Gestures Of Goodwill: What's The Deal?

[crfx250]

Gestures Of Goodwill: Whats The Deal?

I 've got a court date next month with Barclays and expect at some point

to be offered full settlement as a 'gesture of goodwill'. I made my mind up

a long time ago not to accept settlement on these terms as the claim is

made on the basis of the return of unfair and unlawful charges, and that's

what I want back. Also I refuse to be patronised and demeaned by being

bought off to allow the bank to continue to rifle my account at will.

 

The chances are the judge will deem me a vexacious litigant and award

the bank costs but frankly I don't give a monkies. If there's a 1 percent

chance the court agrees, thats good enough.

 

What is the definitive reason (reasons) for banks to settle in this way and

has anyone actually had a 'refund of their charges'?

[Bookworm]

They don't have to give a reason. They do however, like yourself, have a duty to settle out of court.

 

The usual reasons given are "Gesture of Good Will" and/or "uneconomical to defend", with the odd "mindful of court management time".

 

Barclays will settle before court. If you go to court regardless, the judge will not even consider listening to your case, except to maybe award costs against you. I fail to see what you are trying to achieve here, apart from being a pointless martyr for the cause. At worse, you could end up losing your case, if the judge decides to dismiss your case, which would then give the bank a victory, technically speaking. Good going, martyr.

 

Nope, the more I look at it, the less I get it.

[crfx250]

The money just is'nt the issue. Like I say I don't believe a gesture of good will settle's my claim. The charges are unfair and unlawful. I know it, the court knows it and so does the bank. If it ca'nt be recognised as such then I'm not interested. With the greatest of respect I'm not asking anyone to get it. I'ts just the way I see things.

[Bookworm]

In that case, you should have ticked the box asking for a declaration on your claim form. This way, even if your claim gets settled, the judge would still have been asked to declare on the issue.

 

Bravado is one thing, knowledge is another.

[crfx250]

Fairy nuff

[crfx250]

Actually Bookworm, I thought contributors to this site had the freedom to

express their views and beliefs. I also think that they should be able to do this without sarcastic and belittling remarks from moderators.

 

My thread and post were entirely polite and made in good faith. Your responses were out of order.

[Bookworm]

I am not known around this forum for pussyfotting around with my opinions. And my opinion is that your stance is foolhardy and ill thought-out, and reveals a scary lack of knowledge of the legal procedure, which could ultimately prove detrimental to a lot of present and future claimants, if you were to hand an easy victory to the bank.

In that respect, I make no apology for pointing out your potential error.

 

Having said that, we have a procedure in place for complaints here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/66282-cag-how-complain.html

 

So be my guest if you feel that hard done by.

[crfx250]

Did I ask for your opinion? No

 

Did I make it clear your opinion was'nt sought? Yes

 

Were you unreasonabley rude and discourteous? No question about it.

 

Will my claim have a negative effect on others? Why should it?

 

And just who was it that offered a ton of money to bail out an action on behalf of this site for no other reason than furthering the cause of other claiments?

 

And just to remind you, again, I have an absolute right to deal with my claim as I see fit. Just use a bit of basic manners and remember that the opinions of others are just as valid as yours.

[Guest NATTIE]

crfx- Bookworm has been a Moderator for a long time and the advice given is not given without it being asked a billion times before. We all write sometimes to the point as we have seen it a lot before. To be honest had i not been doing other things today and not spotted the thread, i would have answered similarly. You lose your claim if you do not accept settlement if offered, you lose the chance to claim on those charges if you fail to accept a settlement. I admire bravado but WINNING is better than LOSING.

[crfx250]

I rather doubt you would would have answered similarly as I'm sure your reply would have been free of arrogance and insults.

 

My view is that accepting a conditional settlement would'nt constitute a victory but merely re-establish the status quo. I'd rather go down fighting

and feel at ease with myself that I did.

[Bookworm]

Will my claim have a negative effect on others? Why should it?

 

As stated before: If you lose and get costs awarded against you, you are giving the bank a VICTORY. Have a read of the Citi threads and see what they have been doing with the one dodgy win they've had: They are using it as a sledgehammer to put off people from proceeding with their claims. They are using it (even though it was small claims) to show to other judges and say: See, one of your colleagues says we are right. It would be naive in the extreme to believe any other bank wouldn't jump on the same chance when handed to them on a silver platter.

 

And just who was it that offered a ton of money to bail out an action on behalf of this site for no other reason than furthering the cause of other claiments?

 

No idea. Who?

 

And just to remind you, again, I have an absolute right to deal with my claim as I see fit.

Absolutely. Who said you didn't?

 

Just use a bit of basic manners and remember that the opinions of others are just as valid as yours.

 

Simply because I point out the major flaw in your plan doesn't mean a lack of manners. My task on this forum is to help and guide those who would make mistakes otherwise, and to point out glaring mistakes as a warning on how not to do it for those who have little experience in the matter.

 

I won't post again on this thread as people reading this will hopefully read this and not be tempted to follow in your footsteps, and that is the important thing.

 

As previously stated, if you are not happy with what I said or how I said it, feel free to use the complaints procedure.

 

Have a pleasant weekend.

[adarling2006]

can i just jump in here, in IMO the banks make it hard on us to get any headway, look at how long some people have to wait to get compliance with SAR requests and such like. To be honest if you do go ahead with your claim as is and lose then all your doing is making life even harder for those with other cases to battle it out. If they offer you a settlement take it, fight the battles you can win just now and save the martyrdom as we don't need one.

[barracad]

Did I ask for your opinion? No

 

I've read your first post and it looks like you were asking for opinions. So the thread title was rhetorical and you didn't actually want any replies?

 

You started a thread asking for opinions, you got them. If you don't like them, fine - but one would expect you at least take them into consideration as it was after all you who requested said opinions in the first place.

[half ax I]

crfx250

 

Whatever they dress it up as in words, it amounts to a refund of charges. Claimant gets what they wanted, ie their money back. Arguing over the wording isn't going to help and I can't imagine the court being happy with this sort of approach. Just imagine the conversation in front of the judge.

 

DJ - You asked for your money back and they have paid you what you asked for.

OP - Yes but they said it was a Goodwill Payment and not a Refund of Charges

DJ - And your point is?

OP - Well I want them to admit it was a refund of charges.

DJ - Why?

OP - It's a point of principle really.

DJ - So not a point of law then? Goodbye and here's the bill for the defendants costs.

 

For those cases where judgement has been made and money has been forthcoming as a result of a court order then one can assume that this is a refund of charges, interest & costs as per the claim.

 

Waste of time IMO. I don't thinks there even that 1 percent chance that the court will agree with you.

 

Just my opinion/thoughts.

[Guest bong]

Well I can think of another scenario

 

 

DJ - You asked for your money back and they have paid you what you asked for.

OP - Yes but they said it was a Goodwill Payment and not a Refund of Charges

DJ - And your point is?

OP - Well I want the court to determine that the charges were and are unlawful penalties, so that the bank can no longer continue to charge these amounts.

DJ - Why?

OP - Because my bank, a multinational multibillion pound corporation, is operating outside the law and as a consumer I do not expect to have to take my bank to court every time it unlawfully decides to help itself to my money and it has not given me any assurance that it is going to stop these operations.

DJ - So it is a point of law then.

 

 

also, just my opinion

[half ax I]

bong - good point and well put and now rereading the original post I can see a different point of view on this. The POC that most people are probably using "claims return of amounts debited" so I guess one would also need to request something else in the POC such as a ruling stating that such debits to the account are unlawful and must not be applied to the account in future. Got to get them into court first I guess and then I guess it will go up through the courts thereafter.

 

S

[kippy2]

They don't have to give a reason. They do however, like yourself, have a duty to settle out of court.

 

The usual reasons given are "Gesture of Good Will" and/or "uneconomical to defend", with the odd "mindful of court management time".

 

Barclays will settle before court. If you go to court regardless, the judge will not even consider listening to your case, except to maybe award costs against you. I fail to see what you are trying to achieve here, apart from being a pointless martyr for the cause. At worse, you could end up losing your case, if the judge decides to dismiss your case, which would then give the bank a victory, technically speaking. Good going, martyr.

 

Nope, the more I look at it, the less I get it.

 

dont see anything from bookworms post that is arrogant! she is telling you like it is, whether it a bank claim, or any other claim, the DJ will dismiss it, as we all know 99.9% barclays pay up! (and barclays are known for their form in settling claims ie 11th hour! ) so what case does the judge have to hear?

sorry but i agree with bookworm.

[Guest bong]

If the cases are uneconomical to defend, and the banks really cared about wasting court time, they would not be forcing people to take the route of the court claim before they hand back our money.

 

They refuse to refund the money when asked by letter - and they know from the day you request your statements that they will end up paying the money back, so I can see why some people, myself included, think like crfx250 that they deserve to end up in the court room, as this is the game they are playing.

 

It is simply not goodwill, they would not be refunding money if they were entitled to have it.

 

They have a choice to settle claims before it gets to the point of litigation, but they would rather see people go through this massive inconvenience because they know the majority of their customers are scared of going to court.

 

If your house was burgled and the thieves said to you "but it is ours, take us to court if you want it back!" and they did this to every person in every street throughout the country, every month, would you happily walk away from it if they dumped your possessions back in your garden the day before going to court, saying it was a goodwill gesture, but we'll be back to rob you again next week?

 

The banks are financially crippling the most vulnerable in our society, and I don't think its a case of being a martyr. I think it is demanding a lawful service from your bank and not to be treated with such disdain.

 

rant over, carry on folks!

[crfx250]

Just for the record my original post set out my circumstances and asked the question ''What is the definitive reason (reasons) for banks to settle in this way and has anyone actually had a 'refund of their charges?''

 

Bookworm did'nt answer the question but instead gave his/her opinion on my circustances in a less tham respectfull way. I have no doubt that Bookworm's advice on procedure and legal issues is excelent and have helped numerous claiments. I don't see things in purely in legal terms.

I just want some natural justice.

 

The particular claim is for a relatively small proportion of charges I'm claiming which I'm yet to file.

 

I don't see myself as a martyr, just some bloke who wants what he thinks is right. If the court don't see it that way then it's tough but at least I would feel easy knowing I tried and went down fighting.

 

It aint no big deal

[adarling2006]

if you wanted to make sure that the banks had to face judgement why didn't you take a tom brennan stance and claim for agrrevated and exemplary damages. if u have another claim to do i'd take the money they offer now and then take a stand with the other claim and make sure that a judgement if filed against them.

[half ax I]

crfx250

 

I just want some natural justice.

 

I think that is where you may be disappointed. I have been in frontof DJ looking for natural justice before. Judges response was "I sympathise with your case, however Claimant has followed the due process so you lose".

 

Natural Justice doesn't seem to be what the courts are about in my experience.

[Kurt_Hamster]

Just for the record my original post set out my circumstances and asked the question ''What is the definitive reason (reasons) for banks to settle in this way and has anyone actually had a 'refund of their charges?''

 

I take it you aren't used to asking things in public fora?

 

An opinion, especially an enlightened one, is an answer to a question. Just because you don't like the answer is immaterial.

 

Bookworm did'nt answer the question but instead gave his/her opinion on my circustances in a less tham respectfull way. I have no doubt that Bookworm's advice on procedure and legal issues is excelent and have helped numerous claiments. I don't see things in purely in legal terms.

I just want some natural justice.

Then may I suggest you employ a solicitor and do it properly. I rather doubt the small claims track is the way to do it especially as I'm led to belive, BICBW, that precedents cannot be set at County Court level.

 

I don't see myself as a martyr, just some bloke who wants what he thinks is right. If the court don't see it that way then it's tough but at least I would feel easy knowing I tried and went down fighting.

As an inveterate people watcher it seems to me that you are the sort of bloke who likes it "my way or the highway" which accounts for your dislike of the nay-saying to your rather ill thought out idea.

 

It aint no big deal

Your constant complaining negates that I'm afraid.

[Bookworm]

I had said I wouldn't respond here any more, but this needs clarification.

 

when was the last time anyone got the banks into the courtroom.I can answer that without anyone drawing a breath NEVER!!

 

In my case, 12th October 2006. And I went in because although the other side said they would pay up, they wanted to attach confidentiality to settlement, and there is no way I was going to let them do that.

 

The judge was NOT impressed, I can tell you. And even though he had no choice but to find in our favour, he made it clear off the record as we were leaving that if he had had any other way to go, "things would not have gone so smoothly for us". He also made it very clear during the hearing that he felt we were in there only to score points against the bank, and that he was intensely displeased with what he saw as a waste of his time.

 

some of the advice your giving is totally incorrect.

 

I suggest that you be prepared to substantiate that, complete with links, and I'll happily report it myself to more knowledgeable people, so that they can support me or correct me, whichever is appropriate.

 

what makes you think that a DJ will dismiss it have you not heard of an "abuse of process" which is what the banks are literally doing at the moment.

 

Yes, it is. So is carrying on an action when out-of-court settlement has been offered. Have you heard of the term "vexatious litigant"?

 

I personally would support the OP if he thinks that he has a chance of getting the banks into court

Which he doesn't, that's the point.

The bank will settle. They will then write to the courts and say they have settled. At that point, there is no case to answer. The claim is a monetary one, once money has been paid, that is IT.

 

At the end of it, if OP's aim was to get the bank into court, ALL he had to do was tick a box on his claim form, asking for a declaration. He didn't. He pursued a money claim, a money claim is what he'll get.

 

Bong, the above also answers your posts. But of course, you already know that, we've had this conversation when you wanted to do the same with your claim.

 

crfx250, I did answer your questions in #1. You chose to ignore that and decided instead to go on the attack, moving attention from the weakness of your case and turning the spotlight on my alleged rudeness. A bit like the banks saying it's our fault for getting charges when they're the ones breaking the law, really.

 

And the fact that you want natural justice is laudable. But Small Claims Court and a simple monetary claim is not the right way to get it. You don't see things purely in legal terms, well, the courts do. That's their job.

 

Look, I'm all in favour of getting the banks in court, but not if it means giving them the slightest chance of scoring a win, that would be totally self-defeating. Surely anyone can see that? :?

[tamadus]

I can fully understand the op wanting to get a definitive judgement, BUT, it isnt going to make the slightest bit of difference to how the banks approach claims.

 

Case law already exists which says penalty charges are unlawful and that is unlikely to change in the near future, if at all.

 

As has already been pointed out by several posters the court will look at the claim and know that the monetary settlement has already been offered. Any further action after that will be regarded as purely vexatious.

 

The whole purpose of 'goodwill gestures' is to save face. Now the op in this thread may not worry about that but if he did go into court to fight a battle over 3 words the entire claims process will take a backward step.

 

If the op really wants to take this sort of case on then he needs to start the claim with that intention in mind and understand its going to become a long drawn out battle which will involve the high court, and probably still fail. Seems like a very expensive way of trying to prove a point.

 

Courts are NOT there to give Brownie points and Blue Peter Badges, they are there to adjudicate in disputes and take a very dim view of their time being wasted in attempts at moral victories.

 

As much as I understand and agree with the op's motives,this is not a good idea.

[Guest bong]

Bong, the above also answers your posts. But of course, you already know that, we've had this conversation when you wanted to do the same with your claim.

 

Yes, you and I have had this conversation before Bookie, on my Barclaycard claim, and I took your advice because it was what I needed to hear - I was without doubt not in a financial position to take the risk of being ordered to pay the bank's costs.

 

Had money been no object however, I might have taken this risk because I think there are judges who see things differently and I am incensed by the banks stance of 'we will continue to charge you, our charges are fair, lawful and transparent, if you don't like it we will close your account' -while continuing to dish out refunds.

 

Point taken though that it would be advised to ask for a declaration in the claim. If this is a solution I don't know why people aren't doing that as standard, it doesn't sound difficult to do. I wasn't aware that it was an option when I first set out.

 

However, crfx's case is slightly different because he said in his post that he is not bothered about costs of losing.

 

This is a personal opinion, and may not be correct, but I don't think that if crfx loses the outcome would affect anyone else. Firstly we know that county court judges are not setting a precedent, as we have learnt first hand in the case of the Lincoln judge, who is striking out defences as an abuse of process. The majority of judges are not following his example or issuing the draft orders. Secondly, even if crfx loses on the point of costs, it would be for wasting the courts time, not a judgement on the lawfulness of the charges. When we lose say just on the point of the limitation act, we haven't actually lost the case for the charges being penalties. 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.