confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

[Desotuatail]

I recently have employed a barrister (for free) to take on a bank credit card company for defaulting me on my credit report. This default is wrong. The ICO have agreed with me. I had medication for anxiety over this. It cost me £200 including a doctor’s letter. They initially agreed to pay £850 which was accepted. Now they have shifted the goal posts to include me signing a confidentiality agreement for the same sum of money. My barrister informs me I have a solid case.
Can they enforce this for such a ridicules small amount? If I subtract my costs and anything for suffering and wrong doing that would probably amount to about £100 max for confidentiality. They clearly realise the extent of what they have done but not willing to increase this amount for a signature.

[Amethyst]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

If they want confidentiality then they should pay very well for it. Personally I think no confidentiality is better with a lower, reasonable and fair, pay out as your experience can then be discussed and others who may have been affected by similar issues may have a chance of some redress.

You should also get your costs. If you are lucky enough to have a barrister pro bono then you have a better chance than many of getting this through court.

Is the £850 the offer via the Ombudsman ?

I can only give a very vague idea of my personal thoughts as of course we don't know your case or particular circumstances. If the £850 will stop your house being repossessed or your case isn't very strong then go for it.

Just had a quick look back through your posts, is this regarding the NatWest default regards 4p and your DRO ? It would be interesting to hear the Ombudsman's opinion on that anyway.

[Desotuatail]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

No this was not done through the financial ombudsman. This was the government information commissioners office ruling. They state that they broke the data protection act. They in response admitted guilt and offered an initial £350. This was rejected and barrister as a friend took the case on. This award was raised to £850 no conditions. Now they want me to sign a document. They have moved the goal posts. They know that this could be front page news and they do not want this. I think a sum of money should be added for such document but I agree I would rather make it public. So you and others could also make a claim.


One thing they did was to charge me £12 for going over my credit limit when I was not. They informed me that it is standard company procedure. You could not make it up could you.

So how much for a signed document is a good question.

[Amethyst]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

The ICO agree with you that Natwest breached DPA regs and Natwest have offered compensation with confidentiality ?

[Guest]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

Not really up o this kind of thing but if this award was on the back of an ICO rling would the information not be available anyway.

In any case very interesting for people with incorrect defaults placed on their accounts, and possibly a better course of action than just trying to pursue through the small claims in the first instance, by the sound of it. I can certainly see why they would want to keep the award quiet.

[Desotuatail]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

Hi Thanks for the feedback
The FOS gave a very grey area report siting that the £350 compensation was fair but did not feel that I should I should not be defaulted anyway. The fact is after 1 year of a DRO I am debt free. They( NatWest) carried on with the defaults and it is this that the ICO ruled in my favour. After the ICO ruling they refused to accept this and carried on with the defaults regardless ignoring the ICO ruling.

But still admitting fault.

[Amethyst]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

Okay, so the FOS said it was unfair and awarded you £350 which you turned down as Natwest continued with the default markers on your account, took it to the ICO who agreed it was unfair and Natwest offered you £850 whcih you accepted. However now Natwest have said the £850 is on a confidentiality basis?

Have they sent you a letter to accept the £850 with a random confidentiality clause stuck at the bottom ? If so you could just cross that out.

And have they now stopped reporting on the file and corrected it to where the ICO thought it should be?

[Desotuatail]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

No I have been reliably informed by my barrister that they do not want to leave a paper trail and payment would be made in some strange manner. But as I see it in order to hold me to a contract I would have to sign one paper document but they could say on it "We have done nothing wrong but as a gesture of good will we are prepared to give you £850 on the understanding that you do not cause any adverse publicity against us". I believe this is what they are aiming at.

But I did
have costs of over £200
Have to get medication for anxiety and lose of sleep
get a doctors report stating this
get a letter from the ICO stating they broke the DPA
receive several letters from them admitting fault.

I could use trial by media and get paid for the story which would be my compensation
They would get publicity they would not want and I have other things I can add
Everyone gets to find out and check there own credit history

Everyone is a winner except the Bank. :})

[Desotuatail]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

sorry just a thought but (Amethyst) has a thread to don't get done get Dom. I have sent a tentative email to him but "We are currently not in production so we will only be checking emails".

[Amethyst]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

I'd go more along the lines of say no to confidentiality on the basis if they are deemed to have placed a wrongful default you could be looking at more like £3k-£8k through court off the back of some recent cases for damage to credit files etc. You have the FOS and the ICO backing you up and your barrister sounds confident.

I don't know the ins and outs of your case mind. On what basis is your barrister thinking of taking it through the courts system?

[ncf355]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

Doubt the BBC would pay for the story, but a tabloid probably would

In fact if you offered it at about 2k I'd imagine they'd jump at the chance

[Guest]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

In the Halliday case (european Court) an award for distress was made on appeal.


The award is made under section 13 (2) of the DPA. In the original case the award was dismissed because there was no consequential loss, which is required to trigger the distress claim, on appeal a nominal award was made under section 1 (damages) in order that the distress award could then be made, perhaps something similar here.

[Desotuatail]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

Here is an idea guys. I think it could be floated here.
I am not a legal person like you guys but I am a professional website developer and I have my own website. I spoke to the ICO over this issue as to if I can show any documents that I have sent to them or received from them. They stated that any documents they send to you are your property and to do with what you want and you could even publish these documents even on a website or the newspapers.

I told them that I had recorded ALL phone calls and they said the same thing.

What this means is I could show the whole world every thing and they could not stop me.

This is what the ICO state. Any ideas or problems in this guys.

PS. Thanks for all your help especially Amethyst who mentioned
Dominic Littlewood. At the end of the day: I am the victim not them.

THANKS A BUNCH GUYS (AND GIRLS)

[taata]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

But think and do watever.

[PAWS]

Re: confidentiality agreement legaly binding or stupid?

Hello Desotuatail.:yo:
I agree with everyone who says you should not sign this conf. agreement however; Newspapers /reporters rarely pay for this sort of story despite what we all think. I am sorry but there it is. Even the tabloids are unlikely to offer you anything.
I do think that you are legally entitled to more money and it is an absolute cheek for them to even suggest payment is conditional so I would agree with Amethyst.

I'd go more along the lines of say no to confidentiality onthe basis if they are deemed to have placed a wrongful default you could belooking at more like £3k-£8k through court off the back of some recent casesfor damage to credit files etc. You have the FOS and the ICO backing you up andyour barrister sounds confident.