AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
It 's always the best solution, one that does not generate cracks in the relationship with the bank and indeed sets the stage for a more accurate and informed comparison. I personally have seen several cases where a mutual and amicable agreement has led to a strengthening of relations. Sure it takes commitment on the part of all: the client must understand that in each case whether it was a simple mistake on which postpone, and possibly appreciate any bank's interest and readiness in responding to questions; and the bank: to be reactive and not hide behind technical terms, letters of very vague answer, or otherwise. Follow this road as the only means of fund have expected a concrete result, fast and the desire to maintain good relations. For sure I recommend you always, always proceed in writing (fax and / or registered ... or if you have a certified mail is fine too) maybe the problem over the phone and announcing the imminent delivery. The fact that we trace the reporting allows you to: demonstrate to third parties such as your dispute institutions, to run from that fateful day, the month may be necessary to resort to arbitration banks and financial institutions. In that regard, I am attaching two facsimile of a letter prepared by us and sent to the bank reporting:
ACTION extrajudicial Ben
an organ other than the use of extrajudicial ... win or lose, however, mean one thing: with that bank is better prepared for a rapid conclusion of the reports (not talking about the risk of retaliation, but simply a natural attitude that all of us would against those who force us to trial). Resorting to the referee as banks and financial means as said before, having first tried to resolve the matter with the bank and did not have satisfactory reply within 30 days. These may be requests for an amendment of the Central Risk, damage claims related to it as a range of subjects unrelated to the CR, in fact what's interesting is that satisfied some requirements pre , each customer can use this solution which is not binding on anyone, but certainly "morally" puts the bank "ordered" to act as if he did it would not be included in a blacklist drawn up and published by the same referee that I guarantee no bank would want to belong (see also the possible consequences with the Bank of Italy ... checks, inspections, sanctions, etc. ...).
Unlike a conciliation and arbitration, this instrument has an advantage: the banks are forced to accede to listen ... and then the arbitrator's decision, however, is never binding, then both parties can always appeal to a Magistrate . The system is then practically free (20 € ... and refundable!) fast, and involves the preparation of documents rather simple:
ACTION IN COURT
The speech is complicated, and the premise that I am neither a lawyer nor a lawyer, I can only tell you that the times are necessarily long ... very long. The only way to achieve a drastic reduction is to invoke an emergency procedure (ex Art 700 CCP) that give away the right to cancel any potentially serious effects caused by the signal (for example the case of the suffering that often a gender effect domino on the whole banking system). However cost and time consuming to be compared, however, the possibility of treble damages in some cases millionaires (obviously all to the damage). It 's a line from the outset that I do not recommend, or suggest only if you want before moving upstream to an agreement between the parties. Here you will be assisted by your lawyer and the banks from their own. I hope I need not go into explaining how an appeal to the judiciary is likely to cause, say, a crack in the relationship with the bank ....
With the 13th update of Circular No. 139, 1991 Bank of Italy, was then introduced to the case of reporting indicating any disputed claim .... if in fact resort to a court magistrate or court know that you will not be delivered until a final, the bank must report the location as a context (for more protection the borrowers).
0 comments:
Post a Comment