Morning Elsa How odd........ pasted link again below, lets see if this one saves on here without changing case http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/09/natwest-admits-signature-forgery Phil

Sorry........... been nowhere near a pooter all evening, link below........ also in money supplement of Guardian this morning http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/09/natwest-admits-signature-forgery Phil

Change of plan........ delayed it until Tuesday, didnt have time to get my hair done, lol

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 xxxxxxxxxxx To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx@kent.pnn.police.uk Cc: xxxxxxxxxxxxx@oft.gsi.gov.uk Subject: SI CY xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Please print and file in the above S.I Regards xxxxxxxxxxxxx From: xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 xxxxxxxxxxxx To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Fw: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx I await copy correspondence [below], I trust you are not attempting to mislead the claimant or relying on further cost encumbrance to same in its provision. Legal privilege and part 36 are not an 'open door' to abuse of process, dialogue to date has shown no proposal to settle and as such will be presented to the court when costs are assessed. Our previous dialogue confirmed that you were aware of all facts in this case, I can only advise that it would be extremely unwise to further mislead the claimant in 'explanation' of documents previously presented. Your conduct will of course be brought to the attention of the court. I trust I make my position clear and look forward to sight of your clients proposal. xxxxxxxxxxxxx From: xxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 xxxxxxxxx To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On the basis that any agreement to further extension was effective 'post' service of your clients proposal, I can only trust that you have not advised the court to the contrary. Perhaps, you would care to forward me a copy of your correspondence to the court to which you refer below. I do of course continue to look forward to receipt of your clients proposals. xxxxxxxxxxxx From: xxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 xxxxxxxxxxx To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Without Prejudice Save as to costs Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Claim No:xxxxxxxxxxxxx I write to confirm that I have written to the Court asking that the stay be extended until 2 January 2012. I know that you have not yet heard from us with proposals and these are currently in draft form and with the Bank for their approval. I should be in a position to come back to you at the end of the week with some proposals and a full explanation of the documents which have arisen from you subject access request. Should you wish to give me a call in the meantime, please do not hesitate to do so. Yours sincerely, xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx Solicitor Banking & Finance Litigation T: +44 (0)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxF: +44 (0)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP 85 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1AE 21 Station Road, Watford WD17 1HT Please consider the environment before printing this email. Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered Number: OC343595) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA Number: 508037. A list of members (and any non-members who are designated as partners) of Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP is open to inspection at the LLP's registered office: 21 Station Road, Watford, WD17 1HT, United Kingdom. We use the word 'partner' to refer to a member of the LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualification.

Mary What was the total value of the judgment? Did the claimant apply for and receive stat interest and costs, if so how much? Who calculated the PPI settlement value? Do you have a copy of the original agreement, did it allow for pji ? All very important factors to the outcome of the hearing. Cb, Andy and others are well versed in issues such as yours but the devil's in the detail and they will rely on all the info you can provide. As Andy says.............. deep breath

He most certainly will PW Citizenb, PM sent

Natwest have been invited to comment and...... the helpful bank have declined the opportunity to free broadsheet press Oh and, I look like an axe murderer in print [allegedly]

2 week stay to allow the named defendant to file aq...... MH

Which one

-----Original Message----- From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:53 Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Dear xxxxxxxxxx Please find attached correspondence. I do not believe it would serve any useful purpose for you to present me with a further copy of an instrument acknowledged by all parties as false. However, it would seem prudent for you to present a true copy of the agreement xxxxxxxxxxxx your client refers to within the attached. I look forward to receipting all 3 named documents, in the alternative, you may wish to discuss the matter further with your client. Thank you again for your time. Regards xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: To: Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 9:00 Subject: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Dear xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Claim No: 1CTxxxxxxx Thank you for taking the time for speaking with us on Friday. As discussed, we are keen to reach a resolution in this matter but it is imperative that both parties understand each other’s position. As we understand, it is your case that the Bank has xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: 1. Copy agreement number xxxxxxxx dated 17 September 2007 which you say you did not sign. We understand that this was provided to you on 29 November 2010. However, we will provide you with a further copy if you so wish. 2. Direct debit mandate in relation to the above numbered loan account. 3. Direct debit mandate which relates to loan account numbered xxxxxxxxx. We will make enquiries with the Bank in relation to 2 and 3 above. You have indicated to us that the Bank is seeking to pursue you for sums payable under the loan agreement which you say you did not sign and in those circumstances, we should be grateful if you would provide us with copies of that correspondence. As discussed, we are committed to resolving this matter and ensuring that all documents have been provided to you. It will be difficult for us to do so, however, in the absence of your co-operation. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Solicitor Banking & Finance Litigation For Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP

Not sure why the bank chose to appoint lightweights..... must be cheap,......... will be posting a few bits next week dependant upon 'negotiation' Dear .................... We acknowledge safe receipt of your Allocation Questionnaire today. We enclose by way of service upon you the Bank’s Allocation Questionnaire, a copy of which is attached and a hard copy of which has been sent in the post to you today. We consider it would be useful for us to agree to a short stay of proceedings in order to take stock of the claim and discuss a potential resolution to the same. In those circumstances, we should be grateful if you would contact the writer, on her direct dial below, to discuss this. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP Tel: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.. E-mail: .................... MH

Evening CB That's about the size of it, AQ to be filed by end of next week. Canterbury is currently up to 6 months post AQ to hearing so it may be a long way off yet. Can't imagine NW want it to progress past the court steps but I'm game if they are MH

Defence filed [and served] 15.00hrs Monday 26th September Defence denies claimant's relief but claims relief in respect of same....... interesting but misguided position MH

The claimant has shown himself to be 'exceedingly generous' ........ yes, the helpful bank may recognise the quote as one of their own and agreed a further extension to Monday 26th September 2011 It's a slow process but posts will appear as and when anything of interest is sighted MH

The claimant has ample evidence.

Hi Rhia They are 'one and the same' NW/RBS responded at 10.20hrs yesterday morning [a few hours to spare].

No defence from NW [yet].............. they do however have until 16.00hrs tomorrow. I remain hopeful they'll lodge at the 11th hour If they do not the claim will be heard in their absence for damage assessment and all 3126 pages of data will be released to public forum, to include Bank, ICO, fos, FSA, OFT, MP and Kent police correspondence. All named individuals will be offered the opportunity to injunct disclosure.

Apologies to anyone looking for a PM response.......... not possible at the mo. For clarirty: This refers to a CCA regulated loan agreement [discharged in full], a second [and false] instrument was created by a bank employee at a later date The false instrument is lodged with CRA's and persists in causing financial damage The false instrument is still actively [at 02.09.11] pursued by RBS/Natwest. The total sum unlawfully set-off current account to service false instrument rests at circa £9,000.00 The total encumbered interest and charges [above] rests at circa £11,000.00 Various other financial damage rests at circa £19,000.00 The banks efforts to restitute accounted for less than 2% of damage RBS/Natwest are aware of this thread so please keep posts factual and short of conjecture

bake

Bone

Rumour has it........the disclosure refers to a loan converted to a false instrument. Rumour would also have it that claim was served at 25th August, claimant awaits the banks defence [as do several other interested parties].