banks abusing the court system

[lee6370]

Egg, Lloyds and others are trying to take us as far as possible before settling claims.

 

I'm sure i've see a letter someone wrote to the courts, bring to their attention the abuse of the system by the banks, I want to also send this or a similar letter in relation to my claim, can anyone tell were it is?

[HadEnough]

abbeys forum

[lee6370]

Thanks

[jasper]

see part of my letter in regard to the stay ordered:

 

 

......Secondly, whilst I will continue to attempt to reach an agreeable settlement with Lloyds, I have so far been unsuccessful. I have made numerous attempts to enter into meaningful dialogue with the Bank who continue to refuse to negotiate. They sent me, pre court action, two letters saying their decision was final. So I am bewildered as to why they have requested a month to try and settle amicably.

 

Further, I understand that there are many similar cases, litigating on the same issue of contractual penalties. However the Court may be unaware that not one of these has so far gone to a hearing. Whilst the Banks are filing defences, they are regularly settling pre-hearing. In many other cases, the defendant Banks are even receiving default judgements against them which are being set aside on application by the Bank and which are subsequently being settled prior to a Court hearing. In two cases, the Court has even ordered standard disclosure against the defendant Banks but those Banks have gone on to settle rather than reveal the details of its contractual penalties. I believe that I will not reach an adequate agreement with Lloyds relating to this case until a date for a hearing is announced.

 

 

Also, every one of the cases settled so far has presented an opportunity to settle the common issue of contractual penalties. Despite their massive resources and access to high level expertise the defendants have declined to allow the issue to be decided. By agreeing to remove the stay and ordering a Court date, my case would also present another opportunity for the question to be definitively settled as should the defendants lose, they have the resources to continue the matter through the appeals process and through the Court hierarchy.

[sohoscribbler]

Send a copy to the Lord Chief Justice with a covering letter.

[meagain]

Can we not put a stop to this by just not accepting their offers after set-aside?

[barracad]

If they offer you the full amount, unconditionally, then you must accept it.

 

If they only accept part of the amount, or impose conditions then you do not have to accept it as full and final settlement.

[blacksheep1979]

can you not once they enter a defense ask for summary judgement on the grounds that the OFT has ruled against these charges and that they have never defended these charges before?

[meagain]

If they offer you the full amount, unconditionally, then you must accept it.

 

If they only accept part of the amount, or impose conditions then you do not have to accept it as full and final settlement.

 

Can we consider "without admission of liability" as an unacceptable condition?

[Glenn UK]

Can we consider "without admission of liability" as an unacceptable condition?

 

Im not sure if i can see your tongue in your cheek there?

 

LOL, I suspect its irrelevant becuase its not part of the settlement since you cannot force anyone to admit guilt and effectively 'convict' themselves.

 

I guess that the other issue is that in a civil case you sue because you have suffered a loss of some description hence the fact you have to accept a settloementif the other side offers the full amount beig claimed.

 

Shame mind you

 

Glenn

[meagain]

Im not sure if i can see your tongue in your cheek there?

 

I'm deadly serious. It's like stealing someone's TV and then saying you'll return it if you don't press charges. In my mind, there's a world of difference between "Here's the £600 we owe you" and "We don't owe you anything, but here's the money anyway."

[Glenn UK]

Meagain

 

I get your point, i agree about the principle of the matter, now i thnk about it im not sure i wasnt wrong.

 

I mean you can condtion the claim to add removal of defaults, i am certain you can set out in your claim how they pay you, perhpas you are right.

 

Mind you making it a conditon is one thing, getting the court to accept its a key part iof your settlement and acutally making the judgement would probalby need some clever legal arguments.

 

I dont have a clue to be honest it sounds like a good idea though.

 

GLenn

[sohoscribbler]

Would it not be an unacceptable condition if the bank refused to agree not to levy further penalty charges in the future?

 

Would it not be possible to apply for an injunction against a bank‘s issuing bank penalties in the future?

 

I don‘t know. I‘m not a lawyer.

[Glenn UK]

Would it not be possible to apply for an injunction against a bank‘s issuing bank penalties in the future?

 

I don‘t know. I‘m not a lawyer.

 

Me neither and i thnk therein lies a problem, not that we are stupid or ignorant, which may be true in my case, but rather from a lay viewpoint we often presume the law is about truth and justice, when actually it a game some people play about what they can get for themselves or others and we dont understand all the rules.

 

So just becuse we think its unfair doesnt mean that we would win the argument.

 

AS I have said before its about who presents the best arguments in court and convinces the judge of their viewpoint.

 

JMHO

Glenn

[JonCris]

1st Most compensation claims are one off situations & are mostly accepted being without liability with the risk that if not accepted a court hearing might be required.

 

As we all know these case will never get to court. You can respond to their offer as being accepted unconditionaly. However should they wish to impose conditions you are willing to consider additional compensation for your agreement.

[gordonhall]

How about the confidentiality clause that many banks are putting in thier final letters. Rather than just refuse the confidentiality and accept the money (as I and many others have done), how about just ignoring it and allowing it to get to court, stating that the banks put an unfair clause in the agreement?

 

We certainly need to do more to give the banks a bloody nose....

[JonCris]

I realize it might cause hardship for some by delaying payment but if say you will only accept their offer unconditionaly as some here have done successfully already they will still pay up because they don't wan't to go into court.

 

Also a word of warning if you do sign to a confidentially agreement the fact that you have disclosed some matters might entitle them to sue you for recovery of the repaid charges & further damages.

They will claim that as you already knew you had disclosed matters you should have told them & shouldn't have signed because their offer was only made on the condition it WAS confidential

[SurlyBonds]

Would it not be an unacceptable condition if the bank refused to agree not to levy further penalty charges in the future?

 

Would it not be possible to apply for an injunction against a bank‘s issuing bank penalties in the future?

 

I don‘t know. I‘m not a lawyer.

 

For God's sake...you are suing them... not the other way around...they are trying it on to see if you know what's what.

 

The bank cannot impose a new Term on you, making it a condition of settlement that you accept all future charges without charges - and what's more, they know it.

 

This would be deemed a change of term in the contract which is contrary to UTCCR 5(5) and its associated Schedule 2 of example unfair terms - examples given in this Statutory Instrument are:

 

(a) excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier;

 

(b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him;

 

© making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation; [this would still apply no matter what they asked you to sign as only a Court can decide what is fair]

 

(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

 

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

 

(k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

 

(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

(n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

 

(o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

However, hitting it back at them from the angle in your example...

Whilst I don't think an injunction would work, you could apply to a Court to order that the clauses in your contract allowing them to make charges are unfair on the basis of clause (o) above, in that there is no reciprocal clause allowing you to make charges for poor service or performance of the contract, etc.

If both parties don't have equal rights in any contract, then it is considered an unfair term and cannot be enforced. The only exception is a term that has been individually negotiated (i.e. not a standard Terms and Conditions contract pre-printed on self-carbonating paper, that they all are) AND the seller has to prove that the term was negotiated prior to signing - usual proof is correspondence trail agreeing to the revised wording, etc.

If a judge agreed, then is would be classed as an unfair term and could be removed from the contract. However, you would have to ask that the contract is still deemed workable after the removal of this one clause. The UTTC Regs do state that just because un unfair term is removed, if the remaining terms allow the contract to still perform, then it can continue.

Most people are including this "please order that the term is unfair" bit as part of their overall claim - it would be interesting to take a bank to Court over this solitary issue.

What would be good, is for the OFT to actaully stiffen up their backbone and issue a formal edict stating that banks are not allowed to make unreasonable charges above, say 50p-60p, for each breach (which is about what most letters, etc cost), - I think most people would be happy with that. Their recent direction that £12 is more reasonable is ridiculous, however, they did state that it was still, ultimately, a matter for the Courts to decide and the banks still did not have the arbitrary right to decide.

My anger with the OFT is that if they issued something stronger, then people wouldn't have to spend time filling out Court claims, and the banks might start toeing the line...after most of the card companies have all sent out new Ts&Cs referring to the new £12 limit, ridiculous though it is.

[JonCris]

I wonder do the OFT actually know the money lenders are claiming the £12 as being the level of penalty charge allowed by the OFT.

 

As I have previously commented everyone should when they receive a 'get stuffed' response or "we are willing to reduce our charges to £12" should photcopy it & send it together with their complaint to the OFT.

 

When the OFT finally get the message that the money lenders think them a joke (as I most certainly do) they might just do something

[Glenn UK]

I think thje reality is that the OFT wont do anyhting substantial until they are forced to, either by massive public opinion, possibly not even then but maybe by pressure form the government.

 

JMHO

 

But if you look at the way other regulatory bodies perform, ofwat, ofrail etc, doesnt mean we sholdnt try though.

 

Glenn

[SurlyBonds]

I wonder do the OFT actually know the money lenders are claiming the £12 as being the level of penalty charge allowed by the OFT.

 

As I have previously commented everyone should when they receive a 'get stuffed' response or "we are willing to reduce our charges to £12" should photcopy it & send it together with their complaint to the OFT.

 

When the OFT finally get the message that the money lenders think them a joke (as I most certainly do) they might just do something

 

Nonononononoononononononoo!

 

The OFT NEVER said £12 was "allowed"... they suggested that £12 might be a more reasonable level, BUT stated that it was still the Courts to decide what was a fair amount in any case that was referred for their jurisdiction.

 

The banks have just gone, "ah well... let's just try the lower level and see if we can get away with that amount each time... after all, people are still afraid to try suing us".

 

This [edit] they send out in response letters stating that the OFT has "determined that these charges may be set at £12" is simply trying to bamboozle thise who don't know the actual FACTS, and them trying it on.... and laughing their [edit] off if you accept.

 

I have on here on my desk that says

:

"As you are aware, the OFT has been investigating the subject of service charges [[service charges??!!?? My [edit]!]]] and has recommended a £12 fee be applied in cases where we incur additional costs as a result of having to provide you with additional lending services"

 

My actual response to them started thus:

"I read your letter with great interest, and after picking myself up of the floor from hysterical bouts of laughter, started to get quite angry at the obvious lies that you are attempting to include in such an official letter.

 

I simply cannot believe that someone who is supposedly in a position of financial manaagement can display the intelligence of six-year-old in their obvious misinterpretation of the simple English presented in the OFT's report.

 

You are fully aware of the actual findings and real recommendations of the OFT and to report otherwise is a flagrant abuse of your position as a bank official.

I consider such attempts to try and lie to me as insulting, unethical and downright deceptive.

 

You are also aware that the FSA requires all bank employees to be employed on the basis of offering correct advice that is in the "interests of the consumer at all times". All staff must be vetted regularly to show that they are also "fit to be employed" in that they do not engage in any type of behaviour that is deceptive to the customer or gives the customer advice that is blatantly untrue.

 

I believe that your response conravenes these requirements in most of these suitability tests and, as such, I will be forwarding your response to both the OFT and FSA with a overing letter instigating a formal complaint about your deceptive behaviour.

 

...etc... pay up or else you [edit]s...

 

 

I do agree though, that we all ought to send in our new Ts&Cs ad show the OFT that baks have now listened to their actual findings and just assumed that they can charge what they want.

 

[MODERATED: Libelous and offensive comments removed]

[JonCris]

I know they didn't say allowed but that's what the money lenders are now claiming.

 

What the OFT did say is that if charges fell to or below £12 they would NOT intervene. They also expressly said they where NOT suggesting that £12 was fair & reasonable or lawful

 

Frankly we would have been better off if they had just kept their mouths shut. Even by mentioning a figure they have given the money lenders something on which to hang their hat

[PhantomReclaimer]

How about the confidentiality clause that many banks are putting in thier final letters. Rather than just refuse the confidentiality and accept the money (as I and many others have done), how about just ignoring it and allowing it to get to court, stating that the banks put an unfair clause in the agreement?

 

We certainly need to do more to give the banks a bloody nose....

 

If they include a confidentiality agreement in their settlement letter then it won't work. They are only paying you what is due to you - it's your money you are getting back, nothing more. Therfor, they are giving no consideration (payment basically) in return for your promise of confidentiallity which means no agreement will exist. If anyone has agreed to such a clause without being given extra consideration then they are quite free to be as unconfidential with the information as they like, there will be no cause of action becase no contract will exist.

 

Personally if they try that with me I wil reply certainly, in return for a payment of £1,000,000.

 

P.