Chris’ Crisis Continues…
For those who have not been following Chris’ horrendous story, which started with a simple case of solicitor’s negligence when she bought her house, and the resultant terrible financial losses and trauma she has experienced for more than 5 years while trying to sell that house, can read more of the background to this case by following one of the following links: http://www.myspace.com/saphireanimal/blog/546327746 plus www.howsafeisawillintheuk.com and elsewhere on the Internet. Santander Bank is, even today, the insurers of her house and that insurance is supposed to include legal cover.
There was a meeting yesterday at Chris’ house; Mr Robert Worthington of Santander Bank was accompanied by Martin Allen of Stallards Solicitors.
It was a relatively short meeting lasting less than thirty minutes but what is interesting and puzzling at the same time, is that when Mr Worthington was reminded of what he had said in an earlier meeting (notes were taken at the time) he refused to accept or confirm that he would honour his word and Martin Allen, his legal advisor, told those present that he was advising Worthington not to answer or get into any conversation regarding previous meeting, notably anything to do with Santander’s liability and then added that any notes taken at that previous meeting or this, would not count as admissible evidence in court.
It was suggested by both Allen and Worthington that Chris should get herself a solicitor and sue the parties that she felt were responsible. They had both made it quite clear that nobody, no solicitor, and there have been several, or Santander saw themselves as responsible or liable for the grief and anguish, not to mention the considerable financial loss Chris has actually suffered.
Now let us disregard any present or future damage or trauma experienced by Chris and her family and their terrible plight. Is Mr Worthington actually telling those at that meeting yesterday that he is willing to lie?
What else could he possibly mean when Worthington says that he will neither accept nor confirm? Surely he must remember what he said at the time or does he have another agenda and that is causing his reluctance to commit himself?
Does this indicate that Worthington would take the same line of defence in his answers if he were in court?
Is Mr Robert Worthington, Head of Litigation, SantanderUK PLC, actually saying that he would deny what he said and therefore deliberately lie under oath before a judge?
Could it be that this man is actually saying he is prepared to knowingly mislead those in the halls of justice and commit perjury in a British Crown Court?
I find this hard to believe but it certainly looks that way if you analyse what he actually said yesterday.
Please let me have your opinion.
Furthermore, Chris asked for copies of correspondence relating to her case and any contact with the various parties that Worthington allegedly had been in contact with regarding liability of guilty parties. Both Allen and Worthington were adamant in their response, which was a definite “No!” with no option for discussion. Now, surely you have the right to see what has been written about you? It seems not in this case! What do they have to hide?