DG Solictors. Need Help

[lookinforinfo]

The bank does not have the right to decide where your money is to be deposited.

The court is not concerned whether the bank is owed money by the claimant in

other accounts- all they are dealing withis whether the money being claimed is a valid claim and if it is, then the money has to be repaid to its rightful owner.

 

As the bank has opted not to go to Court, then they have to make restitution to the claimant as if the case had been heard and lost by them. There is a form n242a

which you can apply for which makes the bank pay the claim into Court rather than pay you direct. And if you go to this url

PRACTICE DIRECTION*--- OFFERS TO SETTLE AND PAYMENTS INTO COURT*-- This Practice Direction supplements CPR Part 36

 

under paragraph 8.4 you will see "Subject to paragraph 8.5(1) and (2), if a party does not wish the payment to be transmitted into his bank account or if he does not have a bank account, he may send a written request to the Accountant-General for the payment to be made to him by "

 

 

So, send a strong letter to the bank giving them the option of returning your money

immediately by cheque, or you will apply to the Accountant General forcing them

to pay you by cheque. They will also incur additional costs because you will restart

interest charges and the cost of applying for form n242a

 

PS Bear in mind that as the bank have terminated your accounts, they cannot even use their

T&C's to give them the right of offsetting one account against another.

[lookinforinfo]

Time and time again, Bankfodder and the other Moderators exhort forum members

to read all the FAQS and as many threads as possible before beginning their

actions.

In most cases where settlement is offered, you would have seen that the bank

often states that the agreed sum will be placed in the relevant account, and had

you read any of those threads you would have seen that some members had

asked for [and received] a cheque instead. So it was down to you to stipulate,

prior to signing, how you wanted to be reimbursed.

 

Now that you have shown fuller details under which you signed, one can

understand why they were keen to offer you a settlement on their terms. You

could give them the choice of paying you a cheque on the grounds that the

settlement was not paid as you had assumed it would be. But if they refuse to

alter their stance, you will start a claim to have the interest on that part of the

£5500 {?} loan which was bank charges. I assume that you did not factor in

that interest in your calculations? That would amount to an extra £550 to £800 or so depending on the rate of interest charged and may give you some leverage to

come to an acceptable deal-including the default.

 

The other thing as well, is that every time DG respond to your requests and

counter offers etc, it costs the bank money, and they may well decide to cut

their losses and come to some sort of accomodation with you, just to get rid of

paying DG their probably extortionate fees.

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry to jump onto someone elses thread, but I am really interested in what has happened here as I want to avoid it for my own case. At what stage should the OP have stated that they wanted the refund in the form of a cheque /QUOTE]

 

After they have agreed to settle out of Court, but BEFORE you sign anything. Tell

them what you want out of the settlement. Eg paid by cheque and/or default

lifted. This is when you are in the driving seat.

 

Notice thet DG Solicitors said they had been to Court to challenge a similar situation

"We have recently been successful in arguing just this point before the County Court."[Aside to PPauls-it would be worthwhile asking DG to supply you with dates and which Court as well as any other relevant info on that case] So they were prepared to argue over a point of Law which they felt certain of winning, but not prepared to go to Court to argue over £3800, or any other amount from anyone else. I wonder why.

[lookinforinfo]

Paul, that letter is a bit garbled as it stands. If you haven't already sent it, let's

see if it can be crystallised though I am bound to say that we are all prety much

in uncharted waters on this one.

 

First, you have agreed to accept their offer out of Court. The only way that I think

you could challenge them on that now would be if they have not adhered to the terms of the settlement. Or the terms of the settlement as you, a layman, without the benefit of independent legal advice, understood them to be.That is why it is

important to know how they said they would repay you. [What were their exact words, as there may be an argument as to whether by paying off the outstanding

amount ,they have not paid you].

 

You expected them to pay you as if you had won the case in Court and would

therefore have been able to stipulate that you wanted to receive a cheque. Had

you known that they were not going to pay you direct, you would not have

accepted their terms.

That's point one.

Following on from there, by their own admission "We have successfully applied to have judgements set aside where this has happened in the past" they are taking

advantage of the lack of knowledge of those entering into these negotiations,

to secure better terms than they would have had the Court had the final decision.

This cannot be equitable. The terms are therefore unfair to the claimant and the

contract should be regarded as such, and should be set aside.

Moreover, as the bank cancelled your accounts with them two years ago, you are no longer bound by their

T&C's as far as offsetting one account against another.

 

On the subject of the original debt. From your first post, it seems the amount was around £5500-was it, and did they convert it to a loan, and what

was the rate of interest? Also, the £3800 odd you asked for, was that all charges

[plus Court fees] or was the 8% rate included?

 

What I am getting at here is that initial debt minus the lump sum and the monthly payment [5500 -3851-2400 {2 years}=£751 in credit], not £900 still outstanding.

so if all else fails, it appears on these figures that as the charges should not have been levied in the first place, then the debt should have been around £1800 which

you have more than paid, so the default should not now stand. Or did they force you to take out insurance payments on the £5500?

 

PS Still unclear as to the negotiations involved with the default-how did they word it

so that they could not tie it in with the settlement.

[lookinforinfo]

I think you have had a result.

You originally set out to get your unlawful charges refunded, and the default

erased. OK you actually wanted £3800 in cash and carry on paying the £100 a

month. But this way, you are almost £1000 better off. Not sure why they would do this if they felt they were on solid ground. They don't give a stuff whether you are unhappy or not.

 

On the plus side, you are now £100 a month better off, your whole debt wiped

out,plus it will have to be recorded with The Credit Agencies that the matter is now

resolved.

And you can still pursue a new claim to have the default erased anyway.

 

It's up to you. Do you know any reason why they would pay you the extra £950?

There may be something we are missing...............

[lookinforinfo]

Good letter.

The more I think about it, the more I have a nagging feeling that there is something

else going on.

 

They seem reluctant to remove the default, which as far as I am aware, would

cost them virtually nothing, apart from some time, and some correspondence with

the Credit Agencies. And instead, they write off almost £1000, and still leave

themselves vulnerable to having to remove the default. In fact they have probably

increased the likelihood of its removal by them erasing the debt.

 

I am pleased to see that you are taking legal advice, since to continue your action

all the way to Court having been offered more than you originally asked for, money

wise, might not be too well received by the Court. I am aware that you want the

default removed, and may well have been misled or misdirected over it, not to

mention further possible misdirection that you cannot proceed with your claim

now that you have settled.

 

I am not saying that you shouldn't pursue them to remove the default, rather that

it may be better to bring a new action than push your luck in Court now. Whatever you decide, good luck, and don't forget to keep all their correspondence for at

least 6 years.

[lookinforinfo]

I know it's different for you, but from the outside looking in, you can't help but

laugh when they informed you that they would mark the debt as being satisfied.

What else could they do? Leave it on your credit report as it stands?

 

Just bear in mind that though the debt has been written off, it still exists on an

account somewhere in the bank. Yes it will be tax deductible, but maybe in a few years from now, they may be able to farm it out to one of the sleazy debt collectors

to attempt some sort of recovery from you. Without your current correspondence, it might be hard to disprove the debt.

[lookinforinfo]

After reading your post on the other thread it occurs to me that had you taken

your own advice on this thread, you would have probably already had the default removed, but would be £1000 worse off.LOL

 

As it stands, you look as if you are on course to get the default removed anyway.

I take my hat off to you. From getting hardly anything you wanted out of the

original settlement, you are looking good to have almost everything you wanted.

God knows how many precedents you have set. DG must be looking at you as their

best fee raiser this month- they will miss your income when you finally get the default removed.

What's next? You still want that £3800 cheque, don't you? LOL