Jump to content

cajdad

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About cajdad

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. This topic was closed on 08 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  3. This topic was closed on 2019-03-08. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  4. A major factor in the Supreme Court’s judgement was that the overdraft charges were not actually levied in exchange for the so called “services” that triggered them. Instead they were simply part of the payment made in exchange for a “global package” of services which the bank provided. This is simply a lie that has been made up by the banks, or their lawyers, for the court case - but which has been accepted by the Supreme Court judges without a scrap of evidence. Where, in any written agreement between bank and customer, or in any original terms and conditions published by the banks, is there even the slightest hint (let alone set out in “plain intelligible language”) that these charge were simply part of the payment for the overall package? Until this case went to court, the banks were telling claimants that these charges were, specifically, to cover the cost of the services they provided when someone went overdrawn! Before this case came to court, did any bank customer ever realise that the overdraft charge was just a part of the overall package of charges? I thought not! So much for charges being transparent! One of the judges did make the point that in some situations (eg where the bank simply bounced a direct debit without paying it) there was no real service provided at all. So what was the charge for? Could it actually have been a penalty? Surely not - that would have been unlawful and/or unfair! Oh, I know, let’s just call it part of an overall package of charges! On the plus side, there are hints in the judgement that some of the judges thought the charges weren't fair - but they weren't being asked to rule on that. They also hinted that they there were still other ways of arguing fairness, and that ministers ought now to intervene and get this matter sorted.
  5. So some banks want stays lifted on business claims. Anyone know what Lloyds TSB are doing? I am dealing with a Lloyds business claim for a friend. I've had the usual template responses from them and they haven't responded to the point I made in my last letter to them - broadly that the test case wouldn't affect business claims. I was going to file the claim a few weeks ago - but decided to hold back for a while to see what developed, as it seemed most business claims were also being stayed. I'm now wondering if this is the right time to go ahead and file the claim - obviously hoping that the message is getting through to judges and the claim won't be stayed in the first place.
  6. Can't you also make the point that the charges have actually been repaid to you? This would reinforce the point that they shouldn't have been applied in the first place. You might have to be careful how you word it though as, depending on what Sainsbury's said to you, they might have made a "goodwill gesture" rather than a repayment of the charges. Or they might have said "without prejudice" in which case I'm not sure if you can mention it.
  7. Sorry your claim got stayed, Rich. But as you say, no surprise. I'm inclined to agree with Guido at the moment. As the judge ordered the stay of his own volition it seems unlikely he'll change his mind unless there is something special about your case. Your choice though, and good luck if you do decide to object to the stay. I still haven't had the stay notice on my case yet. Judge must be having a long holiday!
  8. If the test case doesn't go ahead we'll presumably be able to go ahead with our claims, as before. And the banks will then continue to pay up in full, as before (but maybe after some initial blustering), because they still won't allow these claims to be determined in court. So, the courts won't need proof of the banks' costs, because the claims won't be heard in the courts.
  9. If the Telegraph article is correct, then it seems unlikely that Lloyds TSB are planning to pull out of the OFT test case. If they still intend to charge £20 for a bounced DD (when their costs are less than a tenth of that) then clearly they are not conceding that their charges are unlawful. If they felt that the banks would lose the test case, or even that public opinion was strongly opposed to penalty charges, then surely they would reduce the charge to something more acceptable eg £5 or less.
  10. Probably true crfx, but it's fun watching the doubtfuls and the hopefuls slog it out on this thread! Back to you now finlander - go and badger your mate for some more info! .
  11. Is public opinion in favour of penalty charges being scrapped? Thousands of CAG members are in favour, but that's a long way short of "public opinion". A lot of people are quite happy for penalties to continue because they get "free" banking at the expense of the "defaulters" .
  12. Confirmation that Lloyds aren't pulling out, I assume? .
  13. Unfortunately, yes. I phoned the court today and the lady there said the defendant's AQ had been filed on 24 August. She said papers would be put through to the judge again - although the judge won't be there for another week or two. However, the lady said she was quite certain that when the judge (eventually) sees the papers again she would issue a stay notice, since that is what she is doing in all bank charges cases. I asked, in that case, what was the point in issuing the order for the (already very late) AQ to be filed. Why did they not just issue the stay notice in the first place? She said this was simply so that everything was in place when the test case is eventually settled. Seems a bit stupid to me since, whichever way the test case goes, there won't be any need for existing claims to be heard. Still, I suppose it at least means that Lloyds will have had to cough up their £100 for filing the AQ! Anyway, it will now be who knows how long before we get the stay notice, and I can then decide whether to object to it or not.
  14. Thanks kitten, I hadn't thought about that. And I think I read somewhere they aren't allowed any extra time when its a formal Order from the court. So if their AQ is not already in the post it could already be to late - assuming SC&M don't work Saturday's.
  15. Despite what they said on the 'phone, the court has now issued an order saying the defence will be struck out if they don't file the AQ by 28 August !!! It's not over yet though. I guess the case could still be stayed if they send in their AQ - especially if they ask for a stay at the same time .
×
×
  • Create New...