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.
well there is one small point that we may all miss, should we not get the goverment to make the banks pay back bank charges to us.
we now are all paying to fight against ourselfs in the courts and soon in the house of lords. at the end of the day its now our money being used to fight this.
should we not get something done to stop this im not shore how maybe a patition on number 10 web site, but who would do this
we can give the banks billions to help them out but we still cant get out money back. this is more like the banks are now all highway men there to take all.
even big pentions to top ex and also high salerys but the people who are in need now for thair money get told to wait again while they now use our money to fight us
No they shouldn't be allowed to appeal but the law says they can, even though the Appeal judges advised against it. The banks arrogance knows no bounds. Hopefully the House of Lords will issue them a resounding NO.
Btw, AFAIK not all of the banks are now owned by us:
Lloyds is partly owned by us but that was mainly a deal to secure the fate of HBOS.
I think the rest are still funded by their own existing investors.
Could be wrong though.
You are right about something should be done about them messing us around, but I think it should go deeper into massive reform of the entire system. It stinks to high heaven. The banks get up to all manner of dodgy deals, screw their customers over, and are basically given a license to print money while extorting it from us. It should be changed on a global level for the good everyone and long term substainability.
The ralleys in London are partly pushing for that, but I fear lots of backroom dealing will make it look like things have been sorted, but in reality it will be business as usual. Only by constant pressure from the public will anything ever change.
The banks have the legal right to petition the High Court for permission to appeal. Whether they will get it is a completely different question.
This part of the case is merely the half way mark. We haven't really got into the real interesting stuff.
They really are displaying their arrogance now for all to see. You can see that the mindset of people like Fred The Shred is endemic in the banking world - they have utter contempt for their "customers" if that is what you could call us, the fact the treat us so badly would indicate otherwise.
They have been caught with their red hand in the till and yet they still protest their innocense like a common snearing yobbo thief. Absolute amazing and disgusting in every way.
Fleeced mate, the banks were told by the High Court that they are free to seek permission from the HoL(legally that meant 28 days and they did that). I see no problem with them doing that. Not sure what Sir Fred and his pension has got anything to do with the OFT test case but would love to know now
Fleeced mate, the banks were told by the High Court that they are free to seek permission from the HoL(legally that meant 28 days and they did that). I see no problem with them doing that. Not sure what Sir Fred and his pension has got anything to do with the OFT test case but would love to know now
Erm, apparently, the Court of Appeal advised the banks against further appeals although they are of course permitted in law to do so. The Court of Appeal case came after the High Court, so the HC wouldn't tell them they could seek permission from HoL. I could be wrong, but that is how I have read it in every report.
In principle they are premitted to do so, but I was merely stating that it is extremely arrogant of them when they have been told they are subject to the laws on fairness by the HC and then by the CoA. How many more judges do they need to tell them before they will accept the judgement. If a common thief did that, then most people would find that disgraceful, but since it is the great big banks that are in the dock (so to speak) it is accepted by some.
As for Fred the Shred, he has nothing to with the case, I was merely pointing out that the arrogance displayed by him can be seen throughout the top echelons of the banking fraternity.
Btw, do you work for a bank or the BBA by any chance Yourbank?
Yourbank is correct they can and did appeal, the trouble is they are so far in debt themselves that to open the gates of this would see some of them even further in trouble.
it is a shame that they do not do the decent thing and admit that this tactic is a [problem] but it is what ii expected of a system that is endemic in making as much money as possible out of the public
PGH7447
Getting There Slowly
---------
Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel
"3. The Banks’ appeal to the Court of Appeal has now failed and we have now refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal."
The court gave no such advice as to not appeal. The above was read out in the High Court.
With regards to Sir Fred, perspective is everything and this forum is for OFT discussion so will not go into that argument.
I had read different in multiple places, trying to find the links now. I was under the impression that HC first then CoA and the latter advised them against appealing to HoL even though they are entitled to.
Anyway, I am not sure quite what nerve I hit there, so appologies for that. The Sir Fred thing is irrelevant it was a comment as to the mindset nothing more. I'll bow out gracefully and consider myself well and truly slapped for my comments ;-)
Q. What’s the result of the test case so far? A. In April 08 the High Court judge, Mr Justice Andrew Smith, confirmed what bank charges campaigners have been arguing for two years; that consumer contract regulations, known as ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations’ DO apply to bank charges, meaning 'fairness' counts.
The banks were given leave to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal, who confirmed on 26 February 2009 that it agreed with the High Court’s decision; a massive step for reclaimers, meaning the sorry position is close to ending.
Though sadly it’s not the end of the line yet. So far the courts have been deciding whether the laws covering fairness apply to bank charges, not whether they ARE unfair. Campaigners have always said that a £35 charge for going a couple of quid beyond an overdraft limit isn’t proportionate.
While the banks have tried to argue that it is, their real hope has been the argument that ‘charges don’t have to be proportionate, as those laws don’t apply’. What the court has now decided throws that argument out of the window; bank charges should be fair.
Interestingly the Court of Appeal also decided NOT to grant the banks permission to appeal to the House of Lords (the next highest court), although the banks have since said they will try and appeal the decision directly.
Now all that's left is for the OFT to decide whether charges are unfair and to see if the House of Lords allows the banks' appeal, but it’s to be hoped their Lordships will listen to the strong opinion from the Court of Appeal that this is not the best way forward.
Fleeced the explanatory note on the High Court is on LB(cannot find it on any other site at the minute and cannot post the link here as it is not permitted here). The rubbish on sites stating that the High Court judge told the bank not to appeal is really nonsense(I get about a bit so read it a lot more time than I care to mention). There is a legal process to go through and Stage 2 of the process once this appeals process has been exhausted is going to be more interesting as we will probably see more litigation.
The consequences of getting the first part of this judgement nailed is mind boggling not only for the amount of charges to be paid back but what the charges then caused. Mind boggling. I think when the discussion moves onto what the consequences of the judgement will be on the banks'(considering they lose) then we are really blowing wide open this thing. The possibilities are endless imho. The effects are endless as well.
Erm, apparently, the Court of Appeal advised the banks against further appeals although they are of course permitted in law to do so. The Court of Appeal case came after the High Court, so the HC wouldn't tell them they could seek permission from HoL. I could be wrong, but that is how I have read it in every report.
In principle they are premitted to do so, but I was merely stating that it is extremely arrogant of them when they have been told they are subject to the laws on fairness by the HC and then by the CoA. How many more judges do they need to tell them before they will accept the judgement. If a common thief did that, then most people would find that disgraceful, but since it is the great big banks that are in the dock (so to speak) it is accepted by some.
As for Fred the Shred, he has nothing to with the case, I was merely pointing out that the arrogance displayed by him can be seen throughout the top echelons of the banking fraternity.
Btw, do you work for a bank or the BBA by any chance Yourbank?
The word in Red is what we are debating, ie that the banks' were "advised" not to appeal which isn't right.
Missed your last comment, worked for Natwest for 10 and a half years before dismissal in February this year.
Indeed yourbank, it is all rather complex and my mistake for saying "advised". I thought I saw that somewhere, but as I said, being told "NO" is worse than being advised and it seemed you were defending the banks for a moment there but now it seems you are agreeing.
I was a little confused as to what your position was at the time of my posting. It just seemed for a moment there that I had triggered some major argument over the word "advised" rather than firmly told them no. Then as you said, it is mind booggling.
I on one hand think it is a bad time to be forcing the banks to cough up on a mass scale since the system is shot to pieces but then on the other hand if they have been taking money "illegally" or whatever word is appropriate to describe what they have done, then it is only right that they should repay. My bank owes me at least £1k and possibly more and only the other day added a charge for a bounced DD when on the same day a CHAPS payment went in! So I want my money back and I can see the complexities are enormous at the same time.
Again, appologies for starting this argument in what should really be a peaceful discussion about the OFT case.
Btw, I was not aiming my dislike of banking people at you, it was aimed at the very top level people which I am assuming you were not a member of. If you were a top level banker then your insight would be very interesting although I doubt you would be on this forum!
Never apologise, unfortunately, some even here who should no better, have said things that aren't exactly accurate. I agree that if I had the chance to do something which is allowed by law(regardless of what things we can suggest banks haven't done) I would do that. However, this is part 1 of the Test case. This bit is merely to decide if the terms are assessable for fairness under the UTCCR 1999. The next bit is to identify every single term that is unfair. That bit is where there could be further litigation because we all know that if that term is unfair then it doesn't exist and that is mind boggling.
Think of the numbers of people who will have lost their homes becuase of those terms, you could see litigation for years against banks based on consequential losses not forgetting people who remortgaged on higher rates because their credit history was shot to pieces over bank charges. Not forgetting CCJ's based on bank charges, or Bankruptcy that potentially could have been avoided if the charges had been fair. That is why I think that getting part 1 nailed with no area of appeal is vital.
As I said, Part 2 is just so mind boggling.
Holly sh*** yourbank, I honestly didn't consider the repercussions of the case that far.
Most people think of just getting their charges back, but of course the knock on effects of those charges could themselves result in litigation, so I see your point.
Btw, I think I saw the word "advised" in the context of wording similar to "the banks will appeal to the House of Lords against the appeal judges advice". As you say, some sites may have reported it incorrectly which is a shame, since we should all know exactly what the situation is and what it means.
Do you think that it will be possible to just settle the claims for charges only after the OFT reveal their say on the matter (after HoL appeal of course)? While it may take time to sort out the rest, if the charges are in themselves found to be unlawful then surely that should mean the immediate halt to further charging and repayment (like some PPI and endowment mortage claims).
That's the one I read before I posted! Glad I found it.
That's from Ian Pollock who sat 2 metres away from me in the Appeals Court. On this occasion he has made a mistake in his reporting of the case. I have double checked on this occasion with a few other people who were sat(I was standing) even closer than I was and that part of the article is something that the judge never uttered.
To quote in full what was read out:
"OFT v BANKS
NOTE
This note was read in open court on 26 February 2009 by the Master of the Rolls on behalf of the Court of Appeal.
1. The court is conscious that there are a large number of actions in the county court which raise the fairness of various bank charges and which are at present stayed or on hold pending the outcome of the OFT proceedings.
2. When those proceedings were before Andrew Smith J he twice referred to the position in the county courts. We refer only to the second occasion. He handed his judgment down on 24 April 2008 and at a subsequent case management conference held in late May 2008, at which permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was given he said this:
“ … as we are all conscious, the proceedings in the county courts have been on hold, if not formally stayed, pending guidance, we hope, from this litigation, and at each stage, I had been considering whether there is any reason that that position should change. I hardly need to acknowledge again that the management of the county court proceedings is not for me or the High Court but for the county courts. But the reasons that those actions should not proceed seem to me as strong as they were and will remain so until any appeal by the banks on whether regulation 6(2)(b) applies is resolved.
We understand that that guidance was subsequently communicated to the county courts by letters on behalf of all the Banks. It was in our opinion very sensible guidance.
3. The Banks’ appeal to the Court of Appeal has now failed and we have now refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal. While recognising (as Andrew Smith J did) that management of county court proceedings is not in the first instance for us, any more than the High Court, it does seem to us that there is much to be said for the present position in the county courts to remain as it is until the House of Lords has decided whether to grant permission to appeal and, if it does, until the
2
determination of the appeal. We also think that, if the decision of the Court of Appeal stands, there is much to be said for the status quo to remain until the OFT has carried out its assessment of fairness.
4. We have asked Moore-Bick LJ, as the Deputy Head of Civil Justice to consider the position, and he has decided to send a letter in the following terms to all Designated Civil Judges:
“As you may already know, the Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal in the Bank Charges litigation, holding that the OFT is entitled to investigate the fairness of the terms which provide for the payment of charges for unauthorised overdrawing etc. There was no appeal on the penalty issue on which the Banks won below.
Permission to appeal to the House of Lords has been refused, but the matter does not end there, both because the Banks may petition their Lordships for permission to appeal and because unless the decision of the Court of Appeal is overturned, the OFT will now have to complete its investigation in order to determine whether the charges are unfair or not.
As you will appreciate, apart from knocking out the penalty argument, the proceedings have not yet produced a final answer one way or the other to the claims pending in your courts. You may be faced with applications to lift the stays which are currently in place. Circumstances may differ, but you may think that, insofar as claims turn on whether the terms in question are unfair under the Regulations and therefore unenforceable, there is much to be said for continuing the existing stays pending a decision by the House of Lords and/or the outcome of the investigation by the OFT.”
5. In so far as it is for us to express a view, and without prejudice to any decision which may be made on the facts of a particular case, we entirely agree that that is a sensible approach.
6. In these circumstances we invite the Banks to communicate the position set out in this Note to the county courts.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR,
for the Court of Appeal
26 February 2009"
I think Ian Pollack has interpreted his words rather than necessarily quoting what was actually said.
Thanks yourbank, I didn't realise you were actually there!! Well done for going, I would myself if I was back home but working away at the moment.
I don't usually believe everything I read, but I did obviously in this case quote something that was itself misquoted. Again, thanks for clarifying and good that we have straightened that out.
Even better that you have posted the transcript!!!
should banks be allowed to appeal
Reply With Quote
Re: should banks be allowed to appeal
Originally Posted by yourbank
