rrfcfan vs RBOS - off topic heated debate

[Bookworm]

Thanks Rory, but I was actually asking the OP, since I believe it was HIS claim and I think he may be better placed than you to know what he had claimed for.

[rory32]

I was actually asking the OP, since I believe it was HIS claim and I think he may be better placed than you to know what he had claimed for.

Umm don't you know what wasted costs means????? Don't you know that this has no relavence in this case? Or have you simply ignored the case law rules that were posted earlier?

 

T

hey paid wasted costs? In Scotland? Excellent.

D'oh. Let's apply English law to Scotland - that'll work See previous posts.

 

Well done Caro for keeping the true spirit of CAG alive:

If that means being ignorant of judical procedure and endangering the OP's case then well done indeed. Keep up the good work caro and I hope you are willing to reimburse all those Scottish caggers who approach a court for a wasted court order. Good luck with your ignorance of Scots law.

[Bookworm]

Hush, young man, your nasty temper and bad manners are shining right through. If you can't say something useful or constructive, say nothing, please, and let the grown-ups carry on their conversation. Thank you.

[caro]

Whoo hoo, RBS have paid in full, plus £60 wasted costs, plus additional bank charges added since the litigation started plus judicial interest at 8%.

 

Talk about leaving it to the last minute, received payment in the morning prior to the hearing.

 

Thanks again guys, keep up the good work.

 

On a side note, is there a way of asking the courts to set aside a proof diet prior to the first hearing to establish the 'true costs of each bank charge'. Is it simply a case of adding it to the particulars of claim?

 

 

Bookworm simply asked the OP for confirmation of the post quoted Rory.

 

Do you honestly think that RBS would have risked having their day in court, explaining the legality and/or fairness of their charges? I don't, and they didn't.

 

A number of people gave advice on this thread, and, as usual, it was up to the OP to decide how to proceed with their case. The OP was successful, so can we all just be pleased for him, as the points have already been aired on this thread.

[rory32]

If you can't say something useful or constructive, say nothing, please

have you simply ignored the case law rules that were posted earlier?

Obviously the facts are getting in the way of your opinion. Once again there is no wasted costs order in Scotland, this is why in a report on judicial review 11 June 2008 by the UK Border Agency to the Scottish Executive they stated that in Scotland "we would support the introduction of something similar to a Wasted Costs Order allowed for by s51(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and Rule 48.7 of the CPR."

 

No nasty temper or bad manners, just an opinion based on the facts of Scottish Civil Procedure. Try reading it some time.

 

Do you honestly think that RBS would have risked having their day in court, explaining the legality and/or fairness of their charges? I don't, and they didn't.

Don't you read the thread? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/scotland/143971-rrfcfan-rbos-2.html#post1950490

[caro]

Yes Rory, I have read the thread, and explained my posts on it.

 

I will move on to other threads where people still need help as this one seems to have reached a satisfactory conclusion, unless the OP comes back and I can offer further support.

[Bookworm]

Same here, Caro. Life's too short. ;-)

[yourbank]

Rory32, stop arguing with Caro and Bookworm. Remember, they are English and do not know your wee terms and your wee laws. The OP has been hynotised into their southern spells. Be careful or you could be next

 

Well done RRFCfan(Raith Rovers I assume??). Just shows that some scottish Judges have got some real clout(thought the word I had in might not be allowed).

[Bookworm]

Rory32, stop arguing with Caro and Bookworm. Remember, they are English and do not know your wee terms and your wee laws.

Actually, I'm French and lived in Scotland for nearly 4 yrs. My DD was born in Raigmore Hospital, Inverness.

 

But this site obviously never dealt with scottish claims before Rory joined us.

[Dusary]

But this site obviously never dealt with scottish claims before Rory joined us.

 

LOL!!!

 

[yourbank]

Actually, I'm French and lived in Scotland for nearly 4 yrs. My DD was born in Raigmore Hospital, Inverness.

 

But this site obviously never dealt with scottish claims before Rory joined us.

You clearly didn't research the terms "wasted costs order" and "Scottish law".

Let me google that for you

 

 

Furthermore, if you had at least you would have know that Rory was correct. Next time, I can google it for you, ok?

[caro]

Thanks very much Martin3030!. I have received the T&Cs for 2006 and 07/08.

 

This is a copy of the banks defence.

 

"Admitted that the pursuer has a bank account with the defender with account number xxxxxxxx. Admitted that the Defender deducted from this account in respect of charges as notified (levied as overlimit and late payment fees). The basis upon which the Pursuer has calculted the sum sued for is not known and not admitted. Qouad ultra denied except in so far as coinciding herewith.

Explained and averred that the charges levied against the Pursuer were applied in accordance with the T & Cs of the banking contract between the parties and represent a genuine estimate of the loss suffered by the Defender as a result of the Pursuer's failure to adhere to the terms of the contract."

 

What do you think?????

 

I would really like to ask in the court room (if I get that far!) 'the true costs of administering each and every alleged breach'

 

The bank cannot explain themselves.

 

Whoo hoo, RBS have paid in full, plus £60 wasted costs, plus additional bank charges added since the litigation started plus judicial interest at 8%.

 

Talk about leaving it to the last minute, received payment in the morning prior to the hearing.

 

Thanks again guys, keep up the good work.

 

On a side note, is there a way of asking the courts to set aside a proof diet prior to the first hearing to establish the 'true costs of each bank charge'. Is it simply a case of adding it to the particulars of claim?

 

 

The OP has informed us that they've had wasted costs.

 

 

Well done RRFCfan(Raith Rovers I assume??). Just shows that some scottish Judges have got some real clout(thought the word I had in might not be allowed).

 

You said it Yourbank.

 

No Wasted Costs Where Material Produced as soon as its Significance Realised: The Court of Appeal held that a Wasted Costs Order against a solicitor was not justified where material had been disclosed as soon as its significance became obvious. Although the disclosure given by the solicitor may have been defective, the issue was whether he was clearly and obviously in breach of his duty to the court to ensure that the client discharged his duty to give proper disclosure

 

Your link was not the easiest to follow Yourbank, but if the above is what you're referring to, it's irrelevant to rrfcfan's case as no significant material was disclosed. I believe the wasted costs were against RBOS and not the solicitor.

 

Personally I'm just glad rrfcfan got some money back, and hope others will consider whether or not they think it's appropriate for them to follow the same course.

[yourbank]

Caro, for clarity as you didn't understand Rory in spite of his very clear posting. There is not something called "wasted costs order" in Scottish Law.

Which part of the words in bold do you not get? Rory told you it about half a dozen times and explained how scottish civil law works. Did you read what he said? Did you believe he was lying or his knowledge was of no benefit?

I await in anticipation of Bookworm's post cos I am sure it will be as interesting as yours.

[Bookworm]

You shouldn't, because I am not interested in your gallant defence of Rory's.

 

I find it interesting that both of you seem quite happy to discard what OP told us in his very own words, notwithstanding the appalling rudeness on both of your parts by just literally talking over him.

 

Not to worry, you guys keep on saying "there ain't no such thing" against evidence to the contrary, that's fine. Meanwhile, if it's ok with you, I'll keep on listening to people's reports of what actually happens to them in real life. ;-)

[caro]

There was a time not too long ago when people rarely got bank charges back, and indeed it's rare now, but people with the courage of their convictions, took the banks on and the rest is now history - or history in the making.

 

There was a time not too long ago when the maximum amount in Scotland for a small claim was £500. That has now changed to £3,000.

 

This site came about due to people challenging the system. I, for one, am not ready to give up doing that while people are still being abused by the banks. I have read what has been posted and others can do the same, and make their own decisions.

 

That really is my last word on this.

[yourbank]

There was a time not too long ago when people rarely got bank charges back, and indeed it's rare now, but people with the courage of their convictions, took the banks on and the rest is now history - or history in the making.

 

There was a time not too long ago when the maximum amount in Scotland for a small claim was £500. That has now changed to £3,000.

 

This site came about due to people challenging the system. I, for one, am not ready to give up doing that while people are still being abused by the banks. I have read what has been posted and others can do the same, and make their own decisions.

I am not challenging your zeal just your knowledge which from a straight forward Google search and perhaps reading Rory's post which was informative and explained almost 3 times that there is no "LEGAL WASTED COSTS ORDER" as exists in England and Wales legal jurisdiction. You then quoted RRFCFan who by now has it in his head that he hasn't won legal costs but something called "wasted costs". You want to argue the toss over indisputable factual legal information available to one and all then so be it. But please don't advise scottish claimants as you did on post 40 here about wasted costs that DO NOT and ARE NOT something that can be claimed in Scottish Law.

That really is my last word on this.

Caro and Bookworm, Rory posted the issue of wasted costs, and you argue that he is wrong. He says that RRFCfan got legal costs yet because he used the term wasted costs you still state that your postings are right because the OP has stated they are right.

If you do your research then you will find out the truth as I did.

UK_Border_Agency.pdf - By Nitro PDF Software

The above link is from a civil court review response from the scots courts datd June 2008. Rory quoted it to you.

 

Bookworm and Caro, in spite of the information Rory posted, you chose to belittle him. I don't care for any personal animosity you may have for a former team member but at least learn from him(as we can learn from both of you) so that you don't try and suggest/advise/post on a thread for a Scottish claimant and suggest that they try and go for a wasted costs order.

[Bookworm]

Bookworm and Caro, in spite of the information Rory posted, you chose to belittle him.

Actually, I think you'll find that he's the one who decided to attack me when all I was trying to do was getting clarification from the OP himself.

I don't care for any personal animosity you may have for a former team member

Wrong again, he doesn't even register as a blip on my personal radar.

Think what you like, I don't really care either. ;-)

 

On this note, I think I'll follow Caro's example and withdraw from this thread, with my thanks to rrfcfan and congratulations again for his win, the whole of it.

[yourbank]

Actually, I think you'll find that he's the one who decided to attack me when all I was trying to do was getting clarification from the OP himself.

Rory from post 41 onwards tried educating you which you chose to ignore again and again and again. If he was wrong I am sure you would have quoted statute to him to prove he was wrong.

 

Wrong again, he doesn't even register as a blip on my personal radar.

Think what you like, I don't really care either. ;-)

That does read as quite arrogant comments in spite of the smilies used.There are better ways of saying what you might be trying to say.

On this note, I think I'll follow Caro's example and withdraw from this thread, with my thanks to rrfcfan and congratulations again for his win, the whole of it.

 

Withdraw is good when you have no factual argument, apologising to rory32 is another matter. I apologise to RRFCFan for this disagreement. In Scottish Law there is nothing called "wasted costs order". I do appreciate though that you WON and you were awarded legal costs.

 

Still intrigued if Raith Rovers is your team though

[Bookworm]

Withdraw is good when you have no factual argument, apologising to rory32 is another matter.

*sigh* I had no factual argument. What part of asking the OP to clarify his win is unclear to you? Was the question mark at the end of my question to the OP not visible enough?

 

As for apologising to someone who jumped at my throat for reasons best known to himself (and not for the first time, may one add), I doubt you'll find many people who would do that. Turning the other cheek is not my style, I'm an atheist.

 

As for reading my comments as arrogant, that's your prerogative, but I was stating a mere fact, or in fact two: 1) you assumes animosity on my behalf towards Rory (now THAT's arrogance from you to assume to know my state of mind) and I corrected your mistake. I'll qualify that: To have animosity towards him would mean that I have feelings of any kind towards him when in fact, I don't care about the man one way or another as long as he doesn't provoke me. I feel the same way about most of the human race, incidentally, so nothing unusual about that. 2) I feel the same way about you and your opinion with the same proviso as above.

 

You can call it arrogance if you wish, I call it common sense. Life's too short.

 

Having clarified this, I will definitely leave this thread now, with apologies -again- to OP for the hijack of his thread.

 

PS: I don't follow football, or any kind of sports for that matter, but if I did, it would have to be the Caley Thistles. ;-)

[yourbank]

*sigh* I had no factual argument. What part of asking the OP to clarify his win is unclear to you? Was the question mark at the end of my question to the OP not visible enough?

Bookworm, you asked the question in spite of reading rory's post. Re read the thread. Whilst I concede you asked the OP, clearly you used the term "wasted costs in Scotland". It does not exist.

As for apologising to someone who jumped at my throat for reasons best known to himself (and not for the first time, may one add), I doubt you'll find many people who would do that. Turning the other cheek is not my style, I'm an atheist.

I think when rory32 had tried to educate Caro in Scottish Law and it did read as though he might as well have written the post in a foreign language, you then come in and still go on about wasted costs in Scotland. I take it you now are aware there isn't something called wasted costs in Scotland?? Please say you do.....go on, you know you want to.

As for reading my comments as arrogant, that's your prerogative, but I was stating a mere fact, or in fact two: 1) you assumes animosity on my behalf towards Rory (now THAT's arrogance from you to assume to know my state of mind) and I corrected your mistake. I'll qualify that: To have animosity towards him would mean that I have feelings of any kind towards him when in fact, I don't care about the man one way or another as long as he doesn't provoke me. I feel the same way about most of the human race, incidentally, so nothing unusual about that.

Rory had posted 3 times about wasted costs, the subject of the post. His post is in clear english and yet you still belittle him. He gave facts to you and you. Do you think that stating to him the following is not rude and arrogant? "Hush, young man, your nasty temper and bad manners are shining right through. If you can't say something useful or constructive, say nothing, please, and let the grown-ups carry on their conversation."

That was even after he had explained scottish law.

2) I feel the same way about you and your opinion with the same proviso as above.

I despair, because I know you do your research. What possessed you to jump on rory on the thread is beyond me. You could have done your research equally and found that rory was either incorrect or correct, yet you belittle him. I will research a topic to death if I have to.

You can call it arrogance if you wish, I call it common sense. Life's too short.

If common sense is to write in a manner that is reprehensible then I would prefer to have no common sense.

Having clarified this, I will definitely leave this thread now, with apologies -again- to OP for the hijack of his thread.

At least we are both clear where we stand

PS: I don't follow football, or any kind of sports for that matter, but if I did, it would have to be the Caley Thistles. ;-)

PS, RRFCFan(Raith Rover Football Fan) that is who the question was too. I wouldn't ask you Bookie for your footie team cos I'm not that bothered to be honest cos your username is not named after a footie team