Abbey or Santander lawyer blurb ...

Smasher

Yeh they're trying it on alright!

We believe that your claim is fundamentally flawed and we reserve the right to show this correspondence to the court and to apply for wasted costs on the basis of our offer being refused. Our settlement offer shall remain open for 10 days.

You may be aware of the decision in the Supreme Court which would no doubt bolster my Client's position "

That is a blatent and foul attempt to misinform and intimidate. If I were you, I'd be quite keen for a judge to see that letter. IMO they have just given you a strong bargaining tool with which to negotiate full setllement..

harryhound

I thought you could always put "without prejudice" on a letter and it could not be produced in court?
Or am I out of date?
That way a protracted negotiation can go on until you get fed up with the bullying and send a letter saying so, hoping for the notorious "steps of the court house" settlement..

HAVEFAITH

Smasher wrote: »

Yeh they're trying it on alright!



That is a blatent and foul attempt to misinform and intimidate. If I were you, I'd be quite keen for a judge to see that letter. IMO they have just given you a strong bargaining tool with which to negotiate full setllement..

Wow, that's an interesting perspective, one I never thought of. Thanks for your support, it's helped a lot!!

Premier_2

harryhound wrote: »

I thought you could always put "without prejudice" on a letter and it could not be produced in court?
Or am I out of date?
That way a protracted negotiation can go on until you get fed up with the bullying and send a letter saying so, hoping for the notorious "steps of the court house" settlement..

Essentially yes, but not always. 'Without Prejudice' is often used in letters where a genuine attempt at negotiating a mutually acceptable resolution Out of court is being made (something which all courts would like to hope is being made before any hearing) ... and if one is not reached, it cannot be relied upon in court in evidence of support or otherwise, at least in part, of the claim.

However, it is sometimes possible to produce correspondence even though it does have the words 'Without Prejudice' on in certain circumstances. e.g. perhaps if it contains intimidation (or bullying if you will), especially where that then becomes a criminal matter.

In this case, I think this is a genuine attempt to negotiate a settlement out of court and is not intimidation; incompetence perhaps
Moreover, I suspect the correspondence does not contain the words 'Without Prejudice' anyway, not only because the OP has not said so, but because it refers to a right to actually produce it in court.

What's good for the goose ....

Personally I don't think it will probably do either side much benefit producing that correspondence to the court; better to keep to the salient points of the claim in question rather than introduce what essentially is a distraction. But hey, what do I know? I am not a lawyer.

Smasher

Premier wrote: »

In this case, I think this is a genuine attempt to negotiate a settlement out of court and is not intimidation; incompetence perhaps

:laugh: Yeh right, a bank wouldn't behave like this intentionally would they?
Do you seriously believe that after the colossal legal effort this bank has made during the 5 years of this highly publicised issue, they could now be so unsure of the legal position that they still don't realise the difference between a bank charges claim and a credit card/store card claim? Wakey wakey mate!

natweststaffmember

Smasher wrote: »

:laugh: Yeh right, a bank wouldn't behave like this intentionally would they?
Do you seriously believe that after the colossal legal effort this bank has made during the 5 years of this highly publicised issue, they could now be so unsure of the legal position that they still don't realise the difference between a bank charges claim and a credit card/store card claim? Wakey wakey mate!

To give Premier his dues(not that I want to ), I think a lot of us have in the past credited the bank with more knowledge than is necessary or knowing more than they actually did. I think they're wrong but intimidatory? I don't think so either. Full of crap on this occasion would be my interpretation.

Smasher

We believe that your claim is fundamentally flawed and we reserve the right to show this correspondence to the court and to apply for wasted costs on the basis of our offer being refused.

The intention of that sentence is to intimidate the claimant into thinking he is risking an enormous costs bill and it is based on a flase assertion. It may not exactly be blackmail of the century, but intimidatory nonetheless..
Maybe after all this time, I have just become so distrusting of banks (and any financial organisation for that matter) that I can no longer bring myself to believe that a letter like this could be an honest mistake, but I just don't buy it.

harryhound

It kind of smacks of the Mac Libel trial does it not?
Plus the current problems with scientific debate being threatened with libel action 6 & 7 figure costs?
http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/story.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_Restaurants_v_Morris_&_Steel
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227086.200-comment-dont-criticise-or-well-sue.html
[Very interesting, that third link will not allow you to view the New Scientist article BUT if you copy and past it into Google the link will appear first on the list. Click that and you will go directly to the article. Presumably NS is strying to get us to sign up for a magazine subscription but is happy to take a free listing off Google, in the hope af attracting new readers?]

HAVEFAITH

Hi all,

Finally achieved a FULL REFUND!! .... 6 months but worth the fight!

JC_Derby

Excellent!