Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
The OFT have basically won. The Banks are refused leave to appeal. The banks now have to ask the House of Lords for leave to appeal.
county court claims to remain stayed, but OFT are now cleared to publish their findings on the charges, their initial findings are that they are unfair!
I'm sure CAG will be putting out a full update later.
The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.
Looks like they are not allowed to appeal in the house of lords
As Barry would say, "That's a right touch"
23/02/07 Request for payment sent (hand delivered to my local branch)
08/03/07 Standard Letter from Barlclays saying they are looking in to my complaint received
13/03/07 Letter before action sent (hand delivered to my local branch)
27/03/07 Partial offer of £1255 received
29/03/07 MCOL submitted
Only downside is that the banks will likely introduce charges for having a current account to make up for the loss in profits.
Though it will be a very brave bank to introduce them in the current climate, with those who can change bank likely to change to an institution that doesnt have a monthly fee.
Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.
Only downside is that the banks will likely introduce charges for having a current account to make up for the loss in profits.
Though it will be a very brave bank to introduce them in the current climate, with those who can change bank likely to change to an institution that doesnt have a monthly fee.
On a similar note, an interesting feature in the Telegraph today about the current climate in banking;
How banks are pretty desperate to get new customers, how to compare the various providers, the services, and the pluses and minuses of the various accounts suited to your own needs.
Quote: But banks are desperate for your custom at the moment, and some are offering good incentives to lure you into their current accounts – knowing that once you are hooked, you could be with them for life. Both First Direct and Alliance & Leicester will pay you £100 if you switch to specific current accounts, while Halifax offers to pay you £5 a month. But how can you tell whether these are the right accounts for you?
I'm confused by this as the link you highlight clearly suggests the banks do intend to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
Can you explain?!
Fred_Funk
NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08
I'm confused by this as the link you highlight clearly suggests the banks do intend to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
Can you explain?!
Fred_Funk
The article has changed since it was first posted.
Please note that I am not a legal expert and all advice given is without prejudice and is purely my opinion only.
** Nationwide - £1821.15-PAID IN FULL - Aug 06 ** ** Halifax Mortgage -£390 - PAID IN FULL - Nov 06 ** Lloyds TSB - MCOL issued 09/03/07 - £2953 + costs - ON HOLD....
Ive read many threads but am still unclear as to the next step. my claim was stayed probably a year ago. Is it still a waiting game until the banks appeal or the Fsa decide how much the charges actually cost the banks. will the courts now lift the stays.
Ive read many threads but am still unclear as to the next step. my claim was stayed probably a year ago. Is it still a waiting game until the banks appeal or the Fsa decide how much the charges actually cost the banks. will the courts now lift the stays.
Basically it is still a waiting game. The stays will not be lifted yet.
Hi all. What get's me is the paragraph on that BBA report that says:
There is limited guidance from case law on whether and how the UTCCRs apply in these circumstances.
The Banks continue to believe that the UTCCRs do not apply to these types of charges, where the customer is using and paying for a service that is being offered.
So how come, and there are probably thousands more people same as me, I wasn't allowed an overdraft on the type of account I had, so how were they providing a service? They just charged me every time for going over big fat zero, and direct debits of course.
This has been my argument all along, and my charges go into thousands.
I had to sell my house (luckily I sold in 2 weeks), because of the banks. I am in a better position now but that's not quite the point as you guys all know.
Hi kitten, the next step is, helpfully, the HoL refusing them the right to appeal the appeal court's decision. Will be about 12 weeks at most for that decision.
The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.
I hope for others it is resolved quickly, although it seems it will drag on. I'm ok now, (still waiting like you though) but I know many of my friends on here are still suffering badly while waiting.
Just makes you wonder how many more game's they'll play and how many more lives they'll ruin first.
Basically it is still a waiting game. The stays will not be lifted yet.
What I want to know is will they contact each customer individually that have had their cases stayed?? I really only check up on this once every month or so, after 2 years of this i am now less enthusiastic about getting back my money!
What I want to know is will they contact each customer individually that have had their cases stayed?? I really only check up on this once every month or so, after 2 years of this i am now less enthusiastic about getting back my money!
The Banks continue to believe that the UTCCRs do not apply to these types of charges, where the customer is using and paying for a service that is being offered.
Naughty naughty. The courts found that they weren't offering a service. Granted, they didn't find they were a penalty either, but the judgment also clearly stated that they were not a service.
The BBA, lying? Surely not.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
OFT Win
claims to remain stayed, but OFT are now cleared to publish their findings on the charges, their initial findings are that they are unfair!
will be putting out a full update later.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Enron
