Another reason for a CAG template is that the Banks may recognise it as such and realise "this one has got good help available and won't just go away" and do an "ex gratia" refund - as they did before OFT interference.

This might not be fair on non-CAGGERS - but they are always free to join!

BD

Bookworm

 

Thanks for your reply. However I don't agree that the SC ruled that "the level of charges per se can not be challenged".

 

My reading of what I heard on BBC news is that they CAN under another part of UTCCR. that is why I would like a CAG template for this - based on the full written SC ruling - so we don't make ANY mistakes in our rebuttal of their lying letters.

 

BD

The SC has decided that the charges are part of a package, a "service", and therefore a core part of the contract, and as such, their LEVEL can not be challenged. Not by the OFT, not by us.

The difficulty in coming up with a hard-hitting alternative is because of that. What can be challenged IMO is the mechanism by which these charges occur.

For example: Let's say that on the same day, you have a £10 DD coming out which takes you over-limit. The bank either pays or doesn't pay, but EITHER WAY levies a charge. If they choose to refuse the payment, but still levy the charge (which they do), this still takes you over-limit, but the bank has created that debt, not you. That in itself may be arguable.

More interesting is the fact you went over-limit triggers has also triggered a monthly charge. When that comes out, it can send you further in the red, or if you had paid monies in, is enough to take you over again. And again. And again.

Thus the smallest hiccup on your behalf can trigger the snowball effect, and that IMO is what we can challenge in front of a judge.

My second Halifax case was exactly that: I went 12 pence over-limit, by the time they paid up 4 months later, they had taken £150 of charges with more in the pipeline.

Now, back to the beginning. I said you have a £10 DD. What if you haven't? Sometimes, it is the banks levying the interest on your account which will take you o/limit. At that point, it is the BANK taking money from your account that triggers money which the BANK will charge you, which means the only side benefiting at any time from this is the bank themselves. Even worse, you can stop any other payment on your instruction, but NOT the charges or interest. So the bank have the unfair advantage and that is where IMO we can use the UTCCR.

But challenging the amount they charge? No, I repeat, that ship has sailed, thank you OFT and SC.

Bookworm

Thanks for that very full reply. If nothing better comes up (no offence) then this can form the essence of a great complaint letter to Mr Daniels, copied to John McFall before getting FOS involved if necessary.

However can I ask if you have read the suggested template developed by Govan Law Centre (on their web site) referring to the other parts of UTCCR which can be used against unfair charges?

My reading is that does still leave the door wide open to challenge all these charges without having to give way on the fact some of them seem to be "legal" according to the SC.

I would appreciate your comments on this.

BD

I have two cases sitting with Birmingham County Court against Bank of Scotland.

After reading up on this site (as I did all along whilst starting my claims) the advice to apply for the stay to be removed was carefully followed.

I have recently recieved correspondence from the Court advising me that:

The application to remove the stay should be made in accordance with CPR Part 23 using form N244.

Any application for permission to amend the Particulars of Claim should be made at the same time. in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in The Office of Fair Trading (respondents) v Abbey National plc & others (appellants) [2009] UKSC 6 the Particulars of Claim will require amendment if the Claimant intends to pursue the claim. A draft of the proposed amendment should accompany the application notice.

Unless the claimant is fee exempt, the applications will attract a court fee.

(surprise surpirse)

My Question: What happens now. Should I bother to apply for the removal and amendment? Any help advice appreciated.

I did -briefly- but haven't gone through them in details, for the simple reason that I have been heavily doped up on codeine the last couple of weeks, and it makes it a lickle bitt difficult to take in new legal arguments, lol, so I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting right now. I'll get back to you on that when the brain fog has cleared.

But challenging the amount they charge? No, I repeat, that ship has sailed, thank you OFT and SC.

What would the French do?

What would the French do?

Can you explain that comment since the UK Supreme Court decision is not binding on the French?

Can you explain that comment since the UK Supreme Court decision is not binding on the French?

Certainly, it's called a hypothetical question.

Why are you asking the hypothetical situation which is irrelevant to this thread which involves UK not French law, which involves UK contracts not French contracts, and is quite frankly IRRELEVANT?

Why are you asking the hypothetical situation which is irrelevant to this thread which involves UK not French law, which involves UK contracts not French contracts, and is quite frankly IRRELEVANT?

Because I choose to.

Why are you so concerned?

Because I choose to.

 

Why are you so concerned?

I was trying to work out whether you were making a xenophobic jibe at Bookworm(which I thought you were doing) or whether it was something else. Thankfully, I think it was something else. I am always concerned if xenophobia is the only argument someone has against a valid point being made by someone who has taken many hours out of their life to post on an internet forum.

I was trying to work out whether you were making a xenophobic jibe at Bookworm(which I thought you were doing) or whether it was something else. Thankfully, I think it was something else. I am always concerned if xenophobia is the only argument someone has against a valid point being made by someone who has taken many hours out of their life to post on an internet forum.

Bookworm and I don't agree on everything, but I think you will have her in stitches coming up with all that! Anyhow, the question remains. What would the French do?

Are you not going to add your name to the 'March For Fairness' thread then friend? You seemed like the decent sort that would be up for a peaceful protest...

Bookworm can answer the french question cos je ne se pas por quoi(apologies to bookworm but unfortunately my GCSE French is not as good as my degree level Spanish is, sadly).

Regeneration, the thread stopped dead in December 2009 then had one post from yourself in January 2010 to which no one has responded.

You need aims, you need support, a venue, media attention, mass appeal message, and a date.

At the moment, I will look at that thread again(as I have only just found it today since no link to it even on your signature meant that I assumed it was CARO's thread you were on about). For info: Caro has a link on her signature which means people will look there so a tip for you might be to do the same so others view the thread when they see your posts. Hope that makes sense

Bookworm can answer the french question cos je ne se pas por quoi(apologies to bookworm but unfortunately my GCSE French is not as good as my degree level Spanish is, sadly).

 

Regeneration, the thread stopped dead in December 2009 then had one post from yourself in January 2010 to which no one has responded.

 

You need aims, you need support, a venue, media attention, mass appeal message, and a date.

 

At the moment, I will look at that thread again(as I have only just found it today since no link to it even on your signature meant that I assumed it was CARO's thread you were on about). For info: Caro has a link on her signature which means people will look there so a tip for you might be to do the same so others view the thread when they see your posts. Hope that makes sense

It would be nice to see you add your support on the thread with some helpful comments.

It would be nice to see you add your support on the thread with some helpful comments.

I'll lay odds of 100 to 1 to anyone that he doesn't. Baron Renog always knows these things you see. You can all trust Baron Renog...

Any takers?

I'll lay odds of 100 to 1 to anyone that he doesn't. Baron Renog always knows these things you see. You can all trust Baron Renog...

 

Any takers?

Renegotiation, what is the current amount of support you have on that thread? Less than 100???

Even the petitions on here get over 400 so clearly I'll look at it and give you some pointers where I think you need to go.

Renegotiation, what is the current amount of support you have on that thread? Less than 100???

 

Even the petitions on here get over 400 so clearly I'll look at it and give you some pointers where I think you need to go.

As I said, any support is welcome. All I ask, is that you get your name on the list and voice your support for massive peaceful demonstrations. I know you will stand with us on this. It's all pretty straightforward.

I see you still haven't done so. Here's the link again:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/234784-march-fair-financial-system-4.html

Has anyone heard from a bank where the case is a debtor defending the bank's claim and claiming back charges as part of defence?

I have heard from the Court, following the end of the test case, regarding a claim I have against Abbey for bank charges. The order from the Court, dated 23rd January 2010, is as follows -

" Upon it appearing that this claim relates to bank charges, and it is or may be within the categories considered by the Supreme Court . . . . . .

It is ordered that

1. The claim be further stayed generally;

2. Either party may apply to remove the stay on application to the Court. Such an application may be made by way of a letter (accompanied by the appropriate court fee) and copied to the opposing party;

3. The application must state:

a. By reference to the decision of the Supreme Court the grounds upon which the application to remove the stay are based, and

b. Whether, and if so, what attempts have been made to settle the claim;

4. If no such application to remove the stay is made by 10 February 2010, the claim shall be struck out without further order.

This seems to me to be more or less the end of the road for this, and similar, claims!!!!!

Has anyone else recieved similar from the Court dealing with their claim? I'd be VERY grateful if anyone has any advice on what to do now.

Many thanks.

Which court is that Adams?

Its Ipswich County Court

Have you seen info on Govan Law Centre web site, might be of interest to you adamsc

Thanks tedney.

For the benefit of others this is the link to the relevant page of Govan Law Centre's site -

Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges: free help to amend existing complaint letters

There is no sign of any ammended POC's there yet though.

As regards my particular claim, I'm thinking of going down the route of applying to the Court to have the stay lifted, and asking for permission to ammend my Particulars of Claim.

However, I have to admit that I have a few concerns about this course of action, especially in light of the fact that the Govern Law Centre et al seem to be having significant problems in compiling a revised 'particulars of claim' - they have been promised within 2 weeks for the best part of 6 weeks now and still haven't appeared!

I'm concerned that if they don't appear within a very short time then the claim will be struck out, given that Ipswich County Court have (unilaterally!) only given me till 10th Feb to apply to lift the stay. I'd feel far happier proceeding in this way if the new POC's were actually available. Does anyone happen to know if it is permissable to ask the Court to continue the stay beyond 10th Feb, pending the gathering and compilation of new evidence with specific reference to the UTCCR's and Consumer Credit Act 1974 which was not covered by 'The Test Case'?

I am also concerned that if only a few people proceed in this way, especially if the new POC's don't appear, there is a very real chance of having to face Abbey / Santander's top notch leagal seagulls in Court, which I don't actually relish doing, and if we loose, being ordered to pay the bank's huge legal costs. Does anyone have any views on that?

I have had one off the hsbc who have filed for a strike out last week.

I've received a letter from Cardiff CC asking if I wish to continue with my claim against HSBC. I phoned court and they explained that HSBC have asked that the case be dismissed and that's why the court has written to me. I haven't heard anything about my Barclays claim yet, which means they haven't asked to have the case dismissed yet..............