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

[yourbank]

I am guessing. I have no idea why they have been granted leave to appeal and the reasons for it.

The McLibel trial stated the same though, the Appeal court refused leave to appeal so the petitioned the court. It really is a very insignificant point. It was always likely to happen and always likely to be granted. I guess the question is really what the banks will submit on April 15th.

[London000]

Hi Michael,

I am new to this forum. But if they(Banks) are not giving up their unfair fight ....why should we give up the fair one?????

 

We are the customers so we are the ones with the money....

I have never believed to see a bussines to fight against ....their own customers. We are providing them the money.

 

I have been myself into all kind of bussineses and one thigng I have learnt....offer a fair deal otherwise you will never see him/her(customers) again...and you depend on them....

Hallo Banks!!!! Wake up!!! You are fighting with ...your own future!!!!!!

 

Take care and God Bless us All!

[InformedSearcher]

Hi Michael,

I am new to this forum. But if they(Banks) are not giving up their unfair fight ....why should we give up the fair one?????

 

We are the customers so we are the ones with the money....

I have never believed to see a bussines to fight against ....their own customers. We are providing them the money.

 

I have been myself into all kind of bussineses and one thigng I have learnt....offer a fair deal otherwise you will never see him/her(customers) again...and you depend on them....

Hallo Banks!!!! Wake up!!! You are fighting with ...your own future!!!!!!

 

Take care and God Bless us All!

 

 

Arrgghh you see we do 'not' have a choice at the end of the day do we? Whoever we choose work (currently) acts in the same way regarding charges. As far as 'fighting', well they have their (being our) funds to play with. FI's act like governments with regards to legal procedure and are quite willing to spend millions to attempt to prove a point.

 

Let me give you a simple example here and it actually involved myself a few years ago. Customs & Excise seized a magazine I ordered from Belgium. I appealed in the magistrates court in Dover - C&E seizures are in a criminal court and never heard in a civil court. I lost but knew I would mention the same magazine was available in high street stores and classed as a glossy coffee top publication. Their barrister said (quote and I'm serious), 'You can appeal but you cannot win'. That alone made my mind think simple justice was unfair. Even the clerk of the court looked on and made a comment in surprise. My £10 magazine cost me £400. There were 3 C&E officers and their barrister there! I appealed in the Crown Court in Canterbury. This time the C&E had a QC and 7(!) C&E officers of varying levels. Remember this is a £10 magazine and their (aka taxpayer) funds are limitless for any reason they wish. I lost that to but I knew I would.

 

I think I make my point on this and such is the simplicity of Virgin vs BA years ago is a well known example. There was RB with 4 legal bods and BA with 40! Okay in the end many years later BA made an out of court settlement worth (undiclosed) but believed to be circa £200 million.

 

At the end of the day none of us are going to get windfalls if anything at all. The plus point is untill now we are all positive but alas it's not a guaranteed 100% win yet! There are mentions within this thread of various legal aspects and these cost lots of money. There's also a mention that the OFT might not go further if the Financial Institutions win aka a nightmare situation.

 

This leaves people to have to consider the 'bad' news as well as the 'good'. Recently I asked what I considered a valid question regarding 'House of Lords' and mistakenly made a wrong belief in who they actually were with respect to appeals. However I do know that people do not 'move up' in the world through hard work either. I think I'll rest 'my' case on that understanding. What I find disturbing is that the FI's can be told one thing and ride roughshod over any decision if it's not what they want to hear.

 

Michael

[peterlucas]

Time for the banks to be brought to heel. If the government wanted, with all the shares they own, they could stop bank charges and other unconscionable conduct pretty darned quick.

[yourbank]

Time for the banks to be brought to heel. If the government wanted, with all the shares they own, they could stop bank charges and other unconscionable conduct pretty darned quick.

How would they do with HSBC, Barclays, Nationwide?

You cannot make sweeping statements if it does not apply across the board. HMT owns no shares in HSBC or Barclays or Nationwide. The legal case will cover ALL financial Institutions not just 1. I understand the frustration that many people feel but this is a legal process based on an interpretation of the Law. I would doubt the HoL will overturn the decision but it doesn't mean that I don't think the banks' should not appeal as far as they can.

[car2403]

It's just a shame that Lord Denning isn't still around to sort this little lot out...

 

Mind you, "they" (whoever "they" are to you) knew how dangerous he was as he looked out for the little man in the street, so "they" kept him well in check.

 

If you are ever suspicious about how the "system" works, just read up about Lord Denning and some of his Judgments - he's a personal hero of mine and an unsung hero to the general population. If only we had more Dennings!!!

 

A quick web search (using CAG's search boxes, of course!) for "Lord Denning Quotes" is enough to brighten even the dullest days...

 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Edited April 4, 2009 by car2403

[photoman]

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

 

 

"If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.”

Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940

[Bookworm]

Shortest and most efficient? Later this year? WHAT have they been doing for the last 3 years, may one ask?

[yourbank]

Shortest and most efficient? Later this year? WHAT have they been doing for the last 3 years, may one ask?

Taking legal action. Wake up Bookworm, not like you

[Bookworm]

No, I know that, PMSL, but surely there is more than one person working at the OFT?

[yourbank]

No, I know that, PMSL, but surely there is more than one person working at the OFT?

That's true but the litigation will be the precursor to it even though we already know the OFT have been looking at banks terms and conditions in the interim period.

[Bookworm]

Yeah, but come on, even Smith J had a go at them for how long they were taking over this last summer! Now they're announcing they are going to do this to take less long. I think my question is a valid one: what is taking them so long? Even with the test case, you have to admit this is ridiculously long.

[yourbank]

Yeah, but come on, even Smith J had a go at them for how long they were taking over this last summer! Now they're announcing they are going to do this to take less long. I think my question is a valid one: what is taking them so long? Even with the test case, you have to admit this is ridiculously long.

This has been going alongside the market study as well into current accounts which involved consultations with various stakeholders. Until UTCCR 1999 has been dealt with the market study can hardly come out incomplete. Still don't understand your question.

[peterlucas]

If several banks are operating without charges due to government action as a result of shareholding, the others will have to change their tune or loose a lot of business, as the publicly owned banks will be offering customers a better deal.

[yourbank]

If several banks are operating without charges due to government action as a result of shareholding, the others will have to change their tune or loose a lot of business, as the publicly owned banks will be offering customers a better deal.

Let's hit the real world. No one has said that bank charges are unlawful in terms of the fact that a bank can levy a charge for returning a direct debit, however it is the level of the charge that makes it unfair. If you think the bank charges campaign is about zero bank charges then you are mistaken in that thinking. It is about a fair system and a lawfully fair system.

[peterlucas]

Whether the action taken is to abolish charges or reduce them to an amount in compliance with UTCCR, the same premise applies.

[yourbank]

the government won't do that.

[peterlucas]

I know. But they should. Lost opportunity, nationalizing the banks but not taking over control of them. Could have put an end to the FSI screw-the-customer culture forever.

[yourbank]

Majority shareholding is not state nationalisation.

[star_scream]

What does this mean to Joe Public? Are we getting any nearer?

 

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT narrows bank charges inquiry

[car2403]

What does this mean to Joe Public? Are we getting any nearer?

 

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT narrows bank charges inquiry

 

It's probably not my place to question the journalistic accuracy of that story, but it seems the BBC has missed the target;

 

"Behind the scenes, both sides have been preparing their arguments for the eventual second round of court hearings, in which the fairness of bank charges will be decided"

 

My understanding is that the TC is to determine if the OFT can consider whether the charges are fair under UTCCR, (now the penal issue seems put to bed) but that it won't go on to determine if they are unfair under the UTCCR, as that will be done in discussion with the Banks - and not in front of the Court.

 

Have I missed something? (This sorry affair seems to attract less and less of my attention these days, because of all the delays!)

 

If there will be a second round of Court hearings to determine the fairness of the charges, this could rumble on for another 2, 3 years???...!!!!

[yourbank]

Car2403, the individual term has to be determined as being unfair. If the banks disagree that for example, charging £x amount for going over the overdraft then they can take the litigation route on the basis that it is fair. I don't have the 3 banks' terms and conditions in front of me but I think within the OFT test case documentation some of the terms of Clydesdale bank were discussed.

[peterlucas]

Majority shareholding is not state nationalisation.

 

Sure it is, if they assert the power they have, they can effectively have control. Shareholders resolutions, getting their own directors on the Board, and using the financial reliance that exists as influence.

[InformedSearcher]

BUT are we varying here from the real issue? We are (well the OFT is by virtue of pressure on cilvil courts unable to cope) that charges are unfair. There should be no comparison betweeen who 'owns' the relevant bank/financial institution.

At the end of the day the charges levied are considered 'unfair'. It does not take too long for anyone to see this (heck for example £11.00 and a £25.00 charge!). My surprise and shock is that when asked, all bank employees will tell you on the phone that they consider them fair.

I consider that responce a typical example of 'teambuilding' training. If they were not bank employees I can imagine the answers.

Points of law to the man on the street/layman are irrelevant and everyone wants their hard earned cash returned without this idiocrasity of 'he says', 'they say', and the rest! How the heck these cases carry one for so long beggars belief!

Michael

[peterlucas]

Points of law to the man on the street/layman are irrelevant and everyone wants their hard earned cash returned without this idiocrasity of 'he says', 'they say', and the rest! How the heck these cases carry one for so long beggars belief!

 

Quite. All these appeals and phases are just a mechanism for the banks to delay paying out. If they didn't have stays from pro bank judges, they wouldn't be so keen on it.