Gestures Of Goodwill: What's The Deal?

[crfx250]

Ah! Bookworm! Fancy seeing you here!

 

So let me get this right - it's fine for you to stand up in court arguing about the terms of your settlement but for everyone else thats a complete no no?

[Guest NATTIE]

dirty harry, had the point crfx not been mentioned before i would not have commented on it. It is neither derisory nor meant to be but an opinion. I am an admirer of Crfx, or his alter ego, but the question is what a district judge would make if a full settlement has been offered and because of semantic wording it is rejected. I see the debate is moving on which may offer that route but each person who claims charges back must make their own opinion how they proceed and i for one am not a trained legal professional nor a district judge.

[kippy2]

Ah! Bookworm! Fancy seeing you here!

 

So let me get this right - it's fine for you to stand up in court arguing about the terms of your settlement but for everyone else thats a complete no no?

 

but if you read again re bookworm in court. it was for confidentiality clause which she wasnt prepared to sign, she wasnt arguing over the settlement.

[crfx250]

but if you read again re bookworm in court. it was for confidentiality clause which she wasnt prepared to sign, she wasnt arguing over the settlement.

 

I'm not arguing over the settlement, just the terms of it, just like Bookworm it appears

except another aspect of it

[barracad]

I'm not arguing over the settlement, just the terms of it, just like Bookworm it appears

except another aspect of it

 

Bookworm wasn't given full settlement, settlement was offered with conditions attached, i.e. they would only pay if she agreed to keep the payment secret.

 

If you are offered full settlement, unconditionally, you should accept it. Receiving the settlement as a "gesture of goodwill" is still an unconditional settlement as long as they are paying in full.

[laaldinger]

Hi all, just came across this thread and

 

I just want some natural justice.

 

while I can understand and see where everone is coming from, and an opinion is just that, an opinion, no matter how 'learned', I feel that the best sort of natural justice here is reducing the banks profit margin, in this case by getting your money back, which reduces the number of investors, reducing the banks ability to make more profit. The less profit they have, the less they can advertise/make new customer deals.

 

The fewer the customers, the less the bank is thought of. The less its thought of, the fewer the customers who join/stay.

 

They lose in the end, even banks dont have bottomless pockets.

It will just take a while longer than we the consumers of the present day would like.

[Bookworm]

Ah! Bookworm! Fancy seeing you here!

 

So let me get this right - it's fine for you to stand up in court arguing about the terms of your settlement but for everyone else thats a complete no no?

 

No. They hadn't paid up by the time we got to court, so the claim was very much ongoing. They had said they would pay if I agreed to confidentiality, and I had said I would discontinue my claim on full unconditional settlement, something I had made very clear from the beginning of my claim.

 

Bong:

How are Barclays going to use that in court against anyone else? This is a small claim and I think it is being blown up out of all proportion when people start saying it could have a detrimental effect on other people's claims.

 

As I said earlier, see the Citi threads. Despite the fact that their win was a partial one, and in Northern Ireland, and in Small Claims, they have used and abused it to terrify the caimants in dropping their claims, used it to try and influence judges in other cases, etc...

Imagine if you will one of the less secure claimants ( you know the type I mean), the ones who post here to say: "They're saying the charges are lawful, what do I do now?". That claimant receives a letter from Barclays saying: "Following our recent victory in court, where we were awarded our costs by the judge...", how quickly is our insecure not-so-hypothetical claimant going to give up, do you think?

That's what I mean, and I wish, I really wish that I was blowing it out of proportion, but if there's one thing I have learned about the banks, it's that they will stop at nothing to make us give up.

[Karne]

Change your claim to include a declaration

[Guest NATTIE]

Bookworm, i think you can answer this one. And please point me to the area of my post where i claimed to be an expert(i have yet to spot it on the post, has my post be edited in such a way as i have had something i did not write taken out).Can Bookworm answer the previous bit as well.

[crfx250]

Change your claim to include a declaration

 

 

One thing at a time. There are more claims in the pipeline.

 

Dirty Harry: I've never had a problem with Nattie myself.

 

I'm jibbing out of this thread. Thanks for those who supported

me. And the rep points.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

A 'goodwill' gesture is just that a 'goodwill' gesture unless it is specific that it is an 'offered' settlement for whatever reason.

 

The court might be upset that you continued with your action despite being offered a 'goodwill' gesture but like bookworms action with which the court was obliged reluctantly to order compliance they can't ignore the fact that the defendant refers to their offer of payment as a 'goodwill' gesture & NOT a settlement of the claim

[monkey_uk]

crfx250 - If you really want to push this, why not consider this...?

 

If the bank have offered settlement on these terms, why not write back to them, basically saying "I am willing to accept payment of £XXXX.XX from yourselves as a refund of the unlawful charges that you have taken from my account. This payment is accepted only on this basis, and is not a goodwill gesture. By paying me this amount you accept these terms".

 

I'm not saying it will work, but common sense says that this is what you ought to try.

 

You can then decide whether to push it further or to just accept the goodwill gesture.

 

For what it is worth, I too think that the tone of one or two (ok,maybe just one!) of the posters of this thread is quite shameful and not in keeping with the spirit of the site, although from certain individuals, this attitude and tone isn't surprising.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Also if you have a claim which includes pre 6 years charges you can use any offer to settle, at any amount, as an admission of concealement thereby strengthening the section 32 Statute of Limitations argument.

[southyorksman]

Come again Pliny? ??

 

I've got a claim stretching back over 10 years with Nationwide.

 

How do I use any settlement offer as proof of concealment as I might need to use this little snippet myself in court.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

THe fact that they are not prepared to go to a full hearing to justify their charges is prima facie evidence of concealment of their unlawful conduct. That being the case the are not afforded any protection under s5 of the Limitations Act.

 

Also it should be argued that they can't rely on the Limitations Act as their conduct is ongoing. What they did over 6 years ago is precisley the same as they are doing to this present day