A&L Rejecting the new Legal Argument

[localguyNN]

After the test case was completed I received the standard computer generated letter tell me the bank was rejecting my complaint.

I sent the new letter detailing the CCA argument. I got a letter in the post this morning completely ignoring my entire argument stating that following the Supreme Court ruling the charges are fair and will not be refunded.

Should I bother writing back to them to tell them they have ignored my letter or just escalate it?

[Bookworm]

What did you expect? That they were going to say they were blown away by the new template and of course, please have all your money back?

If they choose to ignore it, that's their problem. Stick to your deadlines.

[BankFodder]

You don't actually have to enter into dialogue. As long as you show willing and make good regular attempts to hold reasonable discussions, there is little else you can do.
It goes in your favour that you have tried. It shows them up as unpleasant bullies if they won't engage with you without a court breathing down their nacks. So just go on to your next stage.

[disgruntledofcornwall]

Just had the same reply today, so it's off to court I go.

[BankFodder]

Originally Posted by disgruntledofcornwall

Just had the same reply today, so it's off to court I go.

Yes, but what is the basis for your claim?

[disgruntledofcornwall]

Originally Posted by BankFodder

Yes, but what is the basis for your claim?

I am not going into this on an open forum, I think I have a killer POC and I will publish this once it has gone to court if I win. I was going to email this to admin as well as the HSBC one which Martin took down off the site so as not to attract attention.

I know that at least the FSA regularly trawl following a conversation the other day with a representive and I assume the banks do as well.

The main argument totally avoids the UCTTR though this is included as an "and seperately". There are around 5 areas of law. Think of it as a cluster bomb approach which I seriously doubt they will turn up to defend.

I beleive they will bluster unti the court appearance, when they will not dare turn up.

If they do, they might be quite sorry I am used to acting as a professonal witness in court in my area of science, process doesn't phase me and I am a pretty nasty one at that. I have made one bul****ting plaintiff cry in the past...and I wasn't even trying.

Never lost one yet.

[BankFodder]

Originally Posted by disgruntledofcornwall

I am not going into this on an open forum, I think I have a killer POC and I will publish this once it has gone to court if I win. I was going to email this to admin as well as the HSBC one which Martin took down off the site so as not to attract attention.

I know that at least the FSA regularly trawl following a conversation the other day with a representive and I assume the banks do as well.

The main argument totally avoids the UCTTR though this is included as an "and seperately". There are around 5 areas of law. Think of it as a cluster bomb approach which I seriously doubt they will turn up to defend.

I beleive they will bluster unti the court appearance, when they will not dare turn up.

If they do, they might be quite sorry I am used to acting as a professonal witness in court in my area of science, process doesn't phase me and I am a pretty nasty one at that. I have made one bul****ting plaintiff cry in the past...and I wasn't even trying.

Never lost one yet.

I expect that they will attend in this case. Youare welcome to email it to us - admin@ if you want some comments.