Is UCTA 1977 the best option for my case?

[tommydog35]

Irrespective of their T&Cs you have to find some additional reason why limitation does not apply. A simple statement made by them of the balance can be enough.

In the T&C they are supposed to give 14 days written notice before the termination of the contract. As 14 days written notice was never given, is it not viable to argue that the contract was never actually terminated?

[atticus]

That may indeed defeat that argument.

[tommydog35]

I have been reading the Financial Conduct Authority handbook and note the principals of business

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/

The following I believe are particularity relevant:

* A firm must conduct its business with integrity.
* A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.
* A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.
* A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.
* A firm must arrange adequate protection for clients' assets when it is responsible for them.
*A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgement.

These principles are enforceable by the financial conduct authority, but not by individuals "A contravention of the rules in PRIN does not give rise to a right of action by a private person"

But even though such principals are not enforceable by individuals, what's to stop me using them as part of a persuasive argument that a said term is unfair, due to it's incompatibility with such principles?

[atticus]

There is nothing to stop you making an argument based on those principles. The judge will decide whether it is persuasive.

[tommydog35]

Out of interest how do people view statements (on website and on printed literature) such as:

"your money is safe in our hands"

"we take the security of your money extremely seriously"


If the said company then decides to refuse to release / keeps your funds? In my opinion there is a case for being made that:

a) such statements on the website and in printed literature are incompatible with any term that the company relies on to deny the customer their funds. Therefore the contract lacks clarity and such action by the company is unenforceable.

b) If the customer relied on such statements as statements of material fact, then there is a case for misrepresentation. Even if the customer did not read all the small print of their contract, it may have been inconceivable and beyond their realms of imagination that a company who freely publishes such statements in print and on their website would have such a contractual term that sought to deny them their funds. This is especially true considering the much greater prominence of the statements on the website and in print compared to the small print in the contract.

What do people think of the above arguments above? Do they have merit?

[atticus]

Your money is not unsafe or insecure. I do not see any suggestion that it has been taken by a third party.

[tommydog35]

There is nothing mentioned as to a third party. If that's what the statements refer to, then it should be clearly pointed out. That is not my interpretation of the statements. If I set up a financial institution tomorrow, persuaded people to deposit money with me and then refuse the return of their funds. I don't believe most people would equate my conduct (going by everyday dictionary definitions of words) with language such as safe, secure etc.

[atticus]

Your argument is simplistic and self-serving.

If it runs this argument, this bank or whatever is going to say that your money has been taken in accordance with the terms that you agreed.

[tommydog35]

I suggest that you bring your claim and thrash it out in court.

Excellent recommendation. I submitted the court claim and within a few days they made an offer to settle. They paid me £1000, and paid an extra £250 as a "goodwill" gesture. The offer to settle was signed by the customer services manager, the same person who told me "I had no case" and that they would vigorously defend the matter just 2 days before I submitted proceedings. It seems really bizarre behaviour. If they had just released my money when I asked for it, they would not have had the added expense and wasted considerable man hours on this. I have also made a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority about this company, and they have confirmed they are investigating. So the question is what has the company gained through their behaviour? I think it's really bizarre.

[theycantdothat]

Excellent recommendation. I submitted the court claim and within a few days they made an offer to settle. They paid me £1000, and paid an extra £250 as a "goodwill" gesture. The offer to settle was signed by the customer services manager, the same person who told me "I had no case" and that they would vigorously defend the matter just 2 days before I submitted proceedings. It seems really bizarre behaviour. If they had just released my money when I asked for it, they would not have had the added expense and wasted considerable man hours on this. I have also made a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority about this company, and they have confirmed they are investigating. So the question is what has the company gained through their behaviour? I think it's really bizarre.

Not really that bizarre. Many enterprises will stonewall because they know most customers are unwilling to get involved in litigation, or even take legal advice. They will have calculated that it is less expensive to refuse all claims until court action is taken but settle as soon as action is taken.