Could this be the biggest claim on the site?

[bill-k]

I see you have attracted a certain amount of interest, here, Photoman. Not surprised, considering your claim(s) - and your groundwork. I will be watching here at the very least, as I think I may learn from this. Thanks for starting the thread !!!

[bill-k]

Couple of very quick notes to my last posts, before I scoot off>

1/ When I said I was not surprised that I had attracted so much response. I hope you understood that I was not referring to my lack of surprise being bourne out the controversial nature of my claim. I was in fact referring to the good nature of the members of this site.

 

Yeah, they're a box of allsorts, but all here for the same reason, eh ? :grin:

 

2/ When I referred to how I may have reached a position in life, possibly earning 100 times the amount, I was reffering to 100 times £500.........not 100 times £29k !! (unless I had been a Football player) !!!

 

Well, you could have been the new David Bailey ("Who's 'e ?") or Lord Lichfield !!

[bill-k]

Just an observation but it is highly unlikely they would have charged any more then 8-12% for loaning out 'our' money?

But couldn't we say that, whilst they were lending out OUR money cheaply, and without our permission, WE were forced to borrow it at higher rates (eg credit card, unauth. O/D, etc.) both from them and from other lenders ?

[bill-k]

See what you mean, Gary. But this would only be used as a rebuttal of their (Janquinny's) argument if it were actually put forward, and not as an element of the claim itself. It is a closed can of worms until the bank opens it. Doesn't that mean our reasoning can be used in rebuttal ?

[bill-k]

Thanks for good wishes, P-M, and mine to you & yours !!

 

FWIW your plan looks first class to me, but as you say, it merits a Mod's attention - and it looks like BF's on this case, so we had better let him ruminate.

 

As an aside, have you seen the thread by Justwon, started a few weeks back ? I was hoping that BF or someone might have taken that claim and made some pronouncements on it and/or suggestions for ways that we all might use it. It appears to throw out the Contract, then go on to successfully claim Contractual Interest by Implication from the T&C's.

 

I just wonder whether, between your good self and BF et al, you might be able to make use of this, and in doing so - show us all how to !!!

 

In case you haven't seen it (which I doubt !!):-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/rbs-bos-successes/49470-contractual-interest-details-case.html

 

Cheers matey

[bill-k]

I'm a bit worried about this, P-M (& SteepNDeep). If the banks pay up the 6 yr claim, but without admitting liability, surely that in itself does not absolve them ? The fact they have paid up without admitting it doesn't mean that they are then no longer liable, does it ? It simply means that they still consider themselves (in their ever-so-humble opinion !) as not being so.

 

I would really hope that, provided we do not sign an agreement that they are not liable, then we can go on to claim the earlier years. As regards settling in "full & final" - then surely, that only pertains to the particular claim being settled. Any further claim for other charges or times, is surely a separate - and hitherto unsettled - claim ?

[bill-k]

Thanks Crusher. And we're agreed, also, P-M. Yes - the nasty little form they try and get you to sign is best shredded. So that's OK., then !!

[bill-k]

Yeah - got that, Crusher. Sounds more polite than shredding, and saves further delay I guess. And of course, they do have that entitlement to avoid "double jeopardy."

[bill-k]

That's a thought, Bong (& Hi !! ) - Although one submits a claim, and the court serves it - has any litigation yet taken place ?

[bill-k]

Cheers whoever just clicked me !!

 

It must have been one of you big guys, as I got another blob !!

 

[bill-k]

That's good to hear Bookie (re: vex lits) - I intend going back for the earlier stuff later, and had kinda hoped that "discovery" reason would work. Cheers.

 

I won't, however, try and sell you my "Japanese swearing" compound interest formula !!

[bill-k]

Cheers for appreciative PM Crusher.

 

Best wishes, mate.

[bill-k]

Yes, RedDeath, I have seen this discussed earlier on here, and it may give the banks something to argue with. However, I think we would be going back a lot further than 10 years to get to that stage.

 

So any claim for older charges would probably contain at best a mixture of "automated" charges and "manual" ones. The bank would have to show in all cases what their costs were, I would have thought.

 

In which case, they would have to remain silent, methinks !!

 

JMHO, though !!

[bill-k]

Bill, I hope I have not unsettled you at all ?

D'oh - I only just got it !!!

[bill-k]

gonna have to start calling you Glenn soon Bill! (sorry JMHO:p)

 

my first job in about 1982 was at Nat West. Part of my job entailed recalling standing orders etc. and my salary was only about £4k so I don't think they can claim it cost them very much - even when the systems were manual.

 

LOL Bong !! I tried doing an impression of Glenn during a conspicuous absence of his on the Justwon thread !!

 

Interesting insight there into earlier years at the banks, and that's a point. They still paid peanuts for their admin !!

 

OK - who's this then ?

 

"Right - clocks ticking again. Time to turn the screw. "

 

[bill-k]

OK - who's this then ?

 

"Right - clocks ticking again. Time to turn the screw. "

Alan (keeps a tidy house) D.

I managed to get us chucked off his thread for messing about in the upstairs seats of the Clapham Omnibus !!

 

Much respect - the guy's got his deeds, now !!

 

Sorry, P-M, back to topic !!

[bill-k]

Bl**dy 'ell, my impressions are as bad as my jokes !!

 

[bill-k]

BTW Photoman - I see you're accumulating blobs !! Well deserved, too, considering your groundwork and your sheer claim size !!

 

Stand by for a Knight-hood, and maybe a Lordship !!

 

Guess what - that puts you in the same league as Jeffrey Archer.

 

It's not WHAT you know....

 

....it's what you can get away with !!!

[bill-k]

Now that the "Burning Bush" has spoken, I feel obliged to make utterance. I clicked BF's scales, BTW - it's about time he lost that black blob and got a decent green one, poor bloke :grin: !!

Further to Lucid's comments, I recall seeing the argument that, in order for something to be a service, then it must provide a benefit to the recipient. Where, indeed, is the benefit in providing a letter containing stale information about an account ? Yesterday's news is worthless. And I also agree your sig, P-M, if you look at the Sun, you'll go blind !!

 

It sems to me that concealment is there, whichever way Lloyd's argue. As a service, then where is the benefit that justifies the profit from providing it ? If not a service, then we know the rest...

 

I think it possible that, as BF suggests, disclosure to your advisors here may well be OK., but as there is public access to all postings here, I don't think posting details would be OK. My guess is that, as advisors to Photoman, we may be entitled to receive the info by PM only. JMHO.

 

I think I agree with Bong about acknowledging the Limitation Act. I believe that splitting the claim in this way does no more than merely acknowledge that the LA exists, and is to be respectfully dealt with as a separate obstacle. It isn't IMO acknowledging that it is an immoveable object. But it is about to be met by an irresistible force !!!

 

Costs & personal assets - as a "man of straw" you have nothing to lose, then P-M. That makes you a very dangerous animal, does it not ? !!

 

I agree with Lucid that one single SAR is all that you should need to make with each Data Controller. That should cover everything. I personally would make sure that I had received absolutely everything from them, though, before I let them smell the S.32 claim !! Try and specifically get a copy of the original contract, or a confirmation of its' non-existence. Unfortunately, I don't think you can apply for it for a current account under the CCA, can you ? Not sure about that.

 

That's my piece - thanks for reading this far (if indeed you have) !!

[bill-k]

Although it wouldn't be a precedent, can the initial claim be referred to in court in support of the second one ?

[bill-k]

EDIT: I've just re-read your post bill-k and think I've completely misinterpreted what you meant. I think you meant referred to by the Claimant - not the Defendant. Oh well. I'm not sure if I'm right on the Defendant referring to the initial claim issue, but if that is correct then I don't see a problem in splitting the claim.

Sorry Lucid - my post was vague. I meant the claimant referring to the earlier settlement of the first 6 years claim in support of the second claim. But you post reminds us that this is a two-edged sword, also !!

[bill-k]

Yeah - got it Bong & Lucid. Although not to be seen necessarily as a previous "win," a settlement is a matter of relevant historical fact, and can be referred to for what it is. Thanks, guys !!

 

...and sorry to get you at it, Lucid !!! :grin:

[bill-k]

I'm afraid I side with Elsinore on this. Presumably LTWFB thought he had nothing to hide, but it appears that Citi's guy found something.

 

I do understand that it is important that we play straight, and keep to the moral high ground, but even though we're playing a straight game of cards, it is foolish to let the rest of the players see our hand, I believe. It matters not whether they are cheating or playing straight - it's the nature of the game, methinks.

 

BTW - can anybody find me that quote from "A Man for All Seasons" where Thomas More talks about the Devil turning on us ? It's a long one - about cutting down all the trees.

[bill-k]

Sadly I have it on video, I would upload it for you but I haven't got your skills Bill!

Ha !! Hi Jan - and thanks everso. That's brill !!

 

BTW did you get to see all 6 episodes of that Money Program upload ?

[bill-k]

Good, good. Sorry for digression, chaps !!