walton v rbos

[tifo]

I wonder how many other loans "that don't exist" are accruing interest, which are waiting to be written off as bad debt.

 

do written off debts really disappear for good?

 

i've recently had £1400 taken off me which was 'written off' in 2004 as part of a full settlement.

 

the bank were allowed to keep this money with the FOS's full blessing, meaning i lose the settlement agreed at the time.

 

i claimed charges back which were £1200 out of the £2000 cleared. With interest it came to £2600 but the FOS allowed them to give me only the £1200 charges and no interest, then keep it towards the 'written off' amount.

[caro]

At work we write off bad debts, but they can still be sent to the DCA to chase, and we get at least a proportion of any money they collect. Doesn't happen often though. It's generally written off because we're unlikely to get the money, but if we do it's a bonus, and it's deducted from our total of bad debts on the accounts.

 

I'm not involved in that side of things so I can't really elaborate more.

[tifo]

At work we write off bad debts, but they can still be sent to the DCA to chase.

 

If i'm told to pay 50% to clear a debt in full (which some years later i find consisted of mostly charges), balance was set to £0 at settlement, then the bank asks for that money 4 years later, haven't i been misled?

[caro]

That is not the same situation that I'm referring to at all tifo. Sorry if my post has confused matters. I'm not aware that my organisation accept part settlements, but if they do, I don't believe that they would send them to the DCA.

[tifo]

That is not the same situation that I'm referring to at all tifo. Sorry if my post has confused matters. I'm not aware that my organisation accept part settlements, but if they do, I don't believe that they would send them to the DCA.

 

It's OK caro. I have my own thread on it in the HFC section.

 

I've been told by the FOS and members here its acceptable to ask for the written off amount from a customer many years later as you haven't really paid it. The bank is allowed to go back on their agreements and settlements, it's just us customers that are not allowed to go back on our word.

[Slartibartfast]

Does this mean that a full and final setllement is not?

If you see what I mean.

[tifo]

Does this mean that a full and final setllement is not?

If you see what I mean.

 

seems to be in my case.

 

the account got inflated with charges, bank offered a 30% settlement of the whole amount, i paid up and account closed.

 

i find years later that 60% of the whole amount was charges so i make a claim.

 

bank offers only the charges and no interest, but because this was almost the amount written off, FOS says they can keep it and gives them an extra £200 from me to pay the rest of the written off amount.

 

i end up paying 100% of the account.

 

so in the end, for me, there was no 30% settlement. I shout and shout what about the 30% settlement offered and the inflated account but no-one wants to hear me.

 

so an account never seems to be written off, the money just goes into a seperate loss account and the bank can ask for this at any time if they wish.

[caro]

I am playing devils advocate here, so please don't shoot the messenger. I work in an accounts department so want to look at this from that point of view.

 

You have agreed a full and final settlement to clear the debt. They write off the balance. End of story.

 

You then come back asking for charges back. You are basically asking them to reopen an issue that has been settled. You have agreed to a settlement and then gone back on it. If they pay you money back, they have to offset their "losses" so they have to take it off the money that they have written off.

 

From an accounting point of view, they cannot write off money, which affects tax and then ignore it if the matter is reopened. If they pay you money back that reduces their profits, so they will be paying less tax. They would be reducing their tax liability if they did not offset their "loss" in this way.

 

You cannot expect to reach an agreement, and then go back on it and expect them to keep their side. Their accounts to Her Majestys Revenue and Customs would be inaccurate.

 

If you wish to claim back charges after making an agreement, you have to consider if you have already gained more than the charges by that agreement.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[tifo]

thanks caro.

 

i've been through all this before and don't want to take over this excellent thread.

 

i still haven't got the answers to valid questions i asked and still feel i have paid too much one way or the other.

 

the bank has inflated the figure (with charges) to get more money out of me in the settlement.

 

at charges claim time (end of 2007), they first said they had taken the charges off at the time of settlement (2004), which they couldn't have as the amount stated as cleared included them, then they said they want the money back at the same time they offered a refund (2007).

 

in my opinion, they offered a 30% settlement of the amount outstanding. That was the agreement. Not the money i paid but the percentage. The amount they told me included charges.

 

30% of the amount before the charges is less than the 30% with charges included, therefore i have paid too much in settlement. The charges were 60% of the total settled.

 

either i've paid 30% of the actual amount and 30% of the charges, or i've paid 45% too much in settlement and i've ended up paying 100% of the amount now.

[car2403]

I am playing devils advocate here, so please don't shoot the messenger. I work in an accounts department so want to look at this from that point of view.

 

You have agreed a full and final settlement to clear the debt. They write off the balance. End of story.

 

You then come back asking for charges back. You are basically asking them to reopen an issue that has been settled. You have agreed to a settlement and then gone back on it. If they pay you money back, they have to offset their "losses" so they have to take it off the money that they have written off.

 

From an accounting point of view, they cannot write off money, which affects tax and then ignore it if the matter is reopened. If they pay you money back that reduces their profits, so they will be paying less tax. They would be reducing their tax liability if they did not offset their "loss" in this way.

 

You cannot expect to reach an agreement, and then go back on it and expect them to keep their side. Their accounts to Her Majestys Revenue and Customs would be inaccurate.

 

If you wish to claim back charges after making an agreement, you have to consider if you have already gained more than the charges by that agreement.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

Excellently put, caro.

 

This is the warning that should be given to those in receipt of a F&F settlement, as you never know when you might be sacrificing a different cause of action by agreeing to it. For instance, I did a collection charges reclaim on a mortgage account, then found out that I was overcharged on a mortgage indemnity fee that wasn't included in the original agreement - I haven't tried reclaiming that as I took a F&F settlement and don't want to appear vexatious.

[photoman]

Tifo

I had a similar situation with a loan that was in default just prior to making a claim.

The Bank had agreed, prior to my making a claim, to accept a settlement amount and write off the balance on a loan (very kind of them considering that a large part of loan was actually to repay charges) !

 

Anyway, just prior to making claim (under the pretense that I required it for accounting purposes) I then asked for actual written confirmation that the remainder of the debt was cleared.

 

I duly received this, and then commenced my charges claim.

 

After instigating my claim, they then attempted to retort with a defense that claimed they had a right to offset my claim against unpaid balance of loan.

 

I responded by treating it as a counterclaim, and filed a defense to counterclaim with the court (the courts really frown upon unfounded counterclaims).

Lo and behold, not only were any defense claims to offset dropped, but they then settled in full........ and very quickly.

 

The moral of the story, for those who have had debts "written off":

 

Make sure that "written off" means just that, and is "written of" in actual writing.

 

PM

[caro]

It's written off if there is no real prospect of collecting the debt. If you claim charges from them, they will have some of your money so have a prospect of collecting it and they have a duty to minimise their losses. I can really see where they are coming from on this one.

 

Just because a debt is written off, it does not mean that it can't ever be reinstated. By making a claim on an account with a balance that has been written off, there is absolutely no reason that it should not be reviewed. Indeed I would suggest that under tax legislation they should consider it or they would be guilty of tax evasion.

[photoman]

Caro

I concede to you better knowledge.

But I suppose it depends upon the terminology used in the letter you received.

My letter very distinctly stated that I did not owe them anything, and the loan account closed.

Whether or not this still gave them any rights is a moot point, but even if it did, I suppose they didn't fancy the fight, or wish to run risk of being seen as vexatious in the eyes of the court.

[caro]

Well as long as you won that's the main thing.

[car2403]

I think the doctrine of promissory estoppel would apply here, however caro, in that they've promised not to follow up on the debt by writing it off, so can't then pursue you for the debt as that would be unjust and inequitable. (I believei promissory estoppel is a doctrine of equity, not law)

 

The other point I wanted to make is that I think you could still have a cause of action in law, even after accepting a F&F settlement, if that cause of action couldn't have been known when the offer was accepted. As an example, say I had a loan with my bank in arrears and I make a reduced payment in F&F settlement to prevent them taking legal action to enforce it - if I then discover that penalty charges were applied, surely I'd still have a right to reclaim them despite the settlement? (You'd be relyingon the fact your a litigant in person, couldn't have known that penalty charges were unlawful when accepting the settlement, that the rules of equity would mean the bank were receiving unjust enrichment, etc, etc)

 

I know this is now well off topic - and probably deserves it's own thread - so I won't go on about it here now... sorry for hijacking, but this is relevant to anyone that has accepted a F&F settlement of a charge reclaim if this Judgment goes in their favour, IMHO.

[tbern123]

I wonder how many other loans "that don't exist" are accruing interest, which are waiting to be written off as bad debt.

 

Paul

 

My friend received copies of statements for three internal collections accounts for two current accounts and a personal loan account that were closed following default and this was just a couple of week ago

 

EACH SHOWING INTEREST BEING APPLIED

[paulwlton]

Important meeting with the lads at TS tomorrow, should be plenty of telephone calls.

 

Keep you posted.

[bathgatebuyer]

Go get 'em, Paul. I've passed 3 of my cases to my local Trading Standards Team and I hope they show half the determination you have in tackling this issue

[paulwlton]

Go get 'em, Paul. I've passed 3 of my cases to my local Trading Standards Team and I hope they show half the determination you have in tackling this issue

 

I'm fortunate, the guys at my local TS are clued up on the CCA,

[caro]

I imagine you've taught them nearly everything they know Paul.

[paulwlton]

I imagine you've taught them nearly everything they know Paul.

 

I'd say i've made them aware of wrongdoing in previous meetings. There was consensus on one main point though, the F word, Shhhhh.

 

 

 

Paul

[paulwlton]

Excellent meeting with TS this morning.

 

Paul

[humbleman]

are you able to share

[The GodMother]

yes please do.

[Jeff2000]

Hi,

 

 

The suspense is now killing me!

 

 

Jeff.