Jump to content

Ladidi

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About Ladidi

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi Everyone, I thought I would update you all on the progress of our case. With teh new waiver in place, I took a chance and emailed ashurst to ask them re negiotiate settlement under the waiver rules. They replied with an offer of 65% which was declined staright away. They then came back with an offer of 95% of total claimed without interest. But as the new waiver rules protect you I took this knowing I can still reclaim any difference owed should the case go in the consumers favour. The cheque for the amount agreed arrived this morning and is safely in our bank account
  2. You need to file a dispute with the bank and make the account in dispute and ask for all information relation to your account eg bank statements for past 6 years if you banked with them for this long and if you dont already have the statements and state that you are going to be claiming back your charges they have applied to your account. It will cost you £10 for the bank statements. All information relating to letters and claiming back can be found on this website. As soon as Abbey acknowledge your claim the debt collection agency have to send it back to them with the account being in disp
  3. This was also being reported on the BBC news website.. BBC NEWS | Business | Deadline set on bank charges case
  4. I found this useful peice of information on penalty charges made by BW... In a nutshell: The banks will formally make their appeal on the UTCCR fairness issue tomorrow. The OFT may appeal on PIL but won't appeal on the penalty issue. The Judge will now look at historical T&Cs and make a declaration on whether they are penalties or not during the next CMC on 7-8 July. The judge will make his rulings on a bank by bank, term by term basis. Because Nationwide T&Cs have not changed the judge will not consider them. Also, in the same hearing he will decide whether his
  5. Today, 16:33:PM this post was posted by BUDGIE on LB site VIP Member Golden Retriever Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 253 Thanks: 74 Thanked 180 Times in 77 Posts My Mood: Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) Continued............. The judge expressed on several occasions that he was unhappy at the potential delays and uncertainty with regards to timescales as already reported in Ame's earlier posts. Before lunch he had requested that the OFT provide a more definite indication as to when they might expect to produce their PCA report and to progre
  6. Ok everyone I must inform you that all post that I have pasted in here are from L E G A L B E A G L E S ON BEHALF OF AMETHYST. I did try to post the links but for reason they are not allowed in this forum. I just want to make clear I have been keeping you updated through sources of another website. Our very kind regards and thanks to Amethyst and all the others on the forum who have been allowing us to use the information they have posted in order for me to able to update you all with information to use at your discretion. Ladidi
  7. Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) OK Proceedings have finished for the day and we are back at the Bunker. Here is a summary of the key points from todays CMC Banks are appealing against judgement regarding UTCRR 1999 issues OFT are not appealing Penalty charge aspects for current terms OFT will decide tonight and advise Judge tomorrow if they will be appealing the PIL judgment for current terms. The official applications regarding the appeals will be heard tomorrow. Judge will hand down declarations regarding historic terms ( inc basic accounts ) at the CMC to b
  8. The TC has worked backwards to be fair. Historicals should've been dealt with first, then current but it's gone the other way nicely for the banks. With the ruling on historicals still to come 7/8 July, I'm not sure the stays will be lifted unless Smith has spotted something he can genuine slip out. If he does it will be based on the fact he's found the current terms open to UTCCR and therefore it's assumed by all, even the banks, that ruling will pass to historicals. So stays could be lifted on that basis - even if elements dealing with penalties for historicals are still held over for T
  9. News from the CMC (OFT v Banks yep I'd agree with you....need to have a look at the T&Cs from nationwide. Like I said will try clarify at next break. and no its not a ''judgement''. Answer nice one. Just wish the OFT had appealed the penalty aspects, but they aren't interested in those at all are they. The good thing is, it's already been said the Judgment on Penalties for current terms can be ignored because it flies 'so' in the face of history it's unbelievable. But Smithy finding that they can be looked at under UTCCR because they aren't 'really' service f
  10. Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) Oh that's a new spin then, so that's an OFT judgment not a Smithy Judgment. In that case I'd say Nationwiders can still use penalties, but need to be prepared to argue against the OFT decision - keep it on track of, easy to sort out - disclose your costs. But that definitely means now for Nationwide T&C's are needed and the appropriate bits highlighted properly. Then again I do like straws! lol
  11. How has he concluded Nationwide aren't penalties - wasn't it Nationwide unless my mind has gone that admitted they were and the QC had to say their leaflet was wrong? ANSWER The OFT issued the banks with a list of terms to which the banks had to respond. Only two did, one of which was Nationwide and the OFt have concluded that none of Nationwides terms either present or historical can be deemed penaltys under common law. Its not a judgement I think just an indication of what the OFT have found - so UTCCR only for Nationwide.
  12. IMHO I think the Judge should just ask the banks to declare their true costs to avoid any more time wasting and use his Judgements based on the facts they present to him and inform that either the amount should be reduced to £? or all refunds should be given back to the consumer until the OFT & the Banks can come to some resolve on the issue no more monies can be collected from the consumer until a fair and just amount is in proportion to their true costs!!
  13. Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) OFT pressurised over bank charges By Ian Pollock Personal finance reporter, BBC News, High Court Thursday, 22 May 2008 13:37 UK The High Court has been the seen of the latest legal battle A High Court judge has told the Office of Fair Trading to reveal when it will decide if bank charges are fair or not. Mr Justice Andrew Smith made his comments as he granted eight banks leave to appeal against his earlier ruling on the issue. Last month he decided that the OFT had the power under consumer contract regulations to rule if
  14. The banks are DEFINATELY appealing UTCCR 99 and judge has accepted this appeal. Judge was critical of the QC for OFT - the OFT still have no idea when publication of PCA report will be and he couldnt pin it down to being within a year. The QC is taking advice from the OFT on this for this afternoons session - and the Judge seemed keen to put pressure on the OFT to get this report completed. The hold up is the Banks keep changing T&Cs so the OFT keep having to refer back to banks to get info on new T&Cs on 20th May all banks meant to have responded but all but two have asked
×
×
  • Create New...