Normally the losing party has 14 days from the Judgement with which to lodge an appeal or pay-up before the Judgement becomes enforceable. 8)

Sorry about what's to follow...

OH MY GOD!!!....THEY'VE NOT KILLED KENNY!.......

Ah...that's better, it's a little of my chest now!

LOL......reasonableness will still be a part of the argument my friend.....it's just a different regulation now.

The beauty of this one (Reg 5) is that it is up to the Banks to show that the contract was negotiated AND there was an alternative cheaper product in the market place.

I don't think so scruffy puppy!

Ah....Kenny....there's a blast from the past

Well CAG has been logical...hence the ancient inclusion of REG 5 in our original POC's.

It was the OFT by dint of being forced to take on a test case that hunted the Banks down on such a narrow remit.

Still, I have to say 2.5 years to clarify a regulation that was questionable insofar as if it failed what do you fall back onto.....in the case of the OFT, Penalty Charges, in the case of CAG Penalty Charges and Reg 5 UTCCR.

If only some wally in the OFT included CAG into their discussion/advice forum as they did with Mr. Lewis!!

If you can't find the drivers for the scanner......post it up bud by manually typing it out....

Makes for a perfectly logically and easy to understand argument....well done.

That's ok...sit tight.

The final decision has not happened technically yet. The OFT has 14 days from 25th Nov to Appeal. If it does then the decision is still not quite over (technically). If they don't, then 7-21 days after that the Banks must file a response (defence) in Court or risk getting their defence struck out.

Did you have in your POC a reference to UTCCR's? Regulation 5 or just UTCCR or the penalties argument?

It won't be...the court will inform you before anything starts and gives you the option to oppose.

Basically, the Court will keep you informed but it's up to Lloyds to ask you first, then if no reply or agreement, they can apply to court. The Judge will invite you to comment/oppose and the Judge will then decide.

All in, just sit tight and don't worry.

What did your stay instructions say?

LOL.....I was actually going to add that to the bottom of one's post but you beat me to it 8¬)

D'you think...as a person in authority and acting on the Bank's behalf....what the Wicked Witch was saying in a very recent (yesterdays posts insofar as Fairness and pricing and regulation 5 and "can't claim anymore we've won" utterances....she is misleading and lying to the general public.

Surely she should be made to retract her statement and apologise?

What.....Tasmin?

and thanks to Els too

No worries bud....and thanks for the link to the archives

where can i see it?

Cheers IS but you see I am deaf so nothing short of line of sight lip-reading , subtitles or transcripts only or I'm buggered 8¬)

GOD!!!!! the suspense is killing me.......WHAT DID SHE SAY PLEASE

Is there a transcript of the MoneyBox programme for those of us that are deaf?

Don't mention it then CRAYONS

Adamski....

Sorry I didn't reply earlier as I'd gone to bed and only just woken up...whoops!

In response to your post then...

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

As you can see if refers to the contract as a whole or in parts. So hopefully everyone can now see that that is the route to explore! IMHO only

In response to Alan's post insofar as Reg 5 would challenge the whole Banking Contract, I thought that Reg 5 could be used to assess the whole or part of the core terms of a contract.

It's only my opinion and view but it makes logical sense as far as the UTCCR's are concerned in their application?

Discussion and put downs welcome

Hot diggity doodaas.....looks like I'll need to amend my POC.

So...

1. Amend my claim with the new POC from the CAG site (my grateful thanks to the site)

2. Write a letter to Abbey enclosing the new POC asking if they consent to the new POC being submitted. If not then I'll need to submit an N244 Application to do so plus (i think) £75

3. Await payout!!

Now that I've calmed down after this morning's ruling I agree with ROB

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!

If ever there were those who said this would happen as a conspiracy...my hats off to them.

Unbelievable....so who can actually assess their fairness then......

The Banks didn't even offer a legal argument bar a plea in mitigation. And what the hell did the SCoJ mention about they being surprised it wasn't bought as a penalty charge.

My total faith in British Justice has now evaporated.....I'm sure they have done a deal.

Also when they say that the fees are for a service.....and core terms then who can asses and as for historical charges when they were classed as penalties. After all wasn't it someone else on this forum who rightly said that that refusing to honour a DD is a service, likening it to going to a regular nightclub and wanting to pay foe entry only to be told sorry you're wearing jeans you can't come in and oh! that'll be £10 please.

I am beyond reason in this judgement, it stinks, and I'm sure there is a major flaw in it!!! (I hope)

To HSBCFIDDLED....... sorry if it came across as anything other than as an intended light-hearted attempt of tongue in cheek humour. I had read all the previous posts bud as you will also notice the number of posts I've made to this thread and others.

MAny a thread had been started and veered totally off topic that basically "threw" the readers away from the topic's subject matter. After all this thread is a very important one concerning the upcoming handing down in the SCoJ and the reprecussions.

So apologies again (if any were needed?) and lets post factually relevant guff eh? 8)

What the piggn' hell has Network Rail got to do with the Bank Charges?