Fingers crossed, though to be honest I'm of the impression that letters etc will be going out to all and sundry from the Leeds Merc Courts around the back end of January.

If the new POC's are out by then we will have a clear window to submit (or get the Banks to agree) and accept our new amended POC's.

Either way we stand to have a comfort zone for the necessary prep.

Also, whilst respectfully doing so, I need to correct you.

Once the new POC's are "out there", the route would be to write to the Defendants asking them to allow you to submit an amended POC.

If they do, which if they are professionals they will do, then that's all that's required to then simply send in the new amended POC to the Court with the Defendants reply letter agreeing to it.

Otherwise, if they don't agree to it, then you will have to spend a little dosh (£35-£75 someone will coreect me please) and submit an N244 with the amended POC attached.

The Court will always in this case agree to it and the cost then will be the Bank's.

I'm sure when the new POC is issued, details of how to submit it will be included to avoid and confusion and brown trouser moments

The Limitation Act doesn't apply here so long as your claim is from 1995.

The LA is a red herring the Banks will use to try get the claims struck out but just quote sect 32,b & c.

On the "ImBalance" topic of the banking contacts, then if you go into unauthorised o/d through an accidental mistake or otherwise, then the Bank "charges" you for your breach or misdemeanour.

However, if the Bank makes a mistake, then it is up to you to point this out to them and to fight for the return of the funds taken. Usually this will entail a weeks wait or longer whilst they "look into it".

They won't acceed to your request for a compensatory of even reciprocal award like £38 they charge you for what appears to be the same mistake but commited by the Bank!!

That's another imbalance methinks?

Mine....well total minus costs on the 2 claims I have with shAbbey....is £58,000

Yes you read right!

No it isn't.....it's an issue for Pest Control.....and the exterminators!!

CRUSH....another well elucidated argument and scenario.......hell...you're both SMOKIN' today

Well elucidated BOOKY....:grin:

CARO....I'm pretty sure I posted on this thread my POC's unless it was removed by the site admin for obvious historical reasons regarding posting your POC's on the thread. I'll dig mine out and just post the section for REG 5.

I wouldn't be too surprised if others at this Court will be in the same position though they may yet not know it

At the very least my REG 5 section will be brief enough for the final directions including the exchange of witness statements to allow the elaboration of why I consider REG 5 to apply. That I do know.

Still....aa-hunting I will go.....stay tuned for the post it note :grin:

JUst gleaned from the Legal seagulls site...... (hope they don't mind reproduction?)

Earlier this week the OFT invited consumer campaigning groups to meet with them to discuss the ongoing UTCCR and Market Study investigations into the banks charging structures and fairness. Budgie and EXC from google attended the meeting this afternoon with the people from the OFT who are running the investigations.

Despite hoping for an announcement early in December, due to the complex issues involved a decision is not now expected until near, or beyond, Christmas. Although it will be as soon as possible. We are seeking clarity from the courts of the claims that are stayed and whether these can be held until such an announcement is made.

The OFT's counsel are working hard on progressing the arguments under regulation 5(1). There is a concern that it will be difficult to litigate on fairness of structure, good faith or cross subsidy under 5(1) without touching on the adequacy of price which has been ruled out by the Supreme Court under regulation 6(2).

Depending on counsels opinion, there is a possiblity of referring directly to the UTCCR greylist from EU directives and taking the case on consumers failing to fulfill an obligation under the contract to keep the account in credit or within an agreed limit. This would however need to go through the high court and be referred to the ECJ, so again would take a long time.

The OFT are committed to resolving the issues as quickly as possible and to achieveing certainty and clarity for consumers, but they have to get it right, and if that takes a little longer at this stage then we are behind them 100%.

We will be opening some discussions on the varying possible outcomes, which are just theoretical. The OFT would like to understand how consumer groups would react to them not taking any further action in litigation and what we would expect to happen, also what would we like to see happen should the OFT continue litigation.

Of course the litigation primarily affects historical charging and thus refunds. It shouldn't affect hardship cases, or the work the OFT and FSA and consumer groups are putting into the future of banking and the PCA market and making it fairer and more transparent for everyone.

We also have been asked to update our response to the Personal Current Account market study report consultation ( ~~~~~seagulls formal response to OFT PCA Market Study Consultation Nov 2008~~~~~~ - Legal seagulls ) to take into account the improvements (or not) since we first submitted it in November 2008.

Much has happened in the way of the financial services bill, new updated guidance, changes to banks terms, the post office bank and so on and so on, so we will be looking for some assistance with this.

Budgie and EXC will be posting further later with more detail and will correct any misconstructions I have made.

The OFT are due to meet with representatives from MoneySavingExpert tomorrow afternoon, counsel for the consumers in the morning, and Stephen Hone on Friday. The Consumer Action Group were unable to attend todays meeting but are hoping to hold a telephone conference later in the week. The groups will be pooling opinions and ideas and working together to take this forward and get your voice heard.

So its not positive, but its not negative either. The OFT WANT to know our opinions and they value consumers views on the way forward.

Look out for some discussion threads over the next day or two and get our voice heard

Thanks YB.....I can't stress how we are all chomping at the bit here through the kindness of the various site admins and the Govan Law Centre.

The OFT does not have the power to intervene in individual disputes between consumers and businesses, rather, it is the OFT's duty to consider any complaint that a consumer contract term is unfair and, if appropriate, apply for an injunction from the court to prevent the continued use of that, or a similar, term.

In July 2008, the OFT published a market study into the state of the personal current account market. It established a complete picture of the market. It found that personal current accounts in the UK have many positive features:

• high levels of customer satisfaction

• many day-to-day services don't incur a charge, and

• internet and telephone banking makes it easier to manage.

However it identified a number of concerns which the OFT believed needed addressing:

• low levels of transparency over unarranged overdraft charges and costs, coupled with a high proportion of banks' total revenues made on unarranged overdraft charges and costs

• the complexity of the charges makes it harder for consumers to control the costs they incur and some pay significant amounts (a significant group of consumers underestimate the level and

frequency of banks' charges, and 1.4 million consumers paid over £500 in charges), and

• a general perception among consumers, not completely unfounded, that switching is complex and risky, contributing to low levels of switching between banks.

The OFT continues to have concerns about unarranged overdraft charges. The OFT will therefore be seeking discussions with banks, consumer organisations, the FSA and the Government in light of the Supreme Court judgment.

THis is one, more to the Mods than us mere mortals,....but can any site mods let the site know when approximately the new POC's that are being drafted by Ray Cox QC will be available?

Thanks

It sounds like everyone is saying their last goodbyes as I slowly head towards the Gallows

Correct CARO....I've been told it won't be struck out.

I have a section in my POC's that refers to REG 5.

Anyone's guess or maybe, just maybe, the Court have a view of REG 5 following the SCoJ judgement?

Indeed....I've only just managed to get the stains out of my undershorts.

At least I now have a month with which to either amend my POC's or use the "new" one in my exchange of docs to the Court or to use them to quote my argument against them.

I must say, I'm on tenterhooks at the moment!

Thanks Noo......

It's more my cousin as he is a ebay seller of CD's though not a trader.

Over the past year he's been seeing some unfair T & C's which do contradict themselves and eBay upon genuinie complaint do absolutely nothing about it even though it's in their own T&C's that they should.

All in, he's a pretty peeved off guy and we are thinking of raising a legal action against them in light of a recent incident. (Damned serious and guess what, the same wishy washy reply of no responsibility!)

Thanks again, and let's see where we go

Is there an eBay forum, or if there isn't can you set one up as I have a biggie that I'm positive will touch a public upswelling. During my travels to see friends and colleagues, we've all mentioned that there is no forum to find resolutions nor an area where group power such as seen with the Bank Charges exists.

Many thanks

I to phoned my court, Leeds Mercantile Courts, to find that my claim isn't being struck out but will be in front of Judge to be re-listed for a hearing on the 25th / 26th January 2010......yipppeeeeee

Also, just been informed by the Leeds Mercantile Courts that my claim hasn't been struck out and is in front of the Judge for re-listing on the 26th January 2010.

Probably end of this week MATTY......if not more than likely next week.

Please don't quote me, but from what I understand of the site team, they instructed QC to compose a new POC and that was over 9 days ago. They said it was going to be @ 2 weeks to draft one....so anytime soon bud

:DPhoned the Leeds Courts this afternoon as I lost my last communique from them as to the moratorium on the Stay.

Was kindly informed that my claim will be in front of the Judge for listing on the 25/26th January 2010.

She also let me know it was not being struck out and on or around that date (after) I will be receiving a letter letting me know of a new hearing date and directions.

WoooooHooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!

:DIn Reg 5 Sch 2 provides instances for support....

SCHEDULE 2

Regulation 5(5)

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

1. Terms which have the object or effect of– (a)

excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier;

(b)

inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him;

©

making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

(d)

permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

(e)

requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

(f)

authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

(g)

enabling the seller or supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so;

(h)

automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;

(i)

irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

(j)

enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

(k)

enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

(l)

providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;

(m)

giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

(n)

limiting the seller’s or supplier’s obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

(o)

obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

(p)

giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter’s agreement;

(q)

excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

e is a good one.......

Just a briefy...again....

• It has not been individually negotiated

  
  

• It is contrary to the requirement of good faith

  
  

• It causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer

  
  

• Sch 2 contains an indicative but not exhaustive list of what may be regarded as unfair

  
  

• The nature of the goods and services

  
  

• All circumstances attending to the conclusion of the contract

  
  

• the definition of the subject matter of the contract or
  
• the adequacy of the price or remuneration
  

Ha ha.....he changed his mind after seeing his bank balance I bet

Hi Crush....yes I fully agree....I for one can't wait for Ray Cox to sort out our "new" POC's

Just going over my last two outstandinding claims and I've noticed for ease of argument when claiming back my charges, I've used the compound interest argument and workings out as their unauthorised rate of 28.70%.

I've just figured that what I'm expecting, or rather hoping, to get is actually wrong....it works out as more.

Since charge, then interest on that charge upo to the day I closed my account. Then since they've had use of the funds I paid as charge and interest on it, I then reciprocally charge them their rate for unlawful use of my funds. So whilst I was expecting @ £58,000, it now works out as £59,785.

Me needs a hol after this!!