Aequitas, I am going to ask what so many have asked, but you never answer: Why are you here? All you have ever done is try to put people off, pour derision and scorn on any of the legal arguments which didn't fit your beliefs, and now crow about how you were right and we were wrong in a none too subtle manner. Have you actually applied that legal knowledge of yours to try and assist people instead of trying to discourage them? Wouldn't THAT be a better use of your time, energy and legal knowledge? :-?

I think I have answered your question on more than one occasion. Indeed in my very first post, which was in this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/92975-bank-charges-penalties.html I said "I think they [the points in red above] bear examination and that is why I signed up." Also, in post 41 of the same thread I said: "When I made my first post it was with the very specific purpose of suggesting that concentrating on insisting that bank charges are penalties is not the best way forward to get bank charges reduced, and, with that end in view, explained why I did not think bank charges were penalties."

I also said in my first post "I am against the high level of charges made by banks." I have had to repeat that constantly and there are no doubt still some who do not believe it.

Since I am human, and particularly after being vilified by of some Caggers, I freely admit that I could not help feeling some satisfaction when the legal arguments I put forward back in May 2007 were endorsed by the courts. I do not think though that I have engaged in any triumphalism. If you knew me you would say I was one of the least arrogant people you knew. If any arrogance has come across in any post I have made I would suggest, with respect, that it is imagined and arises from the reader's understandable annoyance that I was after all right.

I have freely conceded that my observation that any first year law student could have worked out that bank charges were not contractual penalties was ill-advised. Thinking about it I ought to have said: the idea that bank charges are contractual penalties was worth looking at, but anyone who knew the relevant law and considered the idea would have concluded it was untenable. If I made the observation it was out of frustration which I have often felt when trying to discuss the law on bank charges on this forum when few seemed willing to give even a moment's consideration to the points I was trying to make or, with one notable exception, to concede, however grudgingly, that I may perhaps after all have been on the right track.

And that is all I have ever tried to do: to engage people in a purely legal argument. People, rightly seething with justified indignation at the unfairness of it all, were however unwilling to consider that their view of the law was open to question.

If I had nothing positive to offer it was in part that I was concentrating on urging people to consider whether the legal arguments they were advancing were sustainable, but mainly because I could see no clear way forward for individuals to challenge bank charges. I did however suggest, as did Lady Hale, that the answer may lie in the fact that the consumer has no real choice. Whether the CCA has the answer I do not know.

Aequitas - An answer to...my own questions last year would be appreciated.

If you point me in their direction I shall try and answer them.

If you point me in their direction I shall try and answer them.

An answer to post 23 would be nice !

An answer to post 23 would be nice !

I thought I had answered it in post 26. I think the only thing I can add is that, despite what people may think, my aim is to the best of my ability to explain the law the way I see it. That sometimes involves slaying sacred cows. I soldier on even where that makes me unpopular.

(e) it is argued that the Supreme Court got it wrong?

No, I think at this point, the conspiracy theorists got the upper hands, (not so much "wrong" as "wilfully gave the banks the victory they so badly needed), but it is generally accepted, at least where I have read so, that the SC may have made the right decision, at least on that very narrow issue of 6.2 of the UTCCR. Where they DID get it wrong is in deciding that the charges were part of the core terms, but if that is accepted, then their decision re 6.2 was correct in that the OFT can not assess fairness of core terms.

Remember at the last hurdle the banks amended their argument.

If it had remained that their charges were "reasonable administrative costs" would they then have been able to argue that they were a "a core part of their business" - I don't think so, as one appears to contradict the other.

If admin costs are so large I would suggest that they are doing something wrong.

It was only when they declared that these charges were a "cross subsidy" could they claim the "core part" argument.

so both of the above quotes may be wrong in IMHO as it was the banks moving the goal posts again and as I implied here this could be a real mistake for them.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2786301.html

Has anyone any proof that the Banks made Witness Statements stating that their charges were for Admin Costs?

I have many letters from HBOS stating the charges were "to cover our costs". They later changed the wording.

BD

No, Witness Statements ( and signed as Statements of Truth) that were submitted to the Courts BD, not letters.

No, Witness Statements ( and signed as Statements of Truth) that were submitted to the Courts BD, not letters.

Would they really be in the public domain? I think only the courts and OFT would have that. The question is - can other courts access it?

It would be interesting to find out?

Anyone? ;-)

I understand the difference. I was simply saying what I (and many others) do have - and HBOS etc. can't hide behind the fact they were "just" letters and not proper Witness Statements. They should still be truthful an dnot misleading.

I believe Glasgow Sheriff Court will get HBOS to put up or shut up regarding this in June. I can't wait!

BD

Sorry BD if my tone came across as a bit off-ish, wasn't mean't to be....aoplogies

Indeed you're spot-on, and this is where our argument is now heading.

I was hoping that if someone could answer the above question then I think we all have a strong case insofar as the Banks have commited perjury!!

No problem SRF. I also hope the WS can be found!

BD

I can't access my files at the moment because I have DD sleeping in what is normally my office (long story), but I know I have a witness statement from an ex-employee attesting that the costs were due to elaborate manual intervention and therefore a true reflection of the actual costs.

The bad news is that this was in my FNMF case, a long-absorbed finance company which was at last appearance owned by Abbey, so don't know how much of a use it would be to the general public.

Hiya Booky

Unfortunately it needs to be from the High Court / Appeal Court submittances of the OFT Test Case.

Still.....how old do you think it is?

do you think OFT might cough up a sample if we ask nicely lol

Oct/Nov 06, top of my head.

"Remember at the last hurdle the banks amended their argument.

If it had remained that their charges were "reasonable administrative costs" would they then have been able to argue that they were a "a core part of their business" - I don't think so, as one appears to contradict the other.

If admin costs are so large I would suggest that they are doing something wrong.

It was only when they declared that these charges were a "cross subsidy" could they claim the "core part" argument.

so both of the above quotes may be wrong in IMHO as it was the banks moving the goal posts again and as I implied here this could be a real mistake for them."

Amended thier argument? Is that REALLY what happened? Cos to me it looked very much like theier lawyers were arguing the exact opposite of what they had been saying for YEARS.

They CHANGED the terms and conditions, therefore WHY do those charges stand? And why hasn't there been a case about that?

The simplest way I can express how ridiculous the current situation is is found below.

The Office of FAIR Trading CANNOT rule on what is essentially an issue of fairness.

I know that sounds absurd, but that's where we're at. Something has to change, and if nothing does the Government has to step in.

Otherwise what they're saying is ok kids its ok to lie, and cheat (you can see this rewarded in sports to), so long as you get away with it the rewards a great.