ALL
ENQUIRIES ARE TREATED IN THE STRICTEST CONFIDENCE.
Examples.
We
prevented the following matter from ending
up in the Courts where the outcome is uncertain.
It is a fact that a high percentage of consumers
loose against the banks due to lack of funds
and other reasons. In this instance
a settlement was negotiated that was amiable
to both parties that certainly prevented insurmountable
legal costs, loss of time and stress to family.
In addition, certain critical issues were
documented that the consumer could revisit
at a later date.
EXAMPLE
A
Customer 'A' received a pay out
figure in January for $435,000 and five months
later, with no explanation, the layout figure
increased to $563,000. When asked for an
explanation the bank advised "the bank had
computer problems in January" then later said
"the balances provided were correct". Solicitor
requests for further explanation went unanswered
and as settlement was looming, we negotiated
with the bank whereby they agreed to reduce
the amount in dispute by $60,000 and with
further negotiation increased the reduction
to $82,500. The problems didn't end there;
the bank officers contacted prospective buyers,
potentially damaging sales, bank statements
didn't reflect money paid, interest subsidies
were paid to the bank and the bank refused
to place these funds towards monthly payments
which was not in accordance with the intention
of the subsidy and interest rates were increased
with no notice, just to name a few.
EXAMPLE
B
Customer 'B' received a demand to repay
his debt within 48 hours. Upon researching
their file, it was clear the bank had no right
to issue the demand and when put on notice
to withdraw, they did so stating the customer
was not in default, sadly not offering any
apology. Within months the bank then attempted
to impose new conditions to the loan that
contradicted those previously agreed to along
with the threat that if the customer did not
comply, he would be deemed to be in default.
Once again the bank, by lack of action, proved
it was wrong. Further research of the file
revealed an incorrect interest rate was being
charged and amounts that the bank agreed to
write-off were subsequently debited to the
account years later. These amounts were all
refunded. Copies of bank statements were received
that were different to those received in the
normal course. In response to queries regarding
the two sets of bank statements received with
different debits/credits amounts, different
balances and wording, the bank stated that
"both sets of statements provide a correct
reflection of your loan account".
Who ever thought there would be numerous
balances for the one account. This is
a common occurrence!
EXAMPLE
C
Customer
'C' was provided with a payout in September
for approximately $42,000 and with this information
made a decision to sell a property to repay
the debt. Within weeks, the bank changed the
payout, increasing it to $53,000. The customer
contacted the bank and was advised that the
bank has one account with interest and one
without. The bank agreed to send an itemised
account showing at how the new figure was
arrived. What was received by the customer
was a second set of statements entitled "Loan
reconstruction report" that was completely
different to the statements received in the
ordinary course. This customer was not in
default and repayments were up to date.
EXAMPLE
D
Customer 'D' had his machinery sold
by his bank at liquidation. The bank had incorrectly
recorded the hours of use on the machinery.
This subsequently caused the machinery to
be sold for scrap metal value. Accordingly
once this was brought to the banks attention,
they dropped their claim.
EXAMPLE
E
Customer 'E' became involved in court
proceeding with their bank; the debt being
a major issue of the dispute. Despite the
customers numerous requests for bank statements,
the bank supplied simulated documents purporting
to be bank statements that did not accurately
record the customers account balance.
Some years later the customer obtained the
internal bank records that showed the actual
account balance was hundreds of thousands
overstated. The matter is now back in court.
