"HOUSTON V. HOUSTON ET AL." CONTINUED
|
On Christmas Eve 2007 Royal Bank's Third Party Demands office sent a letter to my private
mailbox, an address I only give to those I want to hear from, an address I'd never disclosed to Royal
Bank. I'll surmise Royal Bank got the address from CRA. And I don't know who gave the address
to CRA. The letter informed me that a Vancouver branch had been served an attachment order and
the bank acted on the order from the available funds in my account. On Monday, January 21 I
used my Rogers Wireless cellphone and called the 800 number on the letter and asked to speak to
the letter's author, the assistant manager of Third Party Demands. I was told by a telephone rep, a
youngish sounding man, I couldn't speak directly to the assistant manager. Can't be accessed I was
told. He works out of another building altogether. The letter I got with his signature was a form
letter. The rep asked me for my ATM card number. I said I don't have the ATM card handy but
I'll give you the bank account number instead. He took a moment to look up my account and came
back to tell me it couldn't be found. No information regarding the bank account I've had for
twenty-plus years could be brought up. All he could uncover was my Visa account. This was a
very unusual thing to hear since I don't have a Visa account with Royal Bank. I had to laugh. RBC
was playing stupid at every level, at the branch level, at the head office level, and even in the Third
Party Demands office. Playing games like old pros. Since the account contained evidence of
financial crime the bank was concealing my access to it. Doesn't matter since I already had an
updated statement. I explained the problem, telling the rep the Requirement to Pay wasn't an
attachment to my bank account, it was an attachment to Royal Bank payments, payments I don't
receive. He said he couldn't assist me and instead had to hand the matter over to an investigator.
Please leave your phone number and the investigator will call you in one hour. I said no, I don't
wish to receive calls from the bank industry. I've no interest in having my privacy invaded further
by toxic bank ghouls. I left my e-mail address for Third Party Demands to reach me at. Do you
understand the nature of my grievance? I asked him. Yes, you're saying Royal Bank incorrectly
processed the attachment order. He understood precisely what I was saying. I never did receive a
response from an investigator with Royal Bank's Third Party Demands department.
I sent another letter to the Senior Client Care Specialist and copied RBC's head honcho, explaining
that since the Requirement to Pay form wasn't an attachment to my bank account the bank had to
refund all the withdrawn funds, not just some of the disappeared cash. I left some voice mails for
her as well. The next e-mail I received from the Senior Client Care Specialist was a contradictory
mess of excuses.
In a January 21, 2008 e-mail the Senior Client Care Specialist confirmed that on December 20,
2007 Royal Bank removed $602.26 from my bank account, describing this removal as a reversal of
a Canada Pension Plan payment. Not true. Account statements don't show the removal as a
canceled transaction. Account statements notate the debit as a straightforward withdrawal. Plain
and simple. The transaction was just a basic removal of cash from my account. The account
statements prove it.
Since she could no longer use the Requirement to Pay form to justify Royal Bank's actions she had
to come up with other excuses, trying to divert me away from the CRA document. She said Royal
Bank was following Canadian law. I had erroneously interpreted the Income Tax Act in my
communications with Royal Bank, she wrote. Nope. I hadn't mentioned the Income Tax Act once.
The fraudulent withdrawals from my bank account have nothing to do with the Income Tax Act.
She stated that according to the Canada Pension Plan Act eligible funds for remittance don't include
CPP payments and that was why Royal Bank returned the CPP funds to me once they were
notified of the source. All her compound lying had her confused. On at least two occasions,
including in that very e-mail, she claimed the CPP payment was withdrawn and sent to the Federal
Government.
The Senior Client Care Specialist wrote that RBC is legally obligated to act on the Requirement to
Pay notice and remit eligible funds on deposit in my account. However, according to the notice
itself eligible funds for remittance are limited exclusively to payments I receive from Royal Bank of
Canada. There is no legal reason for the cash in my personal chequing account to keep
disappearing. This activity is theft. This activity is crime.
Then she informed me RBC won't respond to further communications from me, forgetting that all
banks in the nation, including Royal Bank, have a legal duty to comply with the government
legislated dispute resolution process. Remitting responses to customer complaints is required by
law. I hadn't even taken the dispute to RBC's internal ombudsman yet and here the bank was
saying it wouldn't communicate with me any more.
So I wrote to Royal Bank's ombudsman and on February 8, 2008 I got a reply to my private,
undisclosed-to-RBC address from a client service manager, not an ombudsman. Another flat-out
denial of wrongdoing. I was told that based on a review of my concern it was RBC's opinion the
bank "dealt with this matter in an appropriate and reasonable manner." Appropriate and reasonable?
Only if RBC hates its clients.
And just like a guilty party the CRA employee later returned to the scene of the crime sniffing for
more cash without any legal justification. On March 5, 2008 CRA sent out another Requirement to
Pay form, this one directly to the attention of the manager of the Powell River Royal Bank branch.
Very odd move because I don't have an account at Royal Bank. Since the CRA staff member can
read, write and understand the English language the employee is fully aware there's no legal reason
to send a Requirement to Pay form to Royal Bank of Canada, a company from which I do not
receive payments (I'm not a Royal Bank employee). The document was again being misused with
the expectation that Royal Bank might mistakenly act on it and illegally remove and remit funds
from a personal chequing account. The expectation is that Royal Bank will rip off more cash from
my private bank account and send the cash in CRA's direction. In light of the recurring incidents of
Royal Bank commercial crime I've reported to the police, CRA's decision to hit Royal Bank up for
more money after already getting caught illegally snatching cash from my account proves the
government doesn't comprehend simple legal boundaries.
And since I don't do business with Royal Bank, CRA's second disclosure of my confidential
personal tax account information to a third party is an extremely serious breach of my privacy.
Why is this CRA employee talking about me to the manager of the Powell River, BC branch of
Royal Bank, a bank at which I do not do any business? My Royal Bank account, now closed as far
as I know, is a crime scene. CRA was caught in flagrante delicto, caught red-handed looting cash
from a personal bank account without proper legal documentation to back it up. CRA was caught
stealing. The federal government should no longer be passing documents with my name on them to
any third parties, especially to a financial institution.
I'm guessing most regular people are in a similar situation as I was. One bank account at one bank.
The bank client is in an extremely vulnerable position if a dispute with the bank arises. You find
yourself at the mercy of your financial institution. The Canadian government will not help you
when a bank goes on the warpath. You're basically forced to resort to begging the bank to pay you
your own money.
Banks should not be permitted to confiscate customer funds on behalf of third parties. They don't
know how to do it right. That's all there is to it. In my experience it's never been legally compliant.
A bank wants to take cash out of a client account? Then that bank had better head to court, sue the
client and get a judgment that allows the bank access to the account. Bank accounts are supposed
to be private. The practice of remitting customer cash to third parties must be declared illegal. A
wall must be erected between the bank employee and the customer account. Presently there is no
wall whatsoever. Where there is no barrier a barrier should be built. We need our own banks,
independent banks not beholden to the whims of government. Canadian banks have shown they
possess no self-control. They don't know how to handle themselves when a third party makes a
collection call on a bank client. No is not a word in the vocabulary of Canadian financial institutions
when third parties reach into their customers accounts. And when mistakes are made, as they
inevitably are 100% of the time, all the time and every time, the bank declares war on the client
instead of on the third party. When caught the policy from top to bottom is lie and deny. Royal
Bank couldn't get rid of me fast enough when I asked them to look into the thefts, when it was the
government it should have told to scram. Third parties must be told by the banks to sue the debtor,
not the financial institution.
However, for me the reality is the bank bridge is burned. Royal Bank took me to the limit. The
sector doesn't recognize legal boundaries. So I'm forced to find a way to circumnavigate them. I
limit my exposure to financial institutions as much as I can. The ATM can't be trusted any longer.
It bites. In a commercial sector devoid of rule of law and capable regulators this is the kind of
shady corporate behavior one might expect to see. The financial uncertainty I experienced on
Christmas Eve felt like war. But the question arose: Was this a commencement strike? Or was it a
final one, a death kick by a moribund regime?
And on top of all this I got a December 2007 letter from a lawyer with my ex-car insurance
provider, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, claiming I'd been in a car accident
involving my old nemesis Earl Graham in 2006. Another BC lawyer making a false allegation. Get
ready, he wrote, the matter may proceed to court. ICBC's legal department issued the unusual
statement despite the fact I've explained to an ICBC investigator that Graham's claim of injury is
completely false, despite the fact a criminal dangerous driving charge has already been in the courts
and the charge tossed out, and despite the fact there's no evidence of any kind, other than Earl
Graham's word, that an accident occurred. There were witnesses to the June 2006 confrontation
with Graham and none of the witnesses said he got hurt, let alone that he was an accident victim.
So why does ICBC claim there was an accident? I didn't hit the guy, the government knows I didn't
hit him (RCMP witness statements prove it), yet the government car insurance monopoly says there
was an accident. Falsely accused by the British Columbia government once again. This
government seems to require fraud as a means of operation. They'd be lost without it.