Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • She's an only child and he as a brother and sister. He has no will and we have done a check on this to find out if he had left one and nothing has come up. He has savings of around 28k His sister and brother are well off so 28k is nothing to them and aren't interested in his money. This just leaves my wife/his daughter. Would this still need to go to probate there is no estate e.g house or business to sell and the amount left in his bank is just small? When his wife died they just closed her bank account and moved her money across to his account and we just assumed that once my wife has handed in the death certificate and shown evidence of who she is the same would apply to her? We don't know yet the council have only just written to us today with a guide of what to do next.  
    • Did your FiL leave a Will and if so who is the Executor? Strictly speaking banks could refuse to take instructions until Probate is granted but In practice I would expect the bank to take instructions to cancel the DD if the Executor presents the death certificate and a certified copy of the Will
    • Hi   Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. He had lived in the flat until December 2022 with Dementia by this time it was unsafe for him to have capacity to live on his own and he had to move into a nursing home. We had left it too late to apply for power of attorney so approached a solicitor in March last year for Deputyship. We were still in the process of dealing with it by May 2024. He passed away a few weeks ago and the solicitor was contacted to halt the application and we will just pay the fees of what work he has done up until now. My wife was the named person on her dads bank account but we didn't have the ability to alter any direct debits hence the reasons for applying for Deputyship as we were having problems trying to stop some payments coming out of his account Eon being another difficult company. We kept his flat on from December 2022 - August 2023. it was at this point I contacted Sancutary housing to inform them he was no longer living in the flat, it had been cleared out and was ready for a new tenant and that he had Dementia and had moved into a nursing home December 2022 and explained the reasons why we kept it on. As the named person to speak on his behalf I asked them what proof they needed in order to give notice on the flat e.g proof of dementia and proof that he was living in a nursing home and anything else they wanted. The lady in the upstairs flat and some of the other residence in the street had asked about him and we had told them he had moved into a nursing home. The lady in the upstairs flat wanted his flat for medical reasons so asked us once we had given notice could be let her know and she'll ask them if she can have it. We explained the difficulties and it was left at that but I did tell her I would let her know once notice was given. I contacted the company by email a number of times and also telephone conversations and nobody followed it up and it wasn't till the end of February this year that the housing manager for the area wrote to our home address to ask about him that he had been to the flat a couple of times and nobody answered and he had asked some of the residence in the street and they hadn't seen him for sometime. There was an email address on the letter so I contacted him and copied in the last 2 emails I sent Sanctuary regarding me wanting to give notice on the flat for at least 9 months explaining that it went ignored as well as telephone calls. I also stated I wanted to have his rent payments returned from the date I wanted to give notice which was from August 2023 as the bank wouldn't let us stop the DD without POT or deputyship explaining we were in the process of Deputyship. He gave some excuse about not having POT to cancel on his behalf and spoke to someone in HR and said he would contact the nursing home to confirm he was there with Dementia and if it all checks out we can give notice on the flat which came to an end on the 22 March 2024. There was not mention of back payments for the rent already paid or the fact I had asked to give notice in August 2023. Despite someone living in the flat from 1st April they continue to take DD payments for the flat and have taken another 2 payments of £501. another concerning thing despite Eon not allowing us to cancel the DD to his account the lady upstairs informed Eon that she was moving into the flat February 2024 and Eon refunding the account to his bank and said in an email sorry you are leaving us and canceled his account. Something they wouldn't let us do but a stranger. She also changed her bank account to his address despite the fact notice hadn't been given on the flat yet. So we need to find out how much information Sanctuary actually had for her to tell her power company she was moving into the flat in February despite the housing manager only just getting in contact to find out where he was. So a complaint is going into Eon and Sanctuary and we are going to take advice and ask the bank to charge back the rent. My wife hasn't taken the death certificate to the bank yet to inform them of his passing.  
    • Yes, I believe the Starbucks was closed at the time the car was parked there 
    • hi lolerz many thanks for your reply and help. My 2 months has passed i was waiting until the court proceedings started. As i went through this process not that long ago, i shall look back at my old thread for how to respond. Ill get the docs scanned soon thanks.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

banks abusing the court system


lee6370
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6490 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

.

Barclays - £268 - Moneyclaim

Capital One - £172 - Moneyclaim

Abbey (2nd claim) - Moneyclaim

---------------------------------------------------

 

HSBC - £2164.46- PAID IN FULL

MBNA - £471 - PAID IN FULL

NatWest - £307 - PAID IN FULL

Abbey Business - £314.15 - PAID IN FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:x

 

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.:p

 

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.

  • Confused 1

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

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]

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Northern Rock; S.A.R sent 11/8/06 - Delivered. Recieved details of 6 yrs charges on 8th. Wrote back asking whether or not they hold information going back further than that.

MBNA; S.A.R sent 11/8/06 - Delivered 14/8/06

Barclays; S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request sent 11/8/06 - Del 14/8/06

Diners Club; S.A.R sent 11/8/06 - Delivered 14/8/06. Recieved form to fill and return with fee on 17/8/06. Sent form back, delivered 4/9/06.

Intelligent Finance; Prelim letter emailed 16/08/06, claiming £318. Email recieved from "Anne-Marie" 17/8/06 saying my email has been passed to Customer Relations dept. Fob-off letter received 23/8/06, letter sent in return same day - Delivered 24/8/6 Recieved letter offer 25% settelement - refused - LBA sent. MCOL on 10th revcieved notification that they intend to defend on 13th. 06/9/2006 WON!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...