...its their choice to fight it.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: bank of scotland

Postby elemental mechanic » Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:41 pm

lcdenom wrote:Well, I'm not sure we could trust their litigation department to tell the truth. Especially after seeing the awful grammar in the second paragraph of their letter. You'd expect a business to be able to at least make sense. Anyway, it's hard enough getting any so called solicitor to own up and the litigation department seem to be slightly confused in regards to your claims. They may well be correct that your notices have not made a liability so, just in case, I'd be inclined to start the process again, with a notice of conditional agreement sent to their company secretary and witnessed by a solicitor - they have to rebut an affidavit, else it becomes lawfully binding. That way you're definitely creating liability with someone and I'm sure he won't fancy paying out any compensation. I have their secretary's name and address if you need it. One thing worth bearing in mind, when sending further notices, is the mention of challenging them in court. It may be worth omitting any such phrases, as they may create some kind of controversy on which the court could adjudicate. If you just offer conditional agreement, upon proof of claim, then I don't see how it could possibly be dragged back into court.

John


i agree that would be a starting point, if you could pm me the name and address (or post it here) that would be appreciated.

as a rule i wouldn't place such a phrase in my notices, i initially sent that just to get a knee jerk reaction given that this matter had already gone to court. when they contacted me it was with the usual threats of attachment of earnings, bankruptcy etc if i didn't make the monthly payment.
my idea was to get them out of their corner to play ball by opening a dialogue with them, rather than them proceeding to railroad me.



[quote="huntingross"]
Hi EM

Was thinking I would chip some advice in here, but Icdenom has covered the bases.

Whilst the BoE Act may not be the governing Act under the Agreement, it is certainly relevant to the statement/orders that they issue every month for payment....you could ask them what they call those if it is not a Bill.

I run building contracts and have to ensure that the contractor does as he is asked....the building contract makes no difference between an instruction and something that puports to be an instruction....the same applies to anything else....if it is written or given with only one action in mind, it has to be received as such. A Notice of Fault is just that if the contents of the notice carry the message accordingly.

You could pick their letter apart, and rebut all relevant bits.

Note the arrogance of the court might "in error" award an order permitting the order....heyeah right....they are responsible for their costs to reverse such a decision...its their choice to fight it.


statement!, what statement!, (GUFFAWS LOUDLY) h, they have not sent me s##t until weekend just gone that claims i only made a payment of £5.00 in it's lifetime. the statement can be viewed on documented cases, i have not thought of what to do with it as yet, only put it on site this morning.

i think my notice of fault was very clear and they have been getting very jittery since they got received it, whilst my original notice defined a challenge in court if they decide to go back which could well lead to adjudication as pointed out by lcdenomhas, my second did not.
question; if i send two notices does the latter supersede the first?

"namaste"
I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING
I KNOW THE TRUTH
I DON'T HAVE TO BE WHAT YOU WANT ME TO BE
I'M FREE TO BE WHAT I WANT


Muhammad Ali
elemental mechanic
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:43 pm
Location: greater manchester-shire

Re: bank of scotland

Postby lcdenom » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:35 pm

Ok, I've PM'd you the name and address you need. Hopefully you'll now be able to silence them. I'm sure Mr. Baines will turn white again... Oh, and I wouldn't expect him to reply personally. He'll get one of his fictitious minions to reply with some lame excuses and then hide in the corner of his office, praying that you don't decide to take matters any further, no doubt :grin:
User avatar
lcdenom
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Canvey Island, Essex

Re: bank of scotland

Postby elemental mechanic » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:37 pm

thanks for the pm, i will keep all updated to the outcome and i hope this topic helps others as they scan around for their answers.

notice to be crafted and posted here real soon.

peace & love

"namaste"
I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING
I KNOW THE TRUTH
I DON'T HAVE TO BE WHAT YOU WANT ME TO BE
I'M FREE TO BE WHAT I WANT


Muhammad Ali
elemental mechanic
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:43 pm
Location: greater manchester-shire

Re: bank of scotland

Postby lcdenom » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:53 pm

Well, I thought I'd scan in the letter I got from Bank of Scotland so people could see an example of the nonsense they try to come up with.

Image

Image

At the time I was using the templates from getoutofdebtfree, so I crafted a response with one of those as a starting point. It wasn't the best of notices, looking back, and I'd definitely put more thought into it if I had to respond to such nonsense again. Having said that, I've not heard from the woman since, so I guess I can't bash my initial attempts too much. :grin: Anyway, here's how I replied...

Image

There were probably dozens of questions that I could have asked. If I ever have any bother from banks again, I'll be sure to be a lot more inquisitive. No harm in making them work for their wages, after all.
User avatar
lcdenom
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Canvey Island, Essex

Next

Return to Banking Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron