accepted "gesture of goodwill"

[GotMugd]

If I accepted a gesture of goodwill as full & final settlement, (a long time ago, £150 for £2000ish if charges), is that game over? Or can I say it was an unfair contract?

[livelylad]

If I accepted a gesture of goodwill as full & final settlement, (a long time ago, £150 for £2000ish if charges), is that game over? Or can I say it was an unfair contract?

 

Game over you made a settlement with them. Bad move .

 

You can claim for further charges from the date of the agreement.

[GuidoT]

It is possibly maybe game over, but post (your letter included if you have one) in full the actual wording from the Lloyds letter and we will tell you.

 

There are many ways where a settlement is not full and final. If, for example, they wrote to you and then just deposited the £150.00 into your account, with no written response from you accepting the offer.

 

However, if they wrote to you and sent you a cheque, through your conduct of cashing the cheque you will probably have accepted their offer.

 

For £2K it is certainly worth investigating further.

[hagenuk]

This is not necessarily the case. For any agreement to be binding in English law each party to the agreement must provide what is termed 'consideration'. This simply means something of value in the eyes of the law. With these offers in full and final settlement your consideration consists of a promise not to sue for the remainder. The bank however, does not provide any consideration because they are only giving back what in law belongs to you. The law does not enforce onesided promises. In order to establish that they have provided consideration they would have to prove that the charges were lawful.

 

So any agreement regarding the amount accepted by you for the is meaningless and you may pursue the remainder of the charges, unless - and this is highly unlikely - the agreement was made by deed.

[GuidoT]

Hagenuk, for what it is worth, I do not agree with your point relating to consideration. The fact that the Banks are paying a sum of money is good consideration.

 

If you follow through your argument to its logical conclusion, then that means none of the offers made by the banks that have been subsequently accepted by claimants are binding, as the banks are only giving you back your money. This cannot be correct.

 

Additionally why would banks make any partial offers to settle matter, if they are unenforceable in law? If, as you say, the sum they are offering, is only returning back you money and therefore does not amount to good consideration.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that we consider the banks have taken our money, the banks do not accept this point and are offering money back that they consider is theirs.

 

Anyway this does not really help the thread starter, GotMugd post the wording here of the settlement correspondence and I am sure further advice with ensue.

[livelylad]

The Op has contacted me with teh following message.

Sorry, it's actually for my mum. We don't have anything, it was a few years ago

 

Thanks all the same.

[zootscoot]

Notwithstanding the fact that we consider the banks have taken our money, the banks do not accept this point and are offering money back that they consider is theirs.

 

 

Yes but to show that it is theirs they would have to show that the bank charges were lawful which they are not going to do.

 

Claim it back I know of at least one other who has been successful. It matters not the wording of any agreement but more the form. Ie if it was made by deed (the document must state that it is a deed and must be signed and witnessed) or if it was a Tomlin order (generaly after court proceedings have commenced) then you won't be able to. But if it was simply a written document with no such formalities then you should be able to claim it back.

[Mindzai]

Hagenuk, for what it is worth, I do not agree with your point relating to consideration. The fact that the Banks are paying a sum of money is good consideration.

 

No. The money they are paying is already yours, therefore it is not classed as consideration.

 

If you follow through your argument to its logical conclusion, then that means none of the offers made by the banks that have been subsequently accepted by claimants are binding, as the banks are only giving you back your money. This cannot be correct.

 

As zootscoot mentions that depends on the circumstances surrounding the repayment. In cases such as this though, it is correct.

 

Additionally why would banks make any partial offers to settle matter, if they are unenforceable in law? If, as you say, the sum they are offering, is only returning back you money and therefore does not amount to good consideration.

 

Why would banks take the charges in the first place when they are unenforceable by law? Because it makes them more money.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that we consider the banks have taken our money, the banks do not accept this point and are offering money back that they consider is theirs.

 

Just because the bank says it, doesn't mean it's true. That point is up to a judge to decide, and we all know how reluctant the banks are to let that happen.