NATIONWIDE IN COURT

[gomadnomad]

Nice one! Bet you get really P*!*!*D up tonight

[toneighty170]

Well done

[Bookworm]

YEE-HA!!!!!!!

[towiedyer]

Awesome news

 

Here's to hoping many more people can share similar victories over the coming months.

 

We will win!

[Seminole]

Fantastically well done.

 

This case proves once and for all the weakness of the bank's/ building society's position. If they have to reverse themselves out of a court case because they are so terrified of having to face up to this issue in court, then it bodes well for everyone else.

[Dave Johnson]

Well done

Dave

[Spiceskull]

If they have to reverse themselves out of a court case because they are so terrified of having to face up to this issue in court, then it bodes well for everyone else.

 

What gets me is that the banks and their teams must be FULLY aware of this possibility before it gets that far. Surely they must now realise that people prepared to get to the court steps are not going to back out at the last minute...

 

Why don't they just unconditionally, and without prejudice, accept claims as and when they are raised. This would leave the customer with a little less bile in their bellies, the bank with a little less egg on their face and the lawyers with a little less loot in their deep pockets...

 

And it still does not preclude groups such as this from contesting the lawfulness of charges...

[paulson1985]

i am so pleaseed this is grat news and must be a releif to you.

 

now go and get plastered you deserve it.

[joneshousehold]

Very well done. Shame they managed to get out of paying you the confidentiality fee. That would have been even more amusing. We were thinking about it all day so much so that my husband rang me at work to tell me you had won! It's fantastic news. I think we may even have a celebratory drink for you - pass me the glass. What with that and the cricket - there is only so much celebration you can take in one day.

 

Do you think by the way that the date of 22nd March was picked because it was a big news day (the budget and all that) so that if they had to go to court it wasn't likely to get much coverage or am I just getting too cynical now?

[Drivewasher]

Well Done!! I'm well chuffed for you!

 

One point that concerns me though I am not a legal person, is the comment the Judge made re being confused as to why bank where paying you when you owed them, If a Judge can't grasp the situation re legalities in contract law, after all it's been explained to him in your submissions to court, then when a case does actually have to be Judged by a Judge what chance have we got. Especially if we get that Judge

[Spiceskull]

Do you think by the way that the date of 22nd March was picked because it was a big news day (the budget and all that) so that if they had to go to court it wasn't likely to get much coverage or am I just getting too cynical now?

 

OMG - a good day to bury bad news...! Probably not, but I wouldn't put it past them...

[BankFodder]

Very well done. Shame they managed to get out of paying you the confidentiality fee.

They didn't really "manage to get out of it". They merely decided that it wasn't worth it. they wanted it for nothing. The result is that you can read about it here and discuss it fully. Not a shame at all

 

Do you think by the way that the date of 22nd March was picked because it was a big news day (the budget and all that) so that if they had to go to court it wasn't likely to get much coverage or am I just getting too cynical now?

Very fanciful.

This is a date which was allocated by the court. Has nothing to do with the parties.

[BankFodder]

Well Done!! I'm well chuffed for you!

 

One point that concerns me though I am not a legal person, is the comment the Judge made re being confused as to why bank where paying you when you owed them, If a Judge can't grasp the situation re legalities in contract law, after all it's been explained to him in your submissions to court, then when a case does actually have to be Judged by a Judge what chance have we got. Especially if we get that Judge

I don't think that there is any criticsm of the judge here. I am sure that he grasped the legalities very well. he merely misread the document for a moment. I understand that when he was corrected, that he started to realise very quickly that something quite unusual had happened here and in fact he was quite amused about it all the way through.

[Spiceskull]

Regarding confidentiality fees/clauses:

 

On the assumption I am offered an obscene bribe, sorry, fee to keep confidence, once signed I assume it to be legally binding. Correct?

 

To disclose information regarding the case once signed would be considered 'contempt of court.' Correct?

 

However, if I was subpoenaed to provide that very same information in a court of law, I would be legally required to do so. Correct?

 

Therefore, before signing any document would it be fair to make it known to anyone 'who may consider subpoenaeing me in a future case' that I am about to sign a confidentiality agreement for something that may be relevant should they decide to go to court in the future?

[BankFodder]

Regarding confidentiality fees/clauses:

 

On the assumption I am offered an obscene bribe, sorry, fee to keep confidence, once signed I assume it to be legally binding. Correct?

Correct

 

To disclose information regarding the case once signed would be considered 'contempt of court.' Correct??

No. It would be a breach of confidence

 

However, if I was subpoenaed to provide that very same information in a court of law, I would be legally required to do so. Correct??

If you were compelled by the judge, yes

 

Therefore, before signing any document would it be fair to make it known to anyone 'who may consider subpoenaeing me in a future case' that I am about to sign a confidentiality agreement for something that may be relevant should they decide to go to court in the future?

No, wholly unnecessary

[disneyman]

Thanks again for answering these questions BF, I thought I was going tgo be in for a busy day answering them all !!!.

 

Thanks to you all for your support. You should all go out there and give em hell.

 

Its good to see that so many of you support this site.

 

cheers

Disneyman

[Spiceskull]

No. It would be a breach of confidence

 

I stand corrected.

 

No, wholly unnecessary

 

Fair enough. I suppose that once settled, I would be morally obliged to draw a line under the whole affair.

[gothicf0rm]

ive wondered too why banks dont pay out without prejudice either when they have a customer complain seriously about them. in the case of my bank it cost them an extra 50 quid in interest PLUS £120 in court costs. what is the commercial logic of attempting to obstruct a customer complaint against you that you have no legal justification in trying to stop and goes up by more each day.

[alanfromderby]

ive wondered too why banks dont pay out without prejudice either when they have a customer complain seriously about them. in the case of my bank it cost them an extra 50 quid in interest PLUS £120 in court costs. what is the commercial logic of attempting to obstruct a customer complaint against you that you have no legal justification in trying to stop and goes up by more each day.

 

 

I think it simply comes down to "staying power". If only 50% drop out when they realise their bank is not going to roll over easily, then they have saved money overall.

[gothicf0rm]

but why would i drop out after i have gone to the trouble and expense of starting court action for example?

[MondeoST24]

They are probably hoping that you will bottle it right at the last minute, i've heard some settle a couple of days before the hearing date.

[alanfromderby]

The banks would surmise that it is one thing putting in the CC claim...it is another totally to have the bottle to actually be prepared to go into court. They therefore embark on a "Deal-or-no-Deal" stratagy, in the hope that a reasonable percentage of people will capitulate and take their offer.

 

As in the TV programme, if the banker offers enough hard cash it becomes very tempting for the individual to accept - especially if they need the money at that moment, and they are not 100% sure that in the end they will win in court.

 

From my perspective, I am relishing the fight, and am enjoying the chance to be able to turn the tables for once. I am also comfortable with the thought of going into court, as I am happy in my own mind that the legal arguments stand up.

 

Many others do not have that resolve, and/or would feel very nervous about going to court. The banks are relying on this as a way of saving money, and a quick calculation suggests that they only have to agree a 50% deal, with a quarter of llitigants for this brinkmanship to be worth it financially.

[disneyman]

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group