Thread: some important information regarding banks

hi all, i just thought i'd make you aware of something, even though it probably wont happen yet, but my best friend works for alliance and leicester, and i also have another friend who works for Barclays, they in the last 2 weeks have both had in house training regarding dealing with these claims against the charges, as over 30,000 cases have been in the last 6 months, and they are going to start fighting these charges as although it would cost them alot, in the long run the amount they lose by paying back people these charges will compensate that, so if thinking off claiming some charges back i'd get on it asap
thought it useful info to share
many thanks

Similar Threads:

• Some Important Information
• Important Tax Information
• Ex-Abbey Employee: IMPORTANT INFORMATION
• Natwest Letter 'Important Information about your Account

What rubbish!!! Of COURSE the banks are going to say that!!!!!!! Do you REALLY expect them to admit that their charges are unlawful, either to their staff or anyone else?

If you are in any doubt over the legality of these charges, I suggest you do a little bit more research, my friend. Read this for starters: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...tml#post213612

What I want to know is; why the hell are people (the public in general) so willing to believe absolutely everything the banks say without so much as a question? WTF is that all about?!!?!

most people on here would like to see a bank actually turn up in court and justify their charges!

Originally Posted by pugsley

most people on here would like to see a bank actually turn up in court and justify their charges!

I disagree, i think some would, (most people, there are 70,000 members) want to get some moeny back with the least amount of hassle possible.

I have long thought the banks will do something at some stage, and the problem is they are just as likely to pick on one of those people who dont want any hassle, as they are someone from a forum like this who has done the work and has the ability tro put up a reasonable case.

The appearance at court is less about the law than about making a case.

I hope if they do go to court they meet someone who has a clue, because otherwise it could mean an appeal to overturn a decision.

As much as the case for the claimants seems water tight, the problem is that the banks know that court room skill is as much about winning cases as is the ability to interpret the law.

Right doesnt always win.

JMHO

Glenn

PS im a gloomy sod arent i !!!

yes you are a gloomy sod, anyway most of the people on here are doing small track so are not gonna change much. I would like to see how they justify at £38 charge in detail, I for one think they will have to come at it at a very new angle, one noone has thought about if they want to defend it, afterall they have the best lawyers etc.


Sure I would like the money back, but I'm not claiming thousands and after all the grief and stress they have given me in the past I would like to see them in court. I'm all for settlement, but if someone annoys me/cheats me, then I find a new strength.

The point i was trying to make, probably not succesffuly, was that they may well pcik a claim thats in fast or multi track.

There is a recent case for less than 1000 that has been allocated to multi track!

My claim will be fast track.

They will try to defend and destroy the credibility of the claimant rather than the charges specifically.

If they try often enough they may win one and get precedent set, i think it has to be multi track for that, but if they do then it will be relevant to fast track.

Of course they could adopt this approach in small claims but claimants will likley benifit from support from the court at least in terms of process.

But hey I hope im wrong.

Glenn

yes I read your earlier thread and it seems a good idea to split the amount

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

The point i was trying to make, probably not succesffuly, was that they may well pcik a claim thats in fast or multi track.

IMHO, they're just as unlikely, or even LESS likely, to fight a case in the multi or fast tracks - where standard disclosre is ordered as a matter of course. Remember 'Elliot v. Lloyds'?

i was just pointing it out, but thanks it makes me feel a little more confident with your views

many thanks

Originally Posted by GaryH

IMHO, they're just as unlikely, or even LESS likely, to fight a case in the multi or fast tracks - where standard disclosre is ordered as a matter of course. Remember 'Elliot v. Lloyds'?

Well its a moot point until it happens of course.

We can agree to disagree but the point is its unrealistic to expect these court actions to continue ad infenitum until everyone gets their money back.

This forum now has over 70k members and its growing at around 4 - 500 per day.

If we go to other sites im sure they are growing too, and although there appears to be not a lot of really big interest in the press its something which as it becomes better known will grow.

Anyway time will tell whos right i guess.

Glenn

If the case were to do to anything other than SCT, is there any loophole we could exploit to force the claim to hearing instead of taking what they offer us? I've had two offers of payment - one was made with a charge levied in between acceptance and payment, meaning they effectively paid £20 less of the settlement; the second was made and accepted recently to credit my C/C balance, however, I then received notice of account closure dated before I'd sent my reply. I'm confident that I could argue that I am entitled to refuse any further settlement, even if it is at the full amount without admission of fault, on the grounds that I evidently cannot rely upon the bank for the necessary good faith.