How to deal with "goodwill payments"

[bill-k]

If the bank makes a partial payment of our claim, without our agreement to this, then they have no right to have their losses mitigated, IMO. If we return the payment to them, and carry on with our claim, the nwe make no alteration to the claim in respect of this returned payment.

 

If the payment is not returned, then we must hold it safely until either: it is returned; or it is used toward settling the claim. Until such time as either of these two things happen, we are under no obligation to give the bank any credit for interest on this payment while we are holding it, IMO.

 

Similarly, we are under no obligation to compensate the bank for whatever interest this partial payment might have earned while we were holding it for them. No duty of loss mitigation is owed to the bank here, as far as I can see, as there has been no agreement by the claimant that this payment should have been made.

 

Just my take on it. Give it a bashing.

[rustyboxx]

Well said Bill, my sentiments exactly

[Pondfish]

Bill,

The following quote from Vamp's famous post #89 (the nearest i have to a bible on this subject ) would suggest we do have a duty to mitigate any losses?

 

If you do not receive a breakdown, you have to allocate the part-settlement figure as you see fit - this includes your duty to mitigate any losses.

 

If you have claimed simple interest, you can add a line onto your current spreadsheet as a negative figure using the date you received the part-settlement. This will calculate negative interest. The new totals will be the balance you are claiming. This works due to the nature of simple interest.

 

If you have claimed compounded interest you need to allocate any part-settlement to the oldest charges and interest first to take account mitigating losses.

 

 

 

What do you think?

[bill-k]

Bill,

The following quote from Vamp's famous post #89 (the nearest i have to a bible on this subject ) would suggest we do have a duty to mitigate any losses?

What do you think?

Much as I hate to disagree with a mod, I have little to lose these days !!

I disagree with Vamp on the duty of mitigation, if the part-payment received was neither what you have claimed nor what you have agreed to.

Sorry - everybody !!

[bram stoker]

I was led to believe that mitigating losses are not an opinion, but an integral part of the judicial system that you must adhere to. I think it goes back to the overriding objectives.

 

Sorry I can't state any further where the info comes from, it was told to me.

[photoman]

My thinking is this:

As these payments are usually offered with an accompanying letter stating something along the lines of "This is our final and full offer", and have been arrived at without any negotiation with the claimant at all, then this constitutes a unilateral decision on their behalf without any reference to the actual claim, which is totally unacceptable.

Thus if they are offered against the FULL debt, then you too should consider them as a payment against the FULL debt, rather than have to aportion them against any specific part.

These unilateral and arbitary payments are made to try to pursuade claimants to drop claims. My suggestion is to reject any terms attached, and respond by stating that you will only accept the sums as part payment against the whole, and will continue to pursue the balance as originally filed less the sum credited.

[bram stoker]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/25716-rejecting-offers.html

Hope you've all spotted the updated thread here.

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks Vamp for the link looks good.

 

How is the chambers revamp coming along or is it back open now?

[bram stoker]

Thanks Vamp for the link looks good.

 

How is the chambers revamp coming along or is it back open now?

Still with the builders mate.

[TANZARELLI]

Still with the builders mate.

 

Its just that lots of people are getting confused as not being able to open sheets etc, i have seen a number of posts now where this has been mentioned.

[bram stoker]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/182-6-interest-calculation-spreadsheets.html

There are plenty here for folk already.

 

Hope this helps for now.

[millymollymoo]

I was led to believe that mitigating losses are not an opinion, but an integral part of the judicial system that you must adhere to. I think it goes back to the overriding objectives.

 

Sorry I can't state any further where the info comes from, it was told to me.

 

 

Hi Vampiress,

 

I have rejected offers from goldfish with conditions and not mentioned part payment at all. Both claims are filed at court now. Have I done wrong then. The reason I rejected was because goldfish offered full charges + stat. I am claiming contractual and they do not like that.If I had accepted this in part payment, I would of not been able to file for the remainder as it would be just Contractual Interest and what chance would I have had convincing a court that I had accepted charges with stat and then wanted the remainder paid in contractual:confused:

 

This would of been struck out as they would of said I was charging double interest if you see my point.

 

This is the reason why I rejected it in full. Was I wrong then??

 

Milly X

[bram stoker]

Milly,

 

I don't think you were wrong. Personally I'd have settled for the full amount + stat, but I'm not confident of the arguements for contractual and am scared of judges cos I'm a wimp. Lol.

 

If the claim included conditions, you have good grounds to reject the offer.

 

This is updated advice further to my posts and discussions with others...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/25716-rejecting-offers.html

[bill-k]

Much as I hate to disagree with a Mod -

 

Vamp ain't scared of nobody !!!

[millymollymoo]

Milly,

 

I don't think you were wrong. Personally I'd have settled for the full amount + stat, but I'm not confident of the arguements for contractual and am scared of judges cos I'm a wimp. Lol.

 

If the claim included conditions, you have good grounds to reject the offer.

 

This is updated advice further to my posts and discussions with others...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/25716-rejecting-offers.html

 

 

Thank you vamp's {hope you don't mind me calling you that}

 

Since I wrote that last night I have decided to be cheeky nd to show I am being reasonable to the court, have a look at this letter and see what you think. This is about allocating the part payment as THET DO when they receive a payment. Interest first then charges. This leaves the claim open to chase the charges only if it gets that far and also show the judge you are being very reasonable in saving costs for them by knocking the growing interest off. Personally they would not have a argument to this because as I said this is exactly how they allocate our payments.

 

{REMOVED}

 

P.S Tweak away as it is a first rough version!!!!

 

 

milly XX

[bram stoker]

Am at work, so a quick scan. Your logic is incorrect. Allocating the part-settlement to the capital first will negate any further interest accruing, otherwise the capital remains and will accrue further interest as the days / weeks go by. Unfortunately this just leaves you with an arguement for the interest.

[millymollymoo]

Hi, I understand your busy. That was not what I was suggesting in the letter. I was suggesting allocating the part payment to the interest first and then the charges as that is what they do when they receive our payments. I have taken out some bits about their save to costs now.

 

In my case fortunately the amount they have offered knocks out the whole contractual Interest that I have claimed and 8 of the charges and leaves no interest remaining, when applied that way and just the charges to argue about.

 

Milly X

[millymollymoo]

Actually now I may scrap that letter and not send a rejection at all what do you think? This letter was received in response to my original rejection letter from the LBA of this amount offered before court and this arrived after the filing at court not budging and with same conditions when they were not aware I had filed.

 

Could say lost in post never received maybe....

 

The only worry is they have been marking letters without predjudise as save to costs. I am still worried about duty to mitigate as I have rejected each offer before and they are obviously going to say I have been unreasonable.

 

 

Correct me though if you think I should reply.

 

Milly X

[bram stoker]

Where is your thread? What does the letter say? If it has conditions attached reject it completely and return the cheque in two halves.

 

If there are no conditions allocate as you see fit according to your own ability to judge what you would see fit as mitigating costs and continue your claim for the rest.

[millymollymoo]

Hi:)

 

My thread is here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/45909-millymollymoo-goldfish.html

 

Have taken your advice earlier and fully rejected the offer and listed their conditions as not acceptable in letter 4 of the library:)

 

Milly X:)

[Pondfish]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/25716-rejecting-offers.html

Hope you've all spotted the updated thread here.

 

Thanks for pointing out the update Vamp , and a big thanks to Jonni2bad for spending the time to produce these templates.

 

I'm sure this will clarify things for future "newbies", make the process a little easier, and render the banks latest tactics a little less effective

 

Pondfish

[millymollymoo]

Hi could someone help this poor girl here with what Capital One have done as in goodwill gesture on their defence. I cannot help:) They are up to dirty tricks again.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/62936-offer-capital-one.html

 

milly x

[nancies]

Hi All

I am having the same problems with Barclaycard as received my statements 6 months after requesting them and spoke to Carl Nutall who on 3 occasions told me he was putting them in the post. They finally arrived on the 14 December and I am now claiming charges back for being over my agreed credit limit. THis all started back last year when I cancelled my dd and asked them to reinstate it for the following month which they assured me they would do and is still to be done hence my balance keeps going up although I did keep making payments. Now it is £428 over agreed credit limit. I contacted Mr Nuttall in November who agreed to set up a dd and I am paying £40 a month until 1 July. I also received a letter from them on the 10 January with the following

 

"We note your efforts to bring your account up to date and as a one off gesture of goodwill, we have waived the remianing arrears on your account. This will not reduce your outstanding balane, however, your next statement will ask for your normal minimum payment without arrears.

As your balance is over the agreed credit limit, you may be contacted separately and your next minimum payment will include the over limit amount.

We hope our actions have helped you-please continue to pay in accorance with your monthly statements to keep your account in order. Your sincerely

Adrian Davies

Manager-Barclaycard

 

 

Can someone please explain what this means, does this mean they are refunding me all my late fees.

 

I would like to send and LBA letter and state in it that I would like to settle this before going to court. Can you advise on the wording so I can include a paragraph stating that they have paid out to other customers before going to court.

 

THanks for all your help with this website. Its fantastic

Any help would be appreciated.

Nancies

 

 

 

Can someone advise me on what to do from here???????????

[millymollymoo]

Where is your thread? What does the letter say? If it has conditions attached reject it completely and return the cheque in two halves.

 

If there are no conditions allocate as you see fit according to your own ability to judge what you would see fit as mitigating costs and continue your claim for the rest.

 

 

Vampiress I did take your advice and said that here. However am a bit worried now as what about my duty to mitigate losses in the eyes of the court.

 

The offer had conditions and one was a confidentiality clause saying if I breached that they would be entitled to demand return of the offer in full. Of course I have breached that as it is openly discussed om my thread.

 

So would that be a good enough reason for FULL rejection in the courts eyes?

 

I have been debating sending them another letter stating that the condition had already been breached.

 

Milly X:-)

 

Milly

[photoman]

Milly saw your posting

 

Vampiress I did take your advice and said that here. However am a bit worried now as what about my duty to mitigate losses in the eyes of the court.

 

The offer had conditions and one was a confidentiality clause saying if I breached that they would be entitled to demand return of the offer in full. Of course I have breached that as it is openly discussed om my thread.

Milly,

I would simply send them a letter stating (as many others on this site have done sucessfully) that you do not accept the amount, as it is clearly not the amount in question, nor do you accept their own self imposed terms including those regards confidentiality.

State that you will only accept the sum as part payment against the debt, without any conditions attached, and reserve the right to continue your claim for the correct amount. State, that if they do not accept this, then they are to take the payment back, and the claim will proceed in either circumstance. Perhaps as others have done, state that they have 7 days to respond to this or to accept the sums back, after which, if no response, you will consider they have accepted your terms, and shall keep the money as part payment and unconditionally. Look around for similar threads for ways to word this.

Remember, you are the claimant in this action, not them. You set the terms, not them. They cannot attempt to randomly determine their own terms and conditions.

Consider if the scenario were reversed, and you owed them money.

Do you think you would be entitled to simply decide a lower sum that you wished to give them in full and final settlement instead, and impose your own conditions too?

 

So would that be a good enough reason for FULL rejection in the courts eyes?

 

I have been debating sending them another letter stating that the condition had already been breached.

I don't think it has. You have posted anonymously, and cannot be identified. Anyhow, do not let them unnerve you. I would suggest you don't send them such a letter as it suggests you actually agreed with the terms of their offer, but have unfortunately broken them. They had no such right to impose such terms anyhow.

 

Milly X:-)

 

Milly