What difference will it make to you if they have your address and if they record the conversation?
Any court decision will be based on the merits of the Bank case and not based on whether you are avoiding dealing with the Bank solicitors. You have nothing to lose by calling them back. If they record the call, what difference will that make. Anyway it would be unethical of them to record a call without advising you first that they are doing this.
I don't see your issue Martin. You owe the money, having a solicitor would not help you. So what if it's the banks solicitor that is doing the talking?
Agreed. Solicitor may provide a more reasoned and professional option than dealing with the Bank.
Martin, everytime the bank goes to court, they are racking up more costs which will be added to your debt. You may argue that this will make no difference as you have so little and owe so much, but, I dont see the point in making things worse. If you agree that you owe the debt (which is not the same as being able to pay the debt)you are better cooperating and allowing them to obtain judgement by consent - it saves legal fees, gets things done quicker and means you dont need to hire a solicitor or attend court.
Csirl - the bank can obtain a judgement with or without your consent. And for them appearing in court for the bank, you pay.
I offered my lot 40 quid a month, which they accepted temporarily, reviewed in 6 months time. At that rate it will take 10 years to pay back the original debt, which I have no problem doing.
But the fees charged for something that has to go to hearing - even if it is only a 10min hearing in the Masters Court - will be a lot more than for a by consent which may be dealt with on a 'For Mention' basis, thus attracting little or no fee.
But sure the whole point is, the fees make no difference to me, i cant pay the debt so whether they add fees or not, they wont be getting paid. If the bank prefers to spend its own money rather than to work with individuals, so be it. Remember they chose to go down the legal route rather than communicate with me and ask would i be willing to hand over the properties. They like the bully boy tactics rather than work with people . Sorry i should have said some of the banks prefer. In the case of 44Brendan, i see he's reasonable and logical and its people like Brendan that are needed in the banks to sort out the mess not solicitors.
The banks are required to get court judgements for accountancy purposes (someone in the financial business can probably explain this better than me). Therefore they have to go to court. They have a right to use a solicitor in a court case - and most people going to court for any reason use solicitors, so this is not bully boy tactics, its part of the normal procedure. If the banks asks that you deal with the solicitor, then this should be respected - in the same way that if you were taking someone to court, and you had a solicitor, you'd probably do the same. I dont see what harm can be done by you writing directly to the solicitor rather than the bank.
When it comes to large amounts of money, a bank will obtain a legal recognition of the debt to enforce their power to collect it, if and when that becomes the road to the last option. There are a few threads on the topic.
I am sure you have tried to let the bank know you are skint. It's up to them to realise quickly that this horse can't be flogged any more. Given the amount is so big, they might not even waste the time doing the legal thing. At the end of it all as you said, there is not a hope in hell in getting it.