Part 36 offers**W

[elizabeth1]

Secondly I will address the issue you raised in relation to your son's claim. In relation to this claim, I accept that it was resolved prior to him reaching age of majority. However in cases where offers are accepted on behalf of children no binding settlement is reached until a judge formally approves the settlement. It would however have been inappropriate and costly to make an application to the Court for approval of each element of your sons claim as and when each element was of the claim was resolved. It was also hoped that we would have been able to resolve the remaining heads of damage swiftly although this was not to be the case. In our experience the Court will only approve a settlement sum once all heads of damage have been concluded and in this case damages only concluded 1 day before your sons birthday.

 

It is good practice before approaching the Court to approve a settlementto have taken instructions from the Claimants litigation friend in relation to any offers of settlement. If, as is the case in the vast majority of claims, had the court approved the matter, this would have been a binding settlement. Therefore it was important for us to act in the knowledge that the sums provisionally agreed with the defendant were agreed by you, as your sons litigation friend. The provisional agreement would not have been binding until an infant approval had taken place.

 

Had your son not reached the age of 18 so soon after settlement had been agreed, as is our usual practice, an application would have been made for an Infant Approval Hearing. However in this instance it was felt that applying for an Infant Approval Hearing was likely to invite critism from the court because your son had reached 18 and should have been treated like an adult capable of of deciding whether or not to accept the Defendants offer ................

 

 

I note your request for any additional notes of discussions held with you and your family members and confirm that details of all important correspondence to the issues you have raised has been sent to you"

 

(Oh no they haven't been!! I have specifically asked for ALL the copies of emails, transcripts of telephone calls and notes from telephone conference with Barrister and themselves - they haven't allowed me to have any of that information = they've given me what they want me to see)

 

Now it seems none of my questions have been answered by this reply above - seems this solicitor is saying "you signed it = we took it" ?? I did mention in my letter to them that we had not agreed to the costs as put forward to Defendants etc.. and they've not replied to that part of my letter they've "picked" sections that they wanted to answer as I've shown in blue above.

 

 

I am in the process of replying to this reply off these Solicitors and one thing stares me in the face from this reply from them.

 

They are saying that an "infant approval hearing" didn't take place due to my sons 18th being so near the time of the final settlement etc.. he should be "treated like an adult" ????

 

These solicitors NEVER EVER spoke to my son (no telephone calls, no letters, no emails) - my son had/has basically signed this Part 36 offer because "I" told him to on the basis that the solicitor threatened us with costs if we didn't sign and agree on her say so (she was/is a paralegal) - there was never anyone from the company who took the time to talk to my son and explain the legalities of this offer etc..

 

I have asked for this extra information from these solicitors as in Transcripts of telephone calls etc.. because this should show this fact up.

 

I'm wondering whether these solicitors ought to have spoken to my son and given him the benefit of an explanation etc.. to ensure he knew and fully understood what had happened and what the Part 36 meant etc.. in concluding his claim? Would there have been a legal obligation to talk to my son?

 

I'd be interested in anyones thoughts on this - cause I personally think it was wrong of these solicitors to exclude my son from such talks/explanations - but maybe I am just biased cause I am his mum?

[JonCris]

The answer is yes. As has already been suggested & as you appear to have exhausted all other avenues you should now make an official compliant

[elizabeth1]

The answer is yes. As has already been suggested & as you appear to have exhausted all other avenues you should now make an official compliant

 

 

Thank you!!

[elizabeth1]

I wrote back to these solicitors with my son accepting their offer of £250

'without prejudice' - I relisted the questions that still hadn't been answered etc.. giving these people a final opprtunity to put things right.

 

They actually sent my son the cheque for £250 - last week - he banked it and the money appeared to clear on his online account statement when he checked his balance. Son bought himself something nice with the balance on his debit card - BUT he today had a letter off the Bank saying these solicitors actually cancelled the cheque - so now the money he spent in his debit card he owes as an unauthorised overdraft and his bank will surely slam him for charges!!

 

The solicitors never wrote and told him they'd be cancelling the cheque at all - the first my son heard was the letter off his Bank.

 

I'm a little stuck now with this as it's costing my son money for their lack of professionalism etc.. should they have done this without notifying him that cheque was to be cancelled?

 

Is there anything I can do about this? The money was there in his acount else my son wouldn't have been able to spend the balance as he doesn't have any overdraft facilty on this account at all. How can they do this when a cheque has been cleared funds in the account?

 

I am in a quandary as I don't know whether I ought to be helping my son chase the solicitors who issued the cheque or the bank for allowing the company to recall the cheque (surely once funds are cleared the bank shouldn't allow any company to recall a cheque?)

 

Also surely these solicitors shouldn't have issued a cheque they'd no intention of honouring? Surely a follow up letter should have been sent to my son?

 

I am absolutely disgusted with these solicitors because I wrote allowing them the 21 days they'd asked for to respond to my queries (last letter) and I clearly told them had I not got a satisfactory reply within this time I would be send the files to Legal Complaints Services to ask them to look into my complaint etc.. (6th March is the deadline) and they choose to spite my son like this after already having messed his claim up etc.. I am so annoyed as it's will cost my son in bank charges.

 

I'm wondering if any legislation surrounds the issuing of cheques and their not honouring the payment etc.. by recalling cheque?

 

this stuff will go to LCS next week because I cannot deal with these solicitors anymore - my patience has run out. I tried to be reasonable and they are just creating problems.

[JonCris]

What they have done is very serious as well as being very unprofessional. They should have allowed the cheque to clear as it did THEN if issued by mistake asked your son to refund payment. They should not have stopped the cheque period

 

Now you must report them to the LCS as well as seeking damages for any losses ie bank charges etc

 

PLEASE NOTE The correspondence sent with the cheque is important in that if it warned against cashing the cheque if you didn't agree with the settlement then you may not have a case

[elizabeth1]

What they have done is very serious as well as being very unprofessional. They should have allowed the cheque to clear as it did THEN if issued by mistake asked your son to refund payment. They should not have stopped the cheque period

 

Now you must report them to the LCS as well as seeking damages for any losses ie bank charges etc

 

PLEASE NOTE The correspondence sent with the cheque is important in that if it warned against cashing the cheque if you didn't agree with the settlement then you may not have a case

 

Jon thanks for that - I am most definitely going LCS with this the letter that came with cheque simply said

 

Re - Hotel xxx xxxxx

Dear Mr xxxx

 

I write further to previous correspondence.

 

Please find enclosed cheque for £250 inclusive of VAT in full and final settlement of your claim for interest arising from your claim for damages against xxxxxxx Tour Operators Ltd following you holiday to the xxxx xxx Hotel.

 

yours sincerely

 

Naughty person.

 

 

Prior to issuing the cheque these solicitors had got the acceptance signed letter from Daniel and he'd clearly written without prejudice on the form etc.. so cheque was issued with them having full knowledge he was continuing the same query as per my previous correspondence with these people - so they knew what they were doing?

 

What has annoyed me is the cheque sum had cleared and my son had spent some money to treat himself online - so the payments for goods has gone through (so we think cause his goods arrived etc..) BUT now he is going to owe the bank the funds he spent plus a load of charges for the items that made him over drawn so he is likely to pick up 3 or 4 charges for the purchases plus the unauthorised overdraft fees etc..

 

It's going to cost my son heavily for something that wasn't his fault. I've spent years here as you have all seen and I've taught my son to save up for the items he wants etc.. and he doesn't have an overdraft etc.. he does live within his means. Now he will face these consquences because of these unprofessional solicitors - hardly fair is it?

 

I am so angry over this.

 

Jon I will email you off the board to show you this letter.

[StayingCalm]

Hi elizabeth1

 

Found this in the glossary of the Banking Code

 

http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/pdfdocs/PERSONAL_CODE_2008.PDF

 

Clearing

Cheques

A cheque normally takes six working days to clear, as

shown below.

• Day 0 – The collecting bank or building society

receives the cheque.

• Day 2 – The account starts to earn interest on the

money paid in or reduces the balance on which

overdraft interest is charged. This is also the day on

which the payer’s bank account will be debited with

the amount shown on the cheque.

• Day 4 (or day 6 for savings accounts) – The money

is available to withdraw (if it is an account that

allows withdrawals).

• Day 6 – By the end of the day, the customer can be

certain that the money is theirs and cannot be

reclaimed without their permission (as long as the

customer has not deliberately committed fraud).

32

Glossary

Up until the end of day 6, a cheque may still bounce

and the money may be reclaimed from the payee’s

account.

 

 

 

So seems that the money can be available before the right to bounce the cheque expires.

 

Regards

SC

[JonCris]

ST in this case the BC is irrelevant. This is a matter whereby a solicitor has stopped a cheque given to a client WITHOUT 1st informing them of their intentions or more properly demanding repayment if they believed it to be paid in error.

 

Stopping a client's cheque is a big no no particularly as in this case it caused the client to go overdrawn something which must have been forseeable

[elizabeth1]

Now an update on this Part 36 stuff.

 

These solicitors have reissued the cheque that they had stopped of my sons - their reasoning was "it was an admin error" - just what can you say to that?

 

As regarding the money that was taken off these claims.cases as their "success fee" where they'd basically taken around 20% off the claims as won in these cases - they have offered to refund this money as a "Gesture of Goodwill" - they are not admitting any wrong doings, mistakes etc.. they have simply said in their letter of offer it is a GOGW because we were unhappy as the conversation went with the head of this dept. They want it to be as Full & Final settlement of any claim arising from our holiday claim.

 

Now they still haven't sent the remaining items from the paperwork I was asking for - this was leading to my point that they had never ever dealt with my son at anytime to explain what all this stuff meant throughout their dealings with these claims.

 

Because these solicitors wouldn't give me the paperwork I was asking for (and still haven't done so) I did a few weeks ago SAR the Tour Operators involved asking for copies of the complete files. Now surprise - surprise the TO's write and tell me that the original company has been bought out by another company and the files no longer exist. These files would have been from Nov 2007 - so fairly recent and ought to be in archives? I shall ask for the data destruction papers etc.. cause there ought to be a notice of destruction or similar? Seems odd that there is no trace at all.

 

Main thing is I achieved the refund of what they took off us in these claims - I am just unsure as to how to get the remaining paperwork off these solicitors. My thoughts were the solicitors involved were more interested in securing their own fees rather than getting our claims to the full potential of award that could have been achieved on our behalf etc..

 

Thank you for your input everyone - I have met my main goal in gaining the refund so far.

[JonCris]

To get the papers/file ask them in writing. As the legal costs are paid they ARE your property not theirs............ & if for any reason they refuse report them

[elizabeth1]

Thanks JonCris - I shall write to both parties asking for these files one final time giving them 14 days to respond. If they don't I will report it and let LCS look at them.

 

I get the feeling that these solictors and Tour Operators are "chatting" behind the scenes - they know the score that these files are ours now if we want them - they are just afraid that I'll peice this together by having both lots of files??

[JonCris]

Just to confirm the tour operators, who I assume are the original defendants, don't need to supply you with anything

[elizabeth1]

Just to confirm the tour operators, who I assume are the original defendants, don't need to supply you with anything

 

 

Mmm!! right OK then. Thanks for that.

 

Yes the tour operators were the original defendants. I was trying to see the otherside of the paperwork with that request.

 

I need to think through that move then

[andrew1]

For over a year I have battled over my claim with a certain bank. It began in 2007 as repossession claim as I hadn't got paid for a job I did and I fell into arrears. I counterclaimed over a further advance I'd taken out way back in 2003 which I partly argued was a s.18 CCA issue (we differed on opinion with that) which brought the 'top-up' loan arguments of Bennion into play which states that a further advance which went partly towards paying arrears and partly cash, depending on the individual amounts of course and the categories of credit involved would make the loan potentially a multiple agreement and should be regulated amongst other things under the CCA. Anyway, we battled long and hard. Last October the bank issued a Part 36 Offer in settlement of my counterclaim, a substantial amount offered to be written off my mortgage and was accepted by me on the phone which raised another issue, the Tomlin was issued some weeks later which compromised their offer and I therefore did not sign it, the offer was withdrawn, further negotiation went on behind the scenes with their solicitors and the bank so I dug my heals in and with the financial support of members of my beloved Cabot Fan Club and the CCS forum 'across the road' I employed a barrister to take this all the way.

 

The Offer was negotiated and settled.

 

 

We took on a high street bank, one of the largest firms of solicitors in the country and a barrister more akin to fighting for us than banks - AND amicably settled our differences !

 

Yesterday, I signed, sealed and delivered an acceptance, sadly signed a confidentiality agreement so I will not be able to discuss or divulge the outcome to a soul so please don't ask and force me to say no, but I would publicly like to thank everyone on CAG who has supported me throughout this, your support, all of you has been awesome, warming and like one big family - you have 24/7 been there. A special mention also to my Cabot Fan Club family (You closed down our sub forum CAG, but you didn't kill the beast ) I'd particularly like to thank Surfaceagentx20 if he's watching, PT, JonCris and countless others who have day by day listened to my droning, my questions and my never ending searching for information, but it has paid off to the satisfaction of both the bank and ourselves.

 

This just goes to demonstrate to anyone who thinks you cannot take on your issues with a bank - YOU CAN .. and you can be successful in finding a solution if you research, plan, research and execute with precision. It ain't easy my friends, they battle like dogs with bones, but you can settle with them.

 

Tomorrow is another day and I have another court appearance shortly so focus, focus, focus is what I have to do. One down, one to go. Oh, and by the way. A special thanks to Ken Maynard at Cabot, Willem Wellinghoff and Dean Saunders at Morgans solicitors (ex Hodsons Fools) and all those clones in the Cabot Towers if you're watching - if it hadn't been for all your foolishness, crass misbehaviour, contempt for the law and stupidity the Cabot Fan Club would have never been in existence and we would never have had to learn all we did to put you back in the mire from whence you came, I've used that experience to great personal effect and I wouldn't have done this without you, let alone what all the people the Fan Club have helped along with CAG and all the other forums has done to upset your profits this year AND to make you realise the 'OFT' didn't mean 'Off For Tea'

 

Thank you kind sirs

 

.......and thanks again to all you lovely, wonderful people on here. Don't we all just love saying this:

 

****WE SETTLED **** stick this up with the satisfied please Mods

Edited June 4, 2009 by andrew1

[steven4064]

Andrew

 

Well done. With great plesure I have changed the title to WON

[andrew1]

Andrew

 

Well done. With great pleasure I have changed the title to WON

 

Thank you Steven,

 

We just have to hope our Elizabeth (who Hijacked my thread ) can double with an agreeable settlement too with me!

Edited June 4, 2009 by andrew1

[JonCris]

Urgent Andrew have Pm'd you

[42man]

updating

[andrew1]

updating

Pm'd you 42man...

[mcuth]

Congratulations mate - very happy that you've got an amicable settlement out of this

 

Cheers

Michael

[elizabeth1]

Congratulations!!!

Edited June 4, 2009 by elizabeth1

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Andrew1!

 

Excellent.

 

Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

 

Winston Churchill

Cheers,

BRW

Edited June 4, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[elizabeth1]

Thank you Steven,

 

We just have to hope our Elizabeth (who Hijacked my thread ) can double with an agreeable settlement too with me!

 

 

Oooohh!! "Moi" hijack your thread ??? :D Ooopps!!

 

 

Just trust me when I say I am working on these people - I sent a huge complaint showing the "problems" that there had been etc.. to the LCS

 

It'll be very interesting to see what they come back with.

 

I don't expect goodies for this one - I just aim to stop this group of solicitors taking advantage of those who simply don't know how things should work etc.. cause I feel it's unfair such a large group take advantage of their clients - just because they can.

Edited June 4, 2009 by elizabeth1

[andrew1]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

 

Nice to see "YOU WON"!!!!

 

I didn't 'WIN ' Elizabeth1, there were no winners or losers, we came to an amicable settlement which meant both sides accepted each others arguments and we settled our claims without further animosity or differences. A negotiated settlement is more an appropriate description.

 

But thank you.

[make them aktiv runners]

Sorry I missed this earlier.

 

Really pleased this worked out for you. Fingers crossed for the other.

 

PS. At one time banks could take us to the cleaners without any questions, now they have at least agreed to negotiate a settlement.

Edited June 9, 2009 by make them aktiv runners