H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[peterlucas]

I am so sick of this now. I am being hounded and hounded by one debt collection agency after another for the £1,900 that my account went overdrawn - every single penny of it was bank charges, mounted up because I refused to pay them, while Natwest had all claims on stay, so they piled one on top of another. The debt collection agencies wont listen and just keep on hounding for the money (Natwest originally). I have even told them to carry out their threat and take me to court for it, but strangely enough they wont, just keep on hounding until they give up then pass it on to yet another agency and so it begins again.

 

If you have told them the debt is disputed, they are obliged to investigate this and cease debt collection activities in the meantime (2.6 (h) and (j) Final guidance on unfair business practices July 2003 (updated December 2006) OFT664 pertaining to Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970).

[hsbcfiddled]

I am so sick of this now. I am being hounded and hounded by one debt collection agency after another for the £1,900 that my account went overdrawn - every single penny of it was bank charges, mounted up because I refused to pay them, while Natwest had all claims on stay, so they piled one on top of another. The debt collection agencies wont listen and just keep on hounding for the money (Natwest originally). I have even told them to carry out their threat and take me to court for it, but strangely enough they wont, just keep on hounding until they give up then pass it on to yet another agency and so it begins again.

 

 

Print youself lots of standard letters with the recipients address blank.

Then in your letter list your complaint/dispute and reasons.

Then fill each of the DCA's address's in by hand as they come out of the woodwork or Dung-heap.

 

 

They dont want to take you to court, so dont worry.

Edited March 7, 2009 by hsbcfiddled
edit

[K-J]

If you have told them the debt is disputed, they are obliged to investigate this and cease debt collection activities in the meantime (2.6 (h) and (j) Final guidance on unfair business practices July 2003 (updated December 2006) OFT664 pertaining to Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970).

 

Every single call I get I tell them that it is all in dispute, but still they carry on - on average 4 calls a week for around the last 12-18 months now. I am in the process of putting it all in writing now, but I think it is disgusting that they have to push people this far. I am a student with a young family and therefore cannot afford to go through the courts with this so they stop hounding me unless I really have to.

 

I do wish they woudl take me to court - after all that is what I started fighting for in the first place. It could have been a way round the stay.

[hsbcfiddled]

Every single call I get I tell them that it is all in dispute, but still they carry on - on average 4 calls a week for around the last 12-18 months now. I am in the process of putting it all in writing now, but I think it is disgusting that they have to push people this far. I am a student with a young family and therefore cannot afford to go through the courts with this so they stop hounding me unless I really have to.

 

I do wish they woudl take me to court - after all that is what I started fighting for in the first place. It could have been a way round the stay.

 

If you dont want the calls then dont go through security with them!

 

They cannot then proceed with the call.

 

The reason they arent taking you to court is the moment you utter 'bank charges' the court cannot proceed.

 

hope this helps.

Edited March 7, 2009 by hsbcfiddled
add text

[K-J]

If you dont want the calls then dont go through security with them!

 

They cannot then proceed with the call.

 

Thanks I think I will be doing this in future. I have just re-checked and letters did in fact go off to Natwest asking for the default to be removed etc regarding the stay in October 2007 and so they have completely ignored that anyway.

[JonCris]

K-J I suggest you write (special delivery) to both the DCA AND the bank & warn them, for a final time, that unless they cease their collection attempts forthwith you WILL report them to the OFT and the FSA for not only breaching the terms of the waiver but also the guidelines as set by the OFT...... & if they still continue report them......... & seek damages for harassment

[K-J]

K-J I suggest you write (special delivery) to both the DCA AND the bank & warn them, for a final time, that unless they cease their collection attempts forthwith you WILL report them to the OFT and the FSA for not only breaching the terms of the waiver but also the guidelines as set by the OFT...... & if they still continue report them......... & seek damages for harassment

 

Thanks again. Letters typed, information sorted and all printed ready to go first thing Monday. I will not be stopping short this time either. I will go as far as I have to now.

[carpman]

does anybody have any idea how far away the oft are from making a decision, taking it into account that they themselves wanted this test case surely they thought bank charges were wrong from the very start. seems strange that its taking them so long to come to a decision, and when they finally do what happens next.

[yourbank]

does anybody have any idea how far away the oft are from making a decision, taking it into account that they themselves wanted this test case surely they thought bank charges were wrong from the very start. seems strange that its taking them so long to come to a decision, and when they finally do what happens next.

The Banks' appeal to the HOL or petition to appeal to the court has not been heard yet so it would be difficult to give a timescale. I think a lot of consumers wanted a test case as well.

[car2403]

K-J I suggest you write (special delivery) to both the DCA AND the bank & warn them, for a final time, that unless they cease their collection attempts forthwith you WILL report them to the OFT and the FSA for not only breaching the terms of the waiver but also the guidelines as set by the OFT...... & if they still continue report them......... & seek damages for harassment

 

Just a thought, but as the waiver works both ways, you could use this to your advantage and claim unfair financial hardship as a result of staying your case/claim and ask the Court to consider lifting it in your instance. As the Bank has failed to comply with the waiver, it surely can't seek to rely on it in Court should it go there and be highlighted?

[yourbank]

Just a thought, but as the waiver works both ways, you could use this to your advantage and claim unfair financial hardship as a result of staying your case/claim and ask the Court to consider lifting it in your instance. As the Bank has failed to comply with the waiver, it surely can't seek to rely on it in Court should it go there and be highlighted?

Have you read the explanatory note to the last appeal?

 

"4. We have asked Moore-Bick LJ, as the Deputy Head of Civil Justice to consider the position, and he has decided to send a letter in the following terms to all Designated Civil Judges:

“As you may already know, the Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal in the Bank Charges litigation, holding that the OFT is entitled to investigate the fairness of the terms which provide for the payment of charges for unauthorised overdrawing etc. There was no appeal on the penalty issue on which the Banks won below.

Permission to appeal to the House of Lords has been refused, but the matter does not end there, both because the Banks may petition their Lordships for permission to appeal and because unless the decision of the Court of Appeal is overturned, the OFT will now have to complete its investigation in order to determine whether the charges are unfair or not.

As you will appreciate, apart from knocking out the penalty argument, the proceedings have not yet produced a final answer one way or the other to the claims pending in your courts. You may be faced with applications to lift the stays which are currently in place. Circumstances may differ, but you may think that, insofar as claims turn on whether the terms in question are unfair under the Regulations and therefore unenforceable, there is much to be said for continuing the existing stays pending a decision by the House of Lords and/or the outcome of the investigation by the OFT.”

5. In so far as it is for us to express a view, and without prejudice to any decision which may be made on the facts of a particular case, we entirely agree that that is a sensible approach"

[djgordyp]

The banks say "so the high court judges have refused permission to appeal. Sure what do they know anyway", So the house of lords dismiss the appeal what next? An appeal to LJ Zebidee on the planet Zorg:confused:

 

If it wasn't causing hardship to so many people, it would be laughable.

[yourbank]

The banks say "so the high court judges have refused permission to appeal. Sure what do they know anyway", So the house of lords dismiss the appeal what next? An appeal to LJ Zebidee on the planet Zorg

 

If it wasn't causing hardship to so many people, it would be laughable.

If that is the final area of appeal then the answer is YES.

The banks have the right to petition the HoL to appeal the decision. This is only if the terms can be assessed for fairness. We haven't yet got to the really fun part yet.

[Thailand]

Just a thought, but as the waiver works both ways, you could use this to your advantage and claim unfair financial hardship as a result of staying your case/claim and ask the Court to consider lifting it in your instance. As the Bank has failed to comply with the waiver, it surely can't seek to rely on it in Court should it go there and be highlighted?

 

Car, I haven't read all the posts, so maybe I'm missing something. I only got D's in my GCSE's lol so forgive me if I appear stupid but, just how is the waiver working both ways? Just based on hardship? (which the slimey banks do not really honour).I skim read these posts and waiver and both ways stuck out!

[yourbank]

Car, I haven't read all the posts, so maybe I'm missing something. I only got D's in my GCSE's lol so forgive me if I appear stupid but, just how is the waiver working both ways? Just based on hardship? (which the slimey banks do not really honour).I skim read these posts and waiver and both ways stuck out!

You can get their claim stayed as a result of the OFT test case(I got double F for science so just don't ask me a question about science )

[Thailand]

Damn, I had a Biology question I needed sorting.

[Chickenlicken]

Thailand; depends what level you're studying at

 

Can someone perhaps enlighten me on claims further back than the 6yr limit. Does anyone think they will even be considered? (I have a 6yr one stayed, the older one in the queue at the bank)

[Thailand]

There is a section in the limitation act that provides for this, I was looking for it the other day, but couldn't find. I believe it would apply though, complicated as it may be. It would have to be considered by a Judge AFAIC.

[JonCris]

Section 32 re concealment or mistake

[Thailand]

Cheers JC, I was convinced it was 5 which explains why I got nowhere.

[JonCris]

sec 5 is the term of limitation (6 years) that sec 32 can sometimes be used to override

[Gogivit]

It seems to me that as a taxapayer, we have a government department who we pay for and represents us consumers who in effect is slogging it out with the banks that we as taxpayers own.

 

In effect- the banks will end up paying us back what they took, from money that we have leant them in order to do so!

 

The storyline for a modern "Carry on film" if you ask me.

 

On a serious note though, something that has me wondering-

 

If you consider that one low cost airline started flying very cheap and subsequently that other airlines followed suit, on the same sort of line who was the very first bank to charge these rediculous charges/fees etc that everyone else began to copy? I would love to know.

[car2403]

Car, I haven't read all the posts, so maybe I'm missing something. I only got D's in my GCSE's lol so forgive me if I appear stupid but, just how is the waiver working both ways? Just based on hardship? (which the slimey banks do not really honour).I skim read these posts and waiver and both ways stuck out!

 

Well, I should have used inverted quotations when I said "works both ways"!

 

It doesn't really "work" for consumers - it's all one sided, IMHO, favouring the Banks position.

 

My point was, if the Bank pursues a claimant for charges that are in question, the Bank "shouldn't" (remembered this time!) be able to also rely on those same charges been questionable should the claimant seek recovery by lifting the stay in that instance. All parties in a claim should be on equal grounding - if the Bank is allowed to pursue, but the claimant isn't allow to reclaim, that is fundamentally unfair and equally unjust.

[yourbank]

Well, I should have used inverted quotations when I said "works both ways"!

 

It doesn't really "work" for consumers - it's all one sided, IMHO, favouring the Banks position.

 

My point was, if the Bank pursues a claimant for charges that are in question, the Bank "shouldn't" (remembered this time!) be able to also rely on those same charges been questionable should the claimant seek recovery by lifting the stay in that instance. All parties in a claim should be on equal grounding - if the Bank is allowed to pursue, but the claimant isn't allow to reclaim, that is fundamentally unfair and equally unjust.

If the bank pursues a claimant through the court(FSA Waiver means if they have a claim for charges that they can't) then the claimant can apply for a stay on the case as the banks can also take a blanket stay.

Not sure I agree necessarily that the waiver is all one way albeit, I can understand the view.

[Thailand]

YB, you still have banking blood running through your veins. It's totally one-sided, but you're right about the stay above. I know someone who is doing just that. Trouble in paradise for the miserable scrotums.