Jump to content

bornrich

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About bornrich

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This is a brilliant result for consumers in the UK and completely proves that campaigning works. However, the biggest challenge faced is the banks' attitude to their customers. How are they going to move away from treating us collectively like a profit centre and instead treat us as individuals with needs that must be responded to – and do it without losing face? How is the present uncompetitive market ever going to deliver the momentum to achieve it? The tide is slowly changing but when will we experience a sea change? A tipping point when massive and swift action floods the banking market? As I said, a great result (especially as it's Lloyds TSB) and here's to many more in the near future. Bornrich
  2. I'm assuming the banks will now all follow suit on this tactic which will be a crying shame. I wonder if the judge on my case could be persuaded that the defendant bank has had plenty of time to raise the issue of complexity but has failed to do so and that the hearing should be allowed to go ahead? At our last meeting the barrister did not object to the allocation of a considerable amount of time set by the judge to discuss, in particular, the merits of the 5.1 argument. If I do actually manage to get into that court I'll be ready with my argument along with a couple of big diagrams to illustrate two of my points on the unfairness of the banking relationship. Namely the charge on a charge (with interest that technically should not be charged) that triggers a further charge the proceeding month. And the other is the interest charged on charges which, added up over numerous years, has triggered a charge in itself. Both of which have caused detriment to myself blah, blah... It may sound complicated but with the help of a diagram or two I'm sure the judge would be able to understand the 'complexities'. I got the feeling the judge on my case wanted to hear the arguments, having allocated a fair amount of time for the case. I don't know, sometimes these Barristers think they're the only smart people on the planet. Anyway, I've a week or so to go before the bank's deadline to respond to my revised POC so we'll see what happens. Bornrich.
  3. bornrich

    Court cases

    UPDATE. Permission granted to amend POC. Hearing early August. (8 months after the Supreme Court hearing!) It's going well. I've got some good 'personal' stuff going in to support the unfair relationship reg. 5 argumant. I will give an update after the hearing. Wishing everyone else pushing forward with their cases the best of luck. Bornrich
  4. The Lib Dems are also the only party with the backbone to stand up to the banks. I know where my 'X' is going on Thursday.
  5. Had confirmation that my case will be heard in the English County Court 3 days before the Sharp v BoS case. Bornrich v. Lloyds TSB Bank plc.
  6. Hi Vanderpelt, You are correct, there are a number of cases in the system that will challenge Lloyds legal team and that they will have to defend. No doubt the results of these will come through in the next month or so. Lloyds won't want to settle these at it could reopen the floodgates. But then if they defend them and lose they're in the same situation. From experience the courts (judges) are only interested in the legal arguments. Unless you have very specific proof that the bank mishandled and mistreated you I would try the personal route, unless you are experiencing real hardship. Bornrich
  7. bornrich

    Court cases

    Kennyh, It has always amazed me how slowly the legal profession operates. Two years for a test case... and now it seems the County Courts are stalling proceedings. Bornrich
  8. Hi, I'm working on my revised PoC I'm preparing for a forthcoming county court hearing on bank charges. With a looming deadline approaching I need some help. I'm pleased with what I've done so far but I need some help. Arguments are based on 5(1) of the UTTC Regs based on breakdown of goodwill. All long shots and untested in court. structure so far comprises: • Misinformation from the outset (based on information given to the Supreme court re charging structure/Robin Hood's evil brother etc.) • Lack of competition/choice - linked to charging structure • Deliberately creating a situation where charges cause more charges the next month and so on - with lots of personal examples. • Increasing interest charges beyond that which is considered acceptable to a hardship case (any case!) I've based a lot of it on the strike out suggestion but I've taken out all the bits that I believe the judge will simply shrug off. I'm also making it highly relevant to me and my family's situation. Not sure whether to include Consumer Credit Act 1974 either as it could appear to be 'thrown in' by the judge as a desperate measure. But I like the fact that the onus of proof is placed on the bank. What I need, and I haven't had any luck in my searches so far, are the historic interest rates for unauthorized overdrafts for Lloyds TSB Gold and Platinum accounts for the last 20 years. This will hopefully show the massive percentage increase in charges interest over the period. Can anyone point me in the right direction for the historic interest rate hikes? All help much appreciated. Bornrich
  9. This is very constructive reasoning and propbably the most positive thing that's come out of this forum for 2 weeks. I'm chasing up my pre-stayed case and wil use these arguments for my own case if I get the chance. I believe that it does have to come back to the 'level' of charges as this is the cause of the outrage. How that is done depends on getting to how the 'contract' between the bank and customer is NEVER nogotiable BECAUSE the customer cannot make a comparison between the charges imposed by the various banks (cartel/lack of competition). This will hopefully lead to the bank having to disclose the actual cost of each penalty which they won't do due to the 'competive sensitivity of disclosure'. To me that's the crux. Getting back to disclosure of the actual cost of penalty so that the customer has the knowledge to negotiate.
  10. SteveH2508, I think you've definitely got something there. Here's an extract from a recent letter from MBNA The next paragraph in the letter mentions the McGuffick ruling and states that payments should continue to be made. So, it would seem MBNA are stuffed as they won't be able to reconstitute agreements. Bornrich.
  11. I've decided that I'm going ahead with my case whatever (assuming it's not thrown out) based on Clause 5 and hardship. I'll be spending January swotting up on the legal arguments ready to present to the judge whenever I get the chance. I've waited two and a half years and I want my day in court. Any advice from CAG will be most appreciated of course. Basically, I'm not scared of the banks anymore. I treat them with utter, utter contempt and I will challenge them at every opportunity. 2010 will be the year when the consumer bites back! Merry Christmas to you all. Bornrich
  12. Yes I would. You will need to go through the Legal Complaints Service first who will then refer the case to the SRA. I would particularly question the point that "our client will have the right to seek an order for sale of the property at any time" as I believe this is not the case. The letter implies that this can be done at any time. The reality is that there will be a long court procedure before any such action is allowed. While I doubt if the SRA will uphold your complaint it will put Optima in the spotlight again. I'm sure these things work out when the numbers become overwhelming. Perhaps when the SRA gets 100 complaints they may give Optima a ticking off. Who knows how the upper circles of this dreadful country work? Bornrich
  13. "We will commence court proceedings shortly" I think someone at Optima really enjoys trying to fluff up the threat levels on these letters. What does shortly mean? I think you have a couple of months before you get to anything like court instigation stage. Enough time to sort out who actually owns the debt now. Bornrich
  14. Tomten, I think it's important you get clarification from Optima who actually 'owns' the debt here. You have a situation where you try and set up a payment plan with the original creditor but are then told to pay Optima. And yet Optima state in their letter "In addition, to protect its [MBNA's] position, our client will also be seeking to secure the outstanding balance." In the immortal words of Spock, that's illogical captain. I'd write back and say you're all set up and ready to progress with the payment plan but request clarification on the above point. Bornrich
×
×
  • Create New...