Jump to content


Prime Minister's Website


Penfold92
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5854 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

"I know, lets just throw CPR Rules and Procedures out of the window" is the meaning of the stays applied in my book. (Although not literally!)

 

 

No no literally! This is a joke, I had a hearing to set aside the stay (another thread) and the defence did not organise the telephone hearing, I wrote and asked the judge to therefore rule in my favour and lift the stay...What does he do????

 

Oh no he adjourns the case for THREE MONTHS!!!! How does that work exactly? If I was being chased for a debt and did not attend, what would I get straight away even if the buggers were lying???

 

A CCJ.... This is really not on and someone up on high needs to sort this out quick before things get even more out of hand....IMHO of course...

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well - you've made the 100 words this time penfold........;) LOL!

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a reply from the Observer...

 

Dear Mr. Penfold,

Thank you for your e-mail which has been passed to the editor and her deputy of Cash, our personal finance section.

It was good of you to take the trouble to write.

Best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Teresa Goodman

 

Her email is [email protected]

 

If anyone wants to send the email to someone else...In the meantim I have still not heard from No.10 re the petition...surprise surprise...

 

Any news today with regards the case or we are waiting for the Judge to finish his other case full stop nothing for a while?

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received an email from "wakeup to Money" BBC today:-

 

As I understand it the case was moved to that venue because it was

bigger - in anticipation of a larger audience. The BBC has an allocated

seat in the press gallery and we will do our utmost to report the trial

fully. Although, I note that yesterday the case was put back by a week

because the judge was still tying up a previous case.

 

Regards,

Andrew Bryson

BBC Business News

Tel 0208 6248900

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If you think my post was helpful, please feel free to click my scales

 

 

A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received an email from "wakeup to Money" BBC today:-

 

As I understand it the case was moved to that venue because it was

bigger - in anticipation of a larger audience. The BBC has an allocated

seat in the press gallery and we will do our utmost to report the trial

fully. Although, I note that yesterday the case was put back by a week

because the judge was still tying up a previous case.

 

Regards,

Andrew Bryson

BBC Business News

Tel 0208 6248900

 

Cool a proper real email....Impressive Jo...Well done!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that made my eyebrows go up was that it was moved to the new location in order to have more room. How big was the original place then????

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If you think my post was helpful, please feel free to click my scales

 

 

A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received an email from "wakeup to Money" BBC today:-

 

As I understand it the case was moved to that venue because it was

bigger - in anticipation of a larger audience. The BBC has an allocated

seat in the press gallery and we will do our utmost to report the trial

fully. Although, I note that yesterday the case was put back by a week

because the judge was still tying up a previous case.

 

Regards,

Andrew Bryson

BBC Business News

Tel 0208 6248900

 

"the case was put back a week"

 

Really?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the chap doesn't take offence, but I just emailed him the details.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If you think my post was helpful, please feel free to click my scales

 

 

A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was adjourned for a couple of days jo - because the judge was over-running on a prior trial.:confused::)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that made my eyebrows go up was that it was moved to the new location in order to have more room. How big was the original place then????

 

I think the comment in the General forum was something like "where were they going to hold it, a cubicle in the gents loo?" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

"where were they going to hold it, a cubicle in the gents loo?"
:grin:

 

© johnnymitch JAN 2008 (Laffin!)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't iot funny how words play out...The release on the email says "I understand it the case was moved to that venue because it was

bigger - in anticipation of a larger audience."

 

So the press are fooled that 4 extra people to 11 extra people is brilliant then...Surely they can see the issue at large here or are we all supposed to not have the right to see the PUBLIC trial for ourselves?

 

Just another slant on this matter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely they can see the issue at large here or are we all supposed to not have the right to see the PUBLIC trial for ourselves?

 

As from Monday 21st January there will be a video link availble in Court 65 at the Royal Courts of Justice. Room apparently for 50 people, so anybody who's interested enough should be able to get a seat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest from Sky. Nothing new really but at least it's making the news.

Future Of High Street Banking In Balance In High Court |Sky News|Business

 

 

 

According to this report OFT are saying charges are illegal and not unlawful. may me just a reporting error but it would make a difference

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont listen to media spin dogs read it from the horses mouth

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

i know but i thought we wernt crossing threads!!

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

ohnoes.gif T`was I cross posting, I posted similar on other thread. Promise I wont do it again, Sorreeeeeeeeee

23_52_4.gif

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

Ok now I must say this from the beginning as I was not there and this kind of...fell into my lap so I did not write this, but this is more for information:

 

Disclaimer - Please note these cannot be held as accurate minutes or reflection of the hearing these are available via HMS should you wish to request a copy

 

 

Report from the Test Case

 

 

 

Laurence RabinowitzQC making submissions on behalf of RBS opened by saying there were two areas to start this:

1) The application of charges under UTCCR 1999

2) The application of charges under common law.

 

RabinowitzQC stated that the parties had agreed that there would be no cross examination of any witnesses and that there was a large number of witness statements for MR Justice Andrew Smith to read. However RabinowitzQC stressed that neither party have agreed that either sides witness statements were correct.

 

RabinowitzQC went on to outline that there was two separate bundles of the banks contractual terms and conditions. The first being the present terms and conditions and the second being a folder containing a selection of the banks historical terms and conditions.

 

There was some debate on whether the historical terms would infact be required. However RabinowitzQC confirmed to MR Justice Andrew Smith that the banks were going through the historical terms and narrowing them down to the ones relevant to the case.

 

What was strange was the fact that Rabinowitz QC said that the historic terms were included because of the FSA had requested that they do so.

 

Next RabinowitzQC went on to outline the banks arguments on whether the terms of the contract were in a clear language. At which point he was interrupted by Mr Justice Smith who said he could see how some might be clear but also this would depend on whether it was a new account or whether the terms had been changed to an old account. And therefore had the significance to the change to the terms been explained to the customer. This means that Mr Justice Smith wanted to look at both suggested scenarios.

 

Mr Justice Smith then went on to talk about whether the terms were written in a language at all i.e was there a term in the contract which clearly said 'if you have insufficient funds to meet a request then you are asking the bank to consider supplying you with a overdraft/loan'.

 

The QC then went on to look at specific aspects of the European Directive (this is the European Legislation which bought into force the unfair terms and consumer contract regulations UTCCR).

 

To summarise the banks legal teams looked as if they had tried to find every single possible argument to win some grounds however this clearly showed in our opinion the banks were clutching at straws and technical points. It is clear that this case will be going on for a considerable length of time.

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...