In Court with the Clydesdale Bank

[Bigmac versus]

Have they accepted they received your letter of partial settlement?

[Bigmac versus]

George

 

acknowledging my partial settlement and "reminding" me that i had settled fully

 

cant be both as i see it the bank knew you were accepting the cheque as per letter partial settlement, they themselves allowed the cheque to clear knowing this, in my eyes if they were not to accept this they could have stopped the cheque but they didnt because they had you exactly where they wanted you having the said document full and final settlement signed by you and sent back allbeit with an attachment saying partial, they dont seem to have informed the court that this was sent also, did yoy inform the court showing the said paperwork you sent to the bank?

[Bigmac versus]

Im pretty sure that the cashing of the cheque is what they see as full and final settlement regardless of that you need some advise and i hope maybe someone could go further on this and advise you of your next move.

[Bigmac versus]

Hi Caro, this is just typical of CB, hope someone can advise on this, im sure claimitall wont be the first or the last to find themselves in this position with CB, i feel they have aimed to get people claiming into this full and final situation through total ignorance of letters sent saying accepted as partial settlement, i remember reading somewhere about this and saying they cant tell you what is full and final.

[Bigmac versus]

Very interesting debate and worth some research i think.

[Bigmac versus]

Can he pay this back saying will not accept if is seen as full and final?

[Bigmac versus]

claiming he was confused as to what encashment actually meant as he had sent back the partial offer?

[Bigmac versus]

I thought judges were suppossed to be sympathetic to the layman on the understanding of law at smallclaims. Banks are very cunning and they could have stopped the cheque clearing after receiving the partial offer letter but didnt as they knew they could use this to end the claim.

[Bigmac versus]

Well id say the judge would at least need to hear if the claimant has a defence to the banks request for striking out, this i believe is why there are another 2 weeks on this.

[Bigmac versus]

I see what your saying Robertxc and sadly i think you are probably right, however why should the claimant not be allowed to show a copy of the letter which would have been received by the bank (partial setlement) before the encashment of the cheque was complete therfore allowing them not to clear the said cheque, to not even respond to this i personally see it as devious and a defence to their striking out claim.

[Bigmac versus]

Im just ranting on here, lol but bloody hell who are they to lay down conditions, their charges are unlawfull, their concealment of costs is hidden, and after being found with their hands in our pockets for many a year they then claim the law protects them from refunding over 6 years, can quite get my head round that. Why are their conditions accepted in court and ours not (partial settlement) they are manipulative, wasting of the courts time and so bloody obstructive in their so called attempts to resolve these issues, and still charge these unlawfull penalties, is it any wonder when no action seems pending to be tackling this blatant disregard of the OFT's findings that they continue to act in this way.

 

Time for the OFT to do their job and take action against these bankers who continue to operate in this way and to stop the total wastage of the courts time.

[Bigmac versus]

I personally didnt accept their offer back in Novenmber of £1200, and have since claimed and been paid out at small claims including contractual interest at the higher rate of 29.25%, i sent them a fresh lba to which they didnt respond to and have now started a summery cause at court for my next claim. The banks are very tactfull and will try every avenue possible to keep our money, learn from this i agree but feel some people wont unfortunately.

[Bigmac versus]

Very interesting bong, valuable consideration, so as an example a full and final offer of say £500 when the total claim is say £2000 would not be deemed as a valuable consideration well in my head anyway and that is where peeps will have different views on this, have i picked up on this correctly bong?

 

 

if OP is in Scotland?

 

sorry bong what is OP having a slow night here, lol.

[Bigmac versus]

Hi bong, this gets better,lol.

So without consideration on both sides the new contract is not valid, the claimants consideration is to drop the claim, the defenders consideration isnt there unless they offer say the same amount you are claiming or something above what you are claiming, even a bunch of flowers.

So is the full and final settlement a contract?

And if so then should there not be a cooling off period, say right to cancel contract within certain timescale?

[Bigmac versus]

So if this applies in scotland then claimitall could look into this and say the £400 he signed for as partial settlement saying he would claim the balance of £200 at court (these are rough figures as i cant mind exactly what they were) If im getting this right then could he continue for the £600 if they didnt pay it up on top of the offer of full and final payment of £400 as he sees this as consideration payment for droping his claim (his consideration)

 

sorry for all the questions bong and thx for the advice on this.

[Bigmac versus]

Ok think ive got it the contract isnt binding because the defendant didnt give consideration. (something extra, over and above the owed amount) so therefore the claimant could continue for the remainder. Will try and do some reference work on it, I hate banks gettinf away with not paying up, thx again.

[Bigmac versus]

Done a little research on it and it cant be used in Scotland.

 

 

The English requirement for consideration does not apply in Scotland, so it is possible to have a gratuitous contract where all the obligations are on one side.

Note however that not all declarations made by a person to another person will amount to a promise that is enforceable under Scots law. In particular, a declaration of intention, a testamentary provision and an offer will not be a promise.