Thread: Do not be complacent

I'm sure everyone's heard the one about the bank who won a case in the fight to reclaim illegal bank charges... Seriously though, it did happen and here's the proof (if ever the media could be called proof of anything happening).

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank's overdraft charges upheld

I don't know too much about this particular case in itself and I'm not casting any aspertions whatsoever on those involved but it did make me sit up and think about my own claim and if I could face a similar failure.

When I first started on my claim, I blindly sent the letters without really knowing what the actual claim was. I believed they were illegal charges and as such should be paid back, but why were they illegal? What rules had been broken? Why was my claim legitimate?

Now however, after learning that the banks defence had been upheld, I was prompted into getting to know the mechanics of it all more so that should I go to court (I've just been referred to Crown Court from the Small Claims Court) I will be able to defend my case and I would urge everyone else to do the same.

Yes, you have a right to claim these charges back and the banks were wrong to take them in the first place but you're dealing with the British legal system and complacency could cost you hundreds or even thousands of pounds if you go into court unprepared.

So, my advice for what it's worth is, by all means use all the templates and take advantage of the short cuts to get the ball rolling but make sure you know what you're claiming, why and how to defend yourself if challenged.

Thanks to the CAG and all who sail in her for the help you've all given me so far.

People power in action!!!

Similar Threads:

• Complacent 4 too long

"I don't know too much about this particular case in itself and I'm not casting any aspertions whatsoever on those involved but it did make me sit up and think about my own claim and if I could face a similar failure.

When I first started on my claim, I blindly sent the letters without really knowing what the actual claim was. I believed they were illegal charges and as such should be paid back, but why were they illegal? What rules had been broken? Why was my claim legitimate?"

Many posters and stickies urge people to read before starting the claim but I'm sure all of us have started something without reading the manual and so I'm not going to get on my high horse.

It concerns me that you still refer to the charges as illegal is this simply a figure of speech? The whole point is that the charges are unlawful, if we don't use the correct terminology what chance have we got of the Media getting things right???

Anyway I'm glad to hear your understanding deepened, although I can understand if you're not a big chunker how some people would struggle to keep up to date with the latest developements in this area.

After reading the full judgement I felt I could see holes in the arguments the judge was making and the way the case was conducted. I am a lay person, my only expereince of law being an A level.

If I can see significant short comings in the decsions there are two possibilites A) My opinion is way off since the judge has legal training and was talking about things I don't undertsnad.

B) With proper legal counsel the case which lost could easily be overturned. I mean no disrespect to Kev here, I feel the judge was, as some have said, bullying him. He was asking techinical questions of a claiment and in the heat of the moment I'm sure we would've each made many mistakes.

This case is a thing of beauty it opens the door to a precedent but also gives us a very real warning that this is a serious business (what could be more serious, in everyday life, than going to court to claim money from a huge organisation?) and that we need to prepar to the best of our abilities.

I hope we can all help each other and keep the campaign growing.

Hi Indebtstudent,

Thanks for responding to my post - this blogging is new to me so it's great that people actually take time to read my ramblings.

I take your point about using the term 'illegal' as opposed to 'unlawful'. That was more a figure of speech and a lack of legal understanding of the subtle differences so I stand corrected.

Thank you.

Now spread the word we must all do our best, that way we can make sure the banks sit up and take notice!

As a side issue on the whole do you think the media are for or against us?

It's difficult for me to say really as I pay scant regard to what the media have to say in general as most reporting is laced with the jounalists opinions and I have to say, in my experience the phrase 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story' is high on the curriculum at hack college.

I would suggest that based on what I've seen of the coverage so far they seem to be behind us rather than the banks but probably as most of the journalists are doing wat we're doing.

What do you think?