Burden of proof is taking over three years! Not 90 days… yet the bank remains silent. They engage lawyers, send threatening letters demanding monies and foreclosure. And still fail to provide any verification supporting claims of an “outstanding loan account balance.”

Even banks make errors in their accounting.

Burden of proof refers to obligations placed upon a party involved in a legal dispute to provide sufficient evidence in support of their claims or accusations.

In civil cases, standard of proof is typically based on a “preponderance of evidence.” So the party making the claim must provide enough evidence to convince the court or judge that their claim’s more likely true than not.

When a claimant (e.g. the bank) fails to provide evidence to support their claim, it can have significant consequences on the case. The absence of evidence may weaken the claimant’s argument, making it challenging for them to prove their case.

Consequently, courts or judges may not have enough information to make informed decisions, leading to a potential dismissal of cases or ruling in favour of the “alleged borrower“.

The court may view the lack of evidence as an indication that the claim is unfounded… Or that the bank has not made sufficient efforts to support their allegations.

How hard is it for a bank to print out audited accounts in connection with an alleged unpaid loan account?

Failure to meet the burden of proof can result in the court viewing the case unfavourably. In such instances, the “alleged borrower“ may not even need to present a defence, as the bank has not met their burden of proof.

In a civil case where a claimant (such as a bank) seeks a specific amount of money, Burden of Proof extends beyond simply presenting evidence to support the claim.

Show Me The Money!

Burden of Proof requires the bank to demonstrate how they arrive at the “outstanding amount.”

Follow the money trail… From day one.

Demonstrate the source of original loan monies.

Who borrows what, from whom?

And why does the bank insist on taking out “Lenders Mortgage Insurance”?

Isn’t the policy to cover any mortgage defaults? Or does the bank have a problem proving their claim with the insurance company?

The bank provides statements listing transactions they claim are “authorised and verified,” without offering any proof or identifying the authorising party. Or any evidence of verification.

When challenged, the bank remains silent…

Which raises questions about the credibility and reliability of their claim.

This lack of transparency casts doubt on the safety of the bank’s claim… And may make it challenging for the court to accept validation of the monies being demanded as being valid.

It’s crucial for bank staff to be able to substantiate their claims with clear and verifiable evidence. The court expects parties to provide a transparent breakdown of how the bank arrives at the “Outstanding amount”.

Shouldn’t the bank’s claim be supported by relevant documents? For instance, audited accounts?

If the bank fails to provide this level of detail, does it weaken their case? Will the court view the requested amount as arbitrary or unsubstantiated?

This could lead to the court rejecting the requested amount or even dismissing the case entirely.

Bank Stays Silent about Proof

Now all bank staff and agents refuse to discuss the matter.

Bank staff (Anonymous) rely on lawyers who engage in threats and intimidation tactics without providing proof of claim. These actions raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the bank’s case.

The bank’s lawyers deny any/all requests for evidence. They’re also dismissing any claims made by the “alleged borrower,“ about Burden of Proof.

These actions further demonstrate the total lack of transparency and disregard for the principles of due process.

This type of behaviour can be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the legal process. It’s also an attempt to coerce the “alleged borrower“ into paying an unsubstantiated amount of money under duress, threat and menace.

Also known as extortion.

It’s essential for lawyers to act ethically and uphold the principles of justice. They should be willing to engage in open and honest discussions. And provide evidence to support their client’s claims.

As well as addressing any counterclaims made by the “alleged borrower“.

When lawyers fail to do so, it not only undermines the credibility of their client’s case but also damages the integrity of the legal system as a whole.

The lawyers are adding further to crimes being committed… They’re demanding monies using threats and intimidation, for personal gain.

Why personal gain?

Because the lawyers are charging the bank for their services, and the lawyers are taking home a pay check.

The use of threats and intimidation by both the bank, and their external lawyers is unacceptable and may even be considered unethical or unlawful.

Since the bank’s scare tactics are not achieving the desired result, they go to “Plan B”.

Bank Offer Too Good To Refuse?

The bank sends an unsigned, anonymous document (on bank letterhead) offering 15% discount of an unverified amount, with conditions attached.

Wow!  Sounds like an offer too good to refuse…

“It’s a trick, Jeff!”

One condition is that the “alleged borrower“ agrees to settle the alleged “Outstanding loan balance” within 21 days.

Or vacate the premises for foreclosure…

How can you settle an unverified amount?

Why settle a random amount, just because the bank demands it?

By sending an anonymous document, are bank staff hiding their identity to avoid accountability for their actions?

Such blatant lack of transparency makes it difficult for the “alleged borrower“ to assess the validity of the offer.

Furthermore, it’s seen as an attempt to coerce them into paying an unverified amount, without proper due process.

Moreover, the fact that the amount is unverified and unsupported by evidence, further undermines the legitimacy of the offer.

The bank staff appear to be using the discount as a tactic to pressure the “alleged borrower“ into making a hasty decision…

Even though there’s been plenty of opportunity to engage in a fair and open discussion about the validity of the bank’s claim. (Over three years of requests for further and better particulars, ignored. Unanswered correspondence!)

The offer being presented on the bank’s letterhead might provide some degree of legitimacy. Yet the absence of the author’s name still raises concerns about accountability and transparency.

In a formal business communication, isn’t it customary to include the name of the person responsible for the content of the letter?

Not for the bank, it seems.

By omitting the author’s name, the bank’s shielding individual staff and agents from potential scrutiny. This makes things difficult for the “alleged borrower“ to address any concerns or follow up with questions directly.

Banking on No Burden of Proof

Is this lack of transparency a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility for the content of the letter? … As well as the actions being taken by their lawyers?

In legal matters, where accountability and trustworthiness are of utmost importance, such behaviour can be seen as a red flag.

Could this be casting doubt on the intentions and integrity of the bank?

The bank’s failure to provide audited accounts to substantiate their claim, raises further doubts.

Over the last two years, at least ten formal requests for audited accounts have been delivered to the CEO. The bank’s silence is a serious issue, casting doubt on their credibility, and legitimacy of the bank’s claim.

Meanwhile, the bank continues to add interest fees and penalties for late payments, despite not providing the necessary evidence.

This behaviour goes against standard debt collection guidelines… Because claims should be put on hold until the debt’s validated.

The bank’ persistent failure to comply with these guidelines and provide the requested evidence, raises concerns about their intentions.

And goes against their publicly advertised commitment to act in good faith… With “transparency and integrity”!

Whatever that means.

Because their “Customer Fairness Officer” fails to provide definitions of those words. How “fair” is that?

By the way, we’re talking about a major bank with offices around the globe. As a financial institution, shouldn’t they be held to a high standard of transparency, accountability, and adherence to industry regulations?

Large banks typically have extensive resources and legal teams at their disposal. Do you think they’d be well-enough-equipped to provide the necessary evidence to support their claims?

Their failure to do so, despite repeated requests, raises questions about their intentions and the legitimacy of the bank’s claim

Burden Of Silence?

We’re now at the stage where no one at the bank will reply to correspondence. And at local branch level they refuse to meet with the “alleged borrower,“ saying the matter is above their pay-grade!

No one at the bank will sufficiently identify themselves over the phone. Yet they demand full ID check from the “alleged borrower“ before discussing any issues regarding an alleged “outstanding home loan balance.”

Financial regulators won’t enter into correspondence over this matter, saying it’s an issue between the bank and the “alleged borrower“

Corporate watchdogs remain silent, regardless of receiving much written correspondence from the “alleged borrower.“

And now the bank’s external lawyers have backed off!

The behaviour of the bank and its representatives, as well as the lack of response from financial regulators and corporate watchdogs, is alarming.

Doesn’t this situation highlight a significant issue in the financial industry?

The fact that financial regulators and corporate watchdogs don’t want to know, is deeply concerning.

This issue and raises questions about their role in protecting consumers and upholding industry standards.

Burden Of Proof

Remember, the burden of proof lies with the bank.

Just because the banks say something IS, doesn’t mean that it is, in fact, correct. So, if you’re being challenge over a threatened mortgage foreclosure, ask for the proof.

Engaging lawyers to assist you, does not necessarily indicate an admission of guilt or fear by you, the “alleged borrower“.

A lawyer may provide guidance on the best course of action and help prevent the bank taking advantage of “alleged borrower”.

If the bank doesn’t provide any evidence to support their claim, it’s difficult for the “alleged borrower“ to defend themselves against something that doesn’t exist.

The apparent lack of response from financial authorities and oversight bodies highlights a systemic issue within the financial industry.

Their assumption that banks never lie, and the refusal to engage in dialogue or provide evidence leads, to an imbalance of power and lack of accountability.

One reason the bank remains silent is, that bank staff claim they have closed the case file and refuse to engage further in internal or external dispute resolution processes.

A second reason, is that the bank has passed the buck to their external (third party) lawyers. These lawyers have been told by the “borrower” to stick their noses out of matters that are of no concern to them.

Large financial institutions like banks often have significant resources at their disposal, including access to top-tier legal representation.

This can create an uneven playing field for individuals or small entities seeking justice against them.

This situation with the bank has many similarities with the UK Post Office scandal. Individuals wrongfully convicted of fraud based on faulty accounting software, despite their innocence.

In situations like this, the legal system may be perceived as biased in favour of large corporations.

No Payments For Three Years?

Why make payments for something that cannot be verified?

How long does an accounting audit take? After three years, does it not seem odd that the bank fails, neglects, or refuses to show validation that figures on their statements are correct?

While it may be a challenging and uphill battle, remember that justice is worth fighting for. And that with perseverance and determination, positive change can be achieved.

Large corporations, including banks, often have substantial advertising budgets that can impact the content and editorial decisions of media outlets.

This can create a conflict of interest, where media outlets may be hesitant to publish stories that could harm their advertisers or jeopardize their financial interests. As a result, important issues like this don’t receive the journalists attention they deserve.

Why The Silence?

It’s difficult to speculate on the exact reasons behind the bank’s actions without more information. The bank’s lack of action after three years of non-payment could have several possible explanations.

One possibility is that the bank staff are not be able to prove their claims. Without sufficient evidence or documentation, the bank may be hesitant to move forward with any serious actions, such as foreclosure.

Another possibility is that the bank may be prioritizing other cases or focusing their resources on more pressing matters. Having a large number of customers and potential financial issues to manage is no excuse. The bank may not be able to devote sufficient attention to this particular case.

Additionally, external factors such as changing economic conditions, regulatory changes, or shifts in the banking industry could also influence the bank’s decision-making process.

Without a clear explanation from the bank staff or management, it’s difficult to know exactly why they haven’t taken any serious actions yet.

There could be unique circumstances causing the bank to take a different approach in this situation.

It’s possible there are other factors at play that we’re not aware of, such as internal policy changes, staffing issues, or complex legal considerations.

Or have they been caught with their panties around the ankles?.

Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Ask for Proof of Claim.

If you know of anyone else having challenges with any/all Banks in Australia (or anywhere else) – send an email, or write in the comments box below.

(Your personal details will not be published)

There’s power in numbers