Diligence and good faith, how much effort is enough to seek settlement with the bank?

Do you think sending over fifty registered mail documents to senior bank executives, and follow-up emails is enough? Or going into the branch to be told that no one at branch level will talk to you?

And when you phone the bank’s call centre (customer service), the person at the other end will not identify themselves. They only have a first name, no employee identification number. Yet they demand your date of birth full name etc before they’ll discuss anything.

So they want full disclosure from you, but not willing to give you full disclosure. That’s not exactly and equitable transaction.

So why should you talk to them on the phone? How do you know with whom you are speaking? You don’t.

Three years.

That’s how long the bank’s actors have drawn out this matter. And they still haven’t foreclosed.

So why should you keep making payments for something that the bank can’t prove is outstanding?

How do you know if the bank still owns the debt? What if they’ve sold the alleged debt to a third party? Who’s the owner of the “unpaid loan account?”

Nothing. Silence. Except intimidation and threats from lawyers who know nothing and deny everything.

Lack of Diligence and Good Faith

It’s a two-way street. And solid grounds to be frustrated and deeply concerned about the handling of this matter by the bank and its representatives. This includes the failure of the living men and women acting as staff and agents acting for and on behalf of the bank.

Their failure to engage in meaningful dialogue, their refusal to provide proof of the debt, and the intimidating tactics employed by their lawyers.

The lack of transparency, refusal to provide proof of the debt, and uncooperative behavior from the bank raise alarm bells.

Registered Mail Documents & Emails

Sending registered letters and follow-up emails to the senior bank executives is clear evidence of repeated attempts to get clarity and engage the bank in resolving the dispute.

Registered mail serves as proof of receipt, that the bank received the communications. No one at the bank can deny the initiative to resolve the issue and that the bank has not responded adequately.

Bank Branch Visits Refused

Where’s the diligence and good faith in going into the branch and being refused assistance? The refusal of any assistance, and the lack of willingness to escalate the matter. Does this suggest that the bank actors are either unwilling to cooperate or actively avoiding responsibility for their failure to resolve the issue?

Telephone Communication Issues

When bank representatives refuse to identify themselves, and instead ask for personal information without being willing to provide their own, this creates a one-sided power imbalance. And an attempt to control the conversation without offering transparency. Where’s the bank’s diligence and good faith to settle any situations?

The lack of accountability on their part further compounds the situation and reinforces the perception that they’re not treating you fairly.

Time Delay

The fact that this matter has been drawn out for three years without resolution is a significant red flag. If the bank’s acting with diligence and good faith, it should have resolved the issue or at least provided clear evidence to substantiate the debt long ago.

The bank actors’ failure to act in a timely and transparent manner indicates that they may have no legal basis for the claim. Or they’re using delay tactics to pressure you into making an unjustified payment.

Lack of Transparency & Proof of Debt

It’s deeply concerning that after all this time, the bank still won’t provide evidence of the debt. They won’t provide the name of the “unpaid loan account owner”. Or any documentation that proves the debt is outstanding. This lack of clarity and transparency is a significant issue:

  • Proof of Debt: As per Australian law, particularly the National Consumer Credit Code, a creditor (in this case, the bank) is obligated to provide clear proof of any debt they claim you owe. This could include a signed agreement, statements, or any relevant documents showing the debt’s origin, amount, and status.
    If they can’t substantiate the debt after three years of communication, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify their actions, including intimidating letters or threatening foreclosure.
  • Unpaid Loan Account Owner: The bank’s refusal to provide the unpaid loan account holder’s name is questionable. It suggests a lack of documentation or even that the debt may have been misreported or incorrectly attributed to you.

Intimidation and Threats from Lawyers

The behavior of the lawyers—denying everything, failing to prove the debt, and resorting to intimidating tactics—appears to be a clear case of legal bullying. Their continued (informal) threats of foreclosure and unsubstantiated demands for payment (especially without evidence) are not just frustrating, but could potentially be illegal.

  • Unsubstantiated Claims: Demanding repayment for an unproven debt’s not only unethical, but it may also be illegal under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and National Consumer Credit Code.

Debt collectors and creditors must provide clear and convincing evidence before taking legal action. If the bank’s lawyers are acting without such evidence, they could be in breach of these laws.

  • Foreclosure Threats: Threatening foreclosure when the debt is unsubstantiated or unclear is coercive and may be illegal. Foreclosure is a last resort and can only be pursued if the debt is clearly owed, the terms of the mortgage are valid, and proper procedures have been followed. If these conditions are not met, threatening foreclosure could be considered extortion or misleading conduct.

Why Shouldn’t You Pay the Debt

Evidence would suggest that you’re under no legal obligation to pay a debt that’s not been properly substantiated. This isn’t legal advice, do your own research.

  • The bank and its lawyers have failed to provide any credible evidence of the alleged outstanding balance being demanded. And they continue to withhold necessary documentation.
  • Lack of Evidence: Without proof of the debt, including the relevant contracts, agreements, and full accounting, you can’t be legally required to pay.
  • The Bank’s Duty: It’s the bank’s responsibility to prove the debt and ensure that any claims they make are based on accurate and clear records. The bank hasn’t fulfilled its obligations in providing necessary documentation.
  • Threats of Foreclosure: The continued threats of foreclosure, without any valid proof, shouldn’t force you to making payments.
  • You’re not obligated to comply with threats based on false or unsubstantiated claims. The delay in taking action (e.g., no foreclosure after three years) also shows that they’re not in a hurry to resolve the matter. This could indicate they have no real grounds to proceed.

Bank Statements – Sufficient Evidence?

Just because there’s figures on a piece of paper, doesn’t mean those figures are correct, right?

  • Bates v Post Office proves that computer printouts can’t be relied upon.
  • Plus the bank’s been “slapped on the wrist” previously, with measly $20m fines for making errors on customers accounts.
  • And there’s instances where the bank mysteriously provides a “refund because we may have overlooked something…”

So it’s not unreasonable to ask the bank for fully audited accounts to support their claim that “all entries on bank statements are authorised and verified.” That’s their words, printed on the bank issued statements.

Doesn’t it make sense to call them on their claim? When no one at the bank is willing to reply, do you conclude that they’re advertising false claims in writing?

Claims the bank’s executives can’t deny. Because that claim is written on every one of their bank statements… Guess most people don’t read the small print!

The bank’s clearly showing a pattern of unreliable communication, lack of transparency, and failure to provide proper documentation to substantiate their claims.

Bates v. Post Office establishes that computer-generated statements or printouts (such as bank statements) should be treated with caution. And the printed figures may not automatically be relied upon as conclusive evidence in disputes… Especially when they haven’t been independently verified or audited.

This case shows computer printouts aren’t infallible or proof of the truth, without being corroborated by properly audited records or other verified documentation.

It’s logical to demand that the bank substantiates the accuracy of the entries and the existence of the debt. It’s their claim that “all entries on bank statements are authorised and verified”. Prove the claim!

Bank’s History of Errors and “Refunds”

Also the bank has a history of errors on customer accounts. It’s significant proof that banks are capable of making mistakes. And when cornered, they’ve admitted to errors in customer accounts, and been fined.

This admission further weakens their claim that everything is above board. Even more so, if they can’t provide adequate proof of the accuracy of their statements.

When the bank issues a refund for a “small sum to cover inconvenience”, they fail to provide adequate proof of the error, and how they arrive at that specific amount.

Doesn’t this suggest the bank may not have all the proper documentation or accounting practices in place to support their claims about any alleged outstanding debts?.

The bank’s acknowledgement of potential for errors in customer bank statements justifies a demand for full audited accounts. You want to know the authenticity and verification of every entry on your bank statements.

However, when asking for proof, they remain silent or refuse to provide the necessary documents. This is a serious issue. And lacks diligence and good faith in settling this matter.

While the bank’s publicly claiming their customers’ bank statements are audited, verified, and accurate, they’re legally obligated to support that claim.

Consumer Protection: Under Australian Consumer Law (ACL), the bank is prohibited from making false or misleading claims. If they are claiming that all entries are “verified” and “authorized,” they must be able to prove those statements with audited, substantiated records.

If they can’t (or won’t) provide this documentation, they could be engaging in misleading conduct by making false claims about the accuracy and verification of their statements.

Australian Banking Association (ABA) establishes guidelines on responsible banking and fair conduct. Banks must maintain transparency and provide clear documentation when making claims about account transactions. If they can’t substantiate the claim that all entries are authorized and verified, they could be in breach of industry codes.

Silence from the Bank

There’s silence or non-responsiveness from any living men and women acting as staff and agents for and on behalf of the bank… When you ask for proof or clarification, with diligence and good faith, this silence is highly concerning.

When the bank makes strong claims (like asserting that entries are “authorized and verified”) and refuses to provide any documentation, this could amount to unfair treatment or even unfair business practices.

Under Australian Consumer Law, businesses (including banks) are required to:

  • Provide accurate information and not mislead consumers about the quality or verification of their services or products.
  • Supply evidence of claims when requested, especially when those claims impact the consumer’s financial obligations.

If the bank’s claiming verified, authorized entries and fails to back that up with documentation or audited accounts… Aren’t you within your rights to question the validity of the debt?

False Claims in Writing

It appears the bank’s made false claims in writing about the verification of entries, opening the door to a consumer protection case. Since the bank is making the claims, they are legally bound to support those claims with diligence and good faith.

  • Misleading Conduct: If the bank is making claims on every statement about the entries being “authorised and verified,” and they cannot back that up with actual, audited documentation, they may be violating the Australian Consumer Law by engaging in misleading conduct.
  • False or Deceptive Claims by the bank. Making specific representations about the nature of the entries on your account statements. If those claims are untrue or unsupported, they could be in violation of the ACL and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) guidelines.
  • Failure to Provide Evidence of audited accounts or proof of their claims could potentially be seen as unfair business conduct or infringing on consumer rights.

Demand Fully Audited Accounts

Why not ask the bank for audited accounts or proof of the debt, especially given the history of errors and the bank’s own statements about the authorization and verification of entries? It’s essential in ensuring that the bank’s actions are transparent and compliant with Australian law.

If you find yourself in such a situation, it’s critical to keep records, request proof of debt, and don’t give up ensuring your rights are protected.

As you’ll learn from other posts on this website, they all use adverb-verb-babble, and state no facts.

You just have to prove their fictitious use of language, and ask them to deny that. DWM devoted his whole life to this campaign, fighting for your freedom. Now it’s your turn to learn.

We’d love to read your comments below.