• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

RBS Group claim dismissed

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hi

    6 more attachments

    Regards
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #17
      pt2537 Have you seen this lengthy case? x
      "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

      I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

      If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

      Comment


      • #18
        Nope?
        I work for Wannops LLP . I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

        If you need to contact me please email me on Ptilley@wannops.com .

        I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

        You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi
          Just a brief summary of how we ended up being taken to Court by RBS.
          1. 2003 sold our property and bought plot of land to build new home.
          2. RBS could not offer mortgage on land but would provide a loan for one year to be converted to a mortgage when the property was completed
          3. 2006 property finished and loan converted to mortgage (Deed of Legal Charge)
          4. All was well for a while until 2008 when we had problems with RBS regarding a Direct Debit. The bank was not helpful and when we had the funds to clear the arrears they refused to accept payment. (2 letters attached)
          5. RBS wrote to us addressed as the Partners telling us to bank somewhere else. We’re not a partnership but the bank produced a Partnership Mandate with our signatures
          6. Subject Access Request sent to clarify what the information the bank held in our names.
          7. The bank confirmed they did not hold a valid Direct Debit for the mortgage and had used one from another account. We signed a valid direct debit mandate but believe our signatures were used on the Partnership Mandate.
          8. RBS did provide a copy of the altered Deed after the time limit confirming in writing it had been omitted in their response. (letter attached)
          9. We made a Direct Debit Indemnity Claim for all the mortgage payments as we believed the Deed was void in Law. RBS ignored the Claim at first until BACS instructed us to take it to the NatWest branch and ask for the money to be refunded as detailed in the guarantee. Attached is an email to BACS explaining our visit to the bank and how we were thrown out of the building
          10. Several phone calls to the bank about the refund (letter attached)
          11. The bank did eventually refund most but not all of the money 27 July 2010. £11,837.03 claimed £10,942.64 refunded
          12. The bank then took us to Court for possession of our property and our money.
          13. The bank lost and their Claim was dismissed on the 5 March 2012
          Regards
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi

            I have attached an email I received from Action Fraud 3 May 2021 and some more correspondence from Shakespeares solicitors and NatWest bank.

            We reported NatWest to Action Fraud as Shakespeares solicitors has always claimed they sent their VAT invoice to the bank for payment meaning the bank must have received full payment. The bank dispute this and this is clear in their last final response email to us 19 February 2021.

            Someone is not telling the truth as they cannot both be right.

            We hope you don’t mind us posting these letters on the forum but if it is a problem please tell us.
            We represented ourselves in Court as no solicitor would take on the bank. Ringrose Law were part of the package with the estate agents trying to sell our property.

            Our defence in more detail.

            https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leave...opher-atkinson

            Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 12 Deeds and other Instruments

            1326. Effect of sealing instrument in blank.

            A deed must be written before it is sealed. If, therefore, a person seals and delivers a writing which is left blank in some material part (as with regard to the name of the grantor or the grantee or the description of the property to be conveyed), it is void for uncertainty and is not his deed and cannot be made his deed merely by filling up the blanks after his execution of it,

            1378. Alteration after execution by party entitled. If an alteration (by erasure, interlineation, or otherwise) is made in a material part of the deed, after its execution, by or with the consent of any party entitled under it, but without the consent of the party or parties liable under it, the deed is made void. The avoidance, however is not ab initio, or so as to nullify any conveyancing effect which the deed has already had, but only operates as from the time of the alteration and so as to prevent the person who has made or authorised the alteration, and those claiming under him, from putting the deed in suit to enforce against any party bound by it, who did not consent to the alteration, any obligation, covenant, or promise thereby undertaken or made.
            A material alteration is one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties as ascertained by the deed in its original state, or otherwise varies the legal affect of the instrument as originally expressed, or reduces to certainty some provision which was originally unascertained and as such void, or which may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed .
            The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deed. The avoidance of the deed is not retrospective, and does not revest or reconvey any estate in property which passed by the deed; and the deed may be put in evidence to prove that that estate or interest so passed, or for any purpose other than to maintain an action to enforce some agreement contained in the deed.


            1381. Alteration by a stranger after execution. If after the execution of a deed it is intentionally altered in some material part by a stranger (that is one who is neither a party nor entitled under it), that alteration has the same effect exactly, as against a person entitled under and having custody of the deed, as an alteration made by that person himself, notwithstanding that the alteration was made without his consent.

            1380. Alteration by consent. If, after its execution, a deed is altered in a material part with the consent of the person or persons liable under it, that does not of itself alone avoid the deed or preclude the party entitled under it from enforcing against that person or persons any agreement it contains. If, however, after an instrument has been completely executed, it is altered by consent in such a way as to make it in effect a new instrument, it must be restamped

            Regards
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #21
              Thank you for the birthday greeting

              Comment

              View our Terms and Conditions

              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

              Announcement

              Collapse

              Court Claim ?

              Guides and Letters
              Loading...



              Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

              Find a Law Firm


              Working...
              X