After reading the FAQs, I've got a couple of questions about settlement/offer letters received from banks that are headed "without prejudice".
I know that it means that these letters cannot be disclosed to a judge if the case goes to court, and I would presume that this is because the banks know they've done wrong in taking the charges and know that a judge may see such offers of settlement as an admission of guilt (even if the letter clearly states it's not).
My question is, if when replying to such letters would it be a good idea to add something along the lines of:
"I am unable to accept your offer of [amount/terms] because it is not the full amount that you have taken from me in punitive charges which I am entitled to, and I disagree with your terms for [confidentiality/other terms].
I am shocked by your continued underhand tactics. By sending such an offer as you have "without prejudice" you have attempted to keep this matter from a judge should you not refund the charges and I am left with no alternative but to take this matter through the courts. One can only begin to imagine such motives of wanting to keep the full picture of this matter from the courts."
Also, by doing this would it then allow a judge to see what they have offered? Or because it refers to the "Without Prejudice" letter, does it automatically preclude this letter from being included in any court proceedings? Eg, by referring to the offer in our replies, can we actually get the judge to see evidence that they may deem as admission of guilt?
Similar Threads:



Reply With Quote
