Fighting a Bank in Court
Think you have a strong case to fight a Bank in Court? Think again!
Banks use the courts as a weapon against Bank victims. Bank lawyers treat you with contempt and refuse to hand over documents. Judges have little patience for self represented litigants. Even with a lawyer, more than likely the bank will fry you slowly.
Case of Lena Anderson
Here are some opinions on the subject in Leon Ashby’s newsletter. Wise words.
From: Ashby, Leon (Senator F. Anning) [mailto:Leon.N.Ashby@aph.gov.au]
Sent: Friday, 9 November 2018 5:52 PM
To: Ashby, Leon (Sen F. Anning)
Subject: Bank victims News & Views 9th Nov 2018
Bank victims News & Views 9th Nov 2018 – Excerpts
Mike Hirst comments on Banks using Lawyers to keep you tied up in a legal argument – rather than a moral argument (fairness)
(for those who have been offered $10,000 by a Bank to get a legal opinion to help them)
Leon, This maybe of help to some people seeking redress from the banks. I’m just trying to warn victims that going down the legal path is a mine field with significant risks.
We were lucky enough to at least be offered an independent evaluation from a Ex High Court Judge, 2 years ago after 6 years of battling our bank.
Our bank constantly denied any wrongdoing right through this time.
In the end we had a decision in our favour. However it was a close call, even though we had 17 separate incidents of misconduct (these were the ones the evaluator identified). Many of what we thought of as misconduct were thrown out the door, as legally the banks have so much power through their stacked letters of offer etc.
Once you engage banks for a legal outcome, everything is stacked against you.
One reason is because the legal precedents do not favour the customers.
Once you go down the legal track the banks are at a distinct advantage. This is the banks domain, and they have some of the best legal teams in the country, and they are very good at what they do.
Not only that, they put pressure on you to accept the outcome they offer through agreement contracts.
In our situation we would have accepted anything as we were destitute.
I’m sure anybody reading this will relate to this feeling of, anything is better than nothing.
I believe we should be asking for redress on the basis of community standards and expectations. We need our politicians to help here as I believe there is no legal basis for this at present.
Good luck, let’s all stick together here.
Michael and Dimity Hirst (TAS)
Natasha Keys comments on the Lawyer offer from banks
I would be very concerned about the offer of $10,000 to see a lawyer. It seems they are doing the very thing they said they would not and that is take an overly legalistic view of the complaints and resolution process.
This response highlights a problem of relying on lawyers to determine whether someone has a case or not. They determine this based on the relevant laws and case law. This raises problems these people will face and that is;
1) Finding a good lawyer who will give the right ‘kind’ of advice (where are they? – maybe provide a list of recommendations?)
2) Lawyers are bound to provide advice according to the law. Many cases will be statute barred
3) The wrongdoing is untested in court because there is very limited case law in favour of customers because the Banks have had control of the courts and judgements for eons. For example self-represented litigants don’t have the skills / knowledge to prepare their cases to be accurately and fairly determined.
4) $10,000 is nothing in terms of getting advice. To read through the history of the dispute, obtain the necessary documents (disclosure) and get an accurate view of what the actual real issues in dispute should be can take years. All very well to say go get legal advice on the one hand while the Bank refuses to provide full disclosure on the other. A lawyer will burn up $10,000 before morning tea.
People should be very weary about this tactic. I would see the provision of $10,000 in legal fees as a way to get someone else to provide the disappointing news they have no valid claim. That way they can tell the next Senate Enquiry or Politician who contacts them on their behalf that they paid for the customer’s legal advice and the legal advice was that there was no case. Otherwise why wouldn’t they just compensate if they can see the wrongdoing?
Basically I don’t view this as any kind of victory. I see it as a handbrake to properly compensating people. Bank’s profits are down. They don’t want to pay compensation if they can get away with not doing so.
I will admit I am jaded by the reality of what the legal profession offers us having been involved in many cases and my own case for the last several years. I hope I am wrong. Time will tell.