Santander withholding my money - suspected fraud - **SETTLED full amount+Court Fee+Compo**

[BankFodder]

In terms of CIFAS, please could you access their website and see if you can discover whether the bank has a duty as a CIFAS subscriber to inform CIFAS about this.

[bradybunch]

I deleted that as I also have a LLoyds account. 

[BankFodder]

Was the Santander account your main account or was it the Lloyds account

[bradybunch]

it was not my main account

[BankFodder]

Please check the attached draft file.

I think it is becoming clear that your case is predicated on the speculation that they haven't complied with the Proceeds of Crime Act. If they haven't then you are probably home and dry. If they have, then you have probably lost the case and it will be completely out of your hands and out of the hands of the bank as well and completely in the hands of the NCA.

BBunch_particularsofClaim_14072021 .docx

[unclebulgaria67]

| suspect Santander had some form of warning triggered by the transactions and they now have outside agencies they are dealing with, who cannot provide information, which allows for funds to be released.

 

May be nothing to do with you @bradybunch but those companies or people the transactions related to.

 

If my suspicions are correct, I can see you being frustrated by this for sometime to come.

[bradybunch]

Thanks a bunch for your support all. 

[BankFodder]

We'd like you to comment on the recent draft please.  Also hold off for a few days filing it in case we have further ideas

[bradybunch]

I have gone through the document and  BB_particularsofClaim_1607202.docx

[bradybunch]

It reflective of how things have played out and my prayers to the court/authorities. thanks BankFodder and everyone for the support

 

[BankFodder]

I suggest that you think about it over the weekend and if we haven't come up with any amendments then maybe you send it off on Monday.

I think that you have to file and serve which means that you file a copy with the court and serve (send) a copy to the other side. I would make sure that anything sent by post the sent by registered next day delivery so that you have got proof that you sent it.

 

I've looked at what you have just posted up – but if you have made and the amendments then maybe you could point them out to save us having to go through the whole thing.

It goes without saying that you should remove all the hyperlinks and if possible get rid of the blue background. Make sure that you have filled in the details where there are XXX. But in the correct name of Mrs Anderson – et cetera.

I suggest that you simply copy all the text and then paste it into a new word document so that it is your own one.

[bradybunch]

OK. Thanks for your guidance and support.

[bradybunch]

Per amendments, I did not make any major changes in the text or the arguments. I replaced Santander with the defendant for consistency and made some formatting edits. 

[BankFodder]

Well I still see the blue background. I think that to bring it up to a good standard for the court, as I said be worth copying the text into a new Microsoft Word document.

If that if you highlight everything, then if you click the right button and go to "styles" somewhere it will say removal formatting.

This will remove the numbering and the blue background. It will keep the paragraphs Then you can paste the text into a blank document and restore the numbering

[bradybunch]

Thanks. I will do that before I send it out. 

[BankFodder]

Did you have any thoughts about it over the weekend? Any amendments or any new things occurred to you?

One thing to point out for anybody who visits this thread is that one advantage of what has happened here – the failure of the original particulars of claim, is that even though it was clear that the particulars of claim were completely inadequate, Santander, rather than asking for the claim to be struck out, actually provided a fairly full defence and that gave an enormous number of clues as to how to handle the particulars of claim.

The particulars of claim would have been much more difficult if that hadn't happened so that was a stroke of good fortune.

Santander made a serious strategic error by objecting to the particulars claim and then filing a detailed defence. They should simply have pointed out that the particulars of claim failed to identify any cause of action and therefore the claim should be struck out.
The court order may well have been exactly the same – a deadline to produce a properly detailed particulars of claim, but we would have not been helped by their detailed defence.

In case anybody gets the idea that this is always the way to go, then don't forget that the court might simply have agreed to strike out the particulars of claim and then we would be left with nothing a wasted claim fee

Although everything has worked out well so far, it's rather accidental on our part.

The best approach is to produce a particulars of claim which clearly identifies the cause of action but after that goes into minimal detail – and maybe if possible says nothing at all.

That would then produce a situation where the defendant would be obliged to file a relatively detailed defence containing all the clues without actually receiving much information in return.

So a more appropriate particulars of claim in this case would simply have been to say that "the defendant is in breach of the BCOBS regulations by treating the customer unfairly because they have blocked access to his account and are withholding his money without any sufficient discussion or investigation and without any justification."

Just that little bit would have been a much more certain particulars of claim which would clearly have identified the cause of action without giving any detail. The defendant would have had to respond probably with exactly the same defence – but without the risk and the stress of having the claim struck out.

[bradybunch]

Thanks BankFodder. I have gone through the POC and nothing else comes to mind. I will send it out this morning. Thanks for your support.

[BankFodder]

Any update on this please?

[bradybunch]

No update yet BankFodder. will certainly let you know once things start moving again.

 

Thanks for your support

BB

[BankFodder]

Are there any timescales in place? Has anybody set any dates for particular compliance of anything?

I'm afraid that the thread has gone on so long, I will probably be asking you this quite often

[BankFodder]

By the way there was an article in the Times today – the Money section – by James Coney about the banks apparently cracking down on money laundering.

I've actually sent a message to James and suggested that he keeps an eye on this thread on the basis that there could be a story at some point. If he did take an interest, it would eventually be up to you whether you are prepared to participate in it.

We'll come to that all in good time

[bradybunch]

2 hours ago, BankFodder said:

Are there any timescales in place? Has anybody set any dates for particular compliance of anything?

I'm afraid that the thread has gone on so long, I will probably be asking you this quite often

The court asked for the 'proper' POC with a deadline of 21st July. I sent it on the 19th recorded, signed for. The courts have been frustratingly slow AFAIAC but we wait. I will provide updates as I receive them. 

 

No indication of timelines for anything other than submitting a POC. 

[BankFodder]

You sent it to the court and to the other side?

[bradybunch]

Hi Team, a brief update. The court ordered Santander to respond to the amended POC. I have attached their response here.Amended Defence FINAL (for service).docx

[BankFodder]

I'm away from home at the moment and working on a very small screen so it's rather tricky. However I do see the their amended defence makes absolutely no reference to the the proceeds of crime act and other statutory requirements that you have included in your claim.

 

I think that this is a serious Omission and I think that we can take it but this means that they have not complied with the statute and they they have preferred not to refer to this.

 

I suspect that they are embarrassed by it.

 

I think that you need to carry out an analysis of the amended defence.  this can best be done bye using a 2 column Microsoft Word format with the amended defence in the left-hand column one paragraph per row and your comments in the right hand column in respect of each paragraph.

 

They only need to be brief comments and of course if you agree with what they say then you don't need to say very much at all. If you disagree or have additional comments to make them make them in that right hand column.

 

They keep on referring to COBS and don't seem to be aware of BCOBS.  it's not massively serious but it is is rather curious.

 

also can you please upload the last version that you eventually submitted of your amended particulars of claim.

 

I would like to see the finished item please.