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

[MARTIN3030]

Informed Searcher,

 

Yes of course they may be able to appeal to the European Court of Justice most of us all know this remains a possibility. I was asking whether it is likely that the judgement in the House of Lords appeal will be delivered in autumn?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

If we can look at the timescale of the handing down of the other Judgements-then theres no reason to suppose we wont have the answer well before the October recess.That should tie in with the OFTs deliberations and their statements that they should be in a position to announce the results of their findings by the end of the year.

[car2403]

Conspiracy theories abound, but is there a rabbit off here? I mean, we were suspicious about the Appeal, planning on not having the Appeal Judgment handed down until early 2010 and now here we are talking about October? I mean, I'm all for getting excited about the prospect, but how realistic is it that something is going in our favour here, given what has happened previously?

 

Anyone else pinching themselves to making sure they aren't dreaming, in other words?

 

I hope NatWest is poised to scribe a signature on that £4.5k cheque in my name! (Oh, plus the 8% interest which I've totally forgotten about!)

Edited April 21, 2009 by car2403
correcting obvious error - "Judgment Appeal"???

[MARTIN3030]

I think its prob something to do with the general consensus that this things gone on long enough.

Maybe the banks expected it to go into 2010-but it seems the HOL have other ideas.

It was announced quite soon after the February Judgement that appeal submissions had to be in by Mid April-that was the first hint that it was moving much quicker than anticipated.

[yourbank]

This is merely to decide if the terms of banks contracts can be assessed for fairness. I hope no one is expecting the waiver and stays to be stopped when the HoL decision is handed down. The second stage of the OFT test case has yet to really start which is identifying terms and further litigation may well happen. 2010 is still a good bet imho.

[HSBCrusher]

It might be that some in the dark corridors of power do now want this to be over quicky...

 

money put back in the consumers'pockets... election on the way...

[car2403]

This is merely to decide if the terms of banks contracts can be assessed for fairness. I hope no one is expecting the waiver and stays to be stopped when the HoL decision is handed down. The second stage of the OFT test case has yet to really start which is identifying terms and further litigation may well happen. 2010 is still a good bet imho.

 

Well, if the OFT has got their finger out, the level that they won't investigate under should be pretty much in the bag - all they should be waiting for is the nod from the Law to say they can assess for fairness, then it's game over for the Banks shocking behaviour.

 

If the OFT has got their finger out...

[yourbank]

It might be that some in the dark corridors of power do now want this to be over quicky...

 

money put back in the consumers'pockets... election on the way...

 

ROFLMAO

[yourbank]

Well, if the OFT has got their finger out, the level that they won't investigate under should be pretty much in the bag - all they should be waiting for is the nod from the Law to say they can assess for fairness, then it's game over for the Banks shocking behaviour.

 

If the OFT has got their finger out...

 

ROFLMAO. please tell me you are going with the flow on this one. That did make me chuckle.

What level?? Only a court can set that amount, you and I both know that unless we are fooling users on the forums we post on. Nice sound bite on the OFT though will keep that one for future reference.

[car2403]

ROFLMAO. please tell me you are going with the flow on this one. That did make me chuckle.

 

I'm having a particularly positive day, so let's call it wishful thinking.

[Bookworm]

What level??

The OFT's intervention threshold level. :-? Surely it's obvious? Is anyone not expecting the OTF, once they have been allowed to assess for fairness, to come up with an intervention threshold the way they did with the credit card?

Only a court can set that amount, you and I both know that unless we are fooling users on the forums we post on.

But I don't think Car was saying anything about that, was he? Yes, of course, only a court can ultimately decide what constitutes a fair amount, but that won't stop the OFT from determining a level at which they themselves would take action, thereby pretty much forcing the banks to lower their charges to that threshold accordingly.

Nice sound bite on the OFT though will keep that one for future reference.

Getting their finger out, a nice soundbite? Somehow, I can't see that one myself.

[InformedSearcher]

You know thinking forward the scariest thing is going to be 'what' charges will be levied and the amount of them. There were figures banded around that the true cost is around £2 per item, not taking account of potential incessant phone calls and 'drone' time. We must remember baks changed the names of these charges probably hoping to use that in their continuance of the case.

Example: Currently HSBC 'stop' at circa £150.00 each month. That's a combination of £10 and/or £25 per item dependant on what it is. So say for example (as the bank must make profit) it was £4 per item on the same terms. Will they still stop at £150 or merely have no upper limit?

Just a singular item that's eventually going to have to be decided. At the end of the day, banks have the software, cunning and general ingenuity to extract monies from account holders for many reasons.

Michael

[Bookworm]

Indeed. It is interesting that in the early days of reclaiming, the banks denied having any control over the way items were presented for payment when accused of deliberately presenting the large items first to ensure going over the limit so they could then charge on both small and larger transactions. Yet, Barclays in their new T&Cs specifically say they will present them in small to large so as to minimise the impact and charges. Funny that.

[yourbank]

The OFT's intervention threshold level. :-? Surely it's obvious? Is anyone not expecting the OTF, once they have been allowed to assess for fairness, to come up with an intervention threshold the way they did with the credit card?

But I don't think Car was saying anything about

 

"Please be aware that only a court can decide whether a term is unfair and what is stated here is just our view."

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842a.pdf

Not sure which part of the above statement says really. Does it say that the OFT can decide on a fair level?

that, was he? Yes, of course, only a court can ultimately decide what constitutes a fair amount, but that won't stop the OFT from determining a level at which they themselves would take action, thereby pretty much forcing the banks to lower their charges to that threshold accordingly.

Bookworm, you are one of these people who actually reads most of the documents as I know very well. You must have read the report.

Getting their finger out, a nice soundbite? Somehow, I can't see that one myself.

The nice soundbite is because it is very easy to say that the OFT are doing nothing, that the OFT will make a deal with the Banks' and the Banks' are delaying delaying delaying. Yet the facts are not borne out with those soundbites.

[barry_2008]

I dont understand, dont the House of Lords pass the laws?

 

Maybe they do like the beating afterall.

 

You reckon the OFT are doing nothing now?

 

It's this system of ours innocent until proven guilty. Crime or no crime we need a government that can handle the pressure of governing.

 

Why pass responibility over to the courts? Oh its procedure.

Time for a change in powers me thinks its not working for us.

 

Is it or isnt it our money?

[Bookworm]

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf

 

 

Second, in order to encourage a swift change in market practice we have decided to include in the statement a simple monetary threshold for intervention by OFT on default charges. The threshold is £12.

So yes, as I said, only a court can decide what amount is fair, and the OFT can not. :-? What the OFT can do once their market study is complete is say: "yes, these level of charges are unfair, and instead of each consumer having to individually go to court to ask individual judges to decide, we will set a level at which we will take action ourselves. This doesn't mean that that level is fair, it just means that we won't take action at lower levels, this is where the customer will have to go to court".

 

Or they can ask the courts to decide once and for all to set a monetary level which is fair, both to the banks and the consumers. That level would then be likely to be considerably lower than a threshold of intervention set by the OFT, as it would be binding, and for a very long time. Bear in mind for example that the £9.25 / hr a LIP can claim is an amount which was set in the 70s and hasn't been changed since.

 

One aspect to remember as well is that whichever way it goes, unless something gets specifically decided in the judgment to that effect to minimise the cost to the banks, every single charge before the judgment will be reclaimable in its entirety.

 

I think the banks would rather have the OFT to contend with and their arbitrary threshold intervention than a set in stone judgment which will bind them to lower charges for a very long time. From damage limitation point of view as well, as they'll be able to bluff as they do now, saying: "we'll give you the difference back between [example numbers!] (£30) charge and (£20) OFT level, so here's £10" whereas with a judgment, they'd have to bluff "we'll give you the difference between (£30) charge and (£5) court level, so here's £25". Of course, those of us who know better will claim the 100% of the charge, + interest, but that's another debate.

 

As for the delaying, delaying, delaying, I think the facts speak for themselves actually. It's been 3 YEARS since the credit card report in which the OFT stated that the principle broadly applied to other charges including current accounts. It's been 28 months since they decided to have an enquiry into the current accounts. It is 21 months since the test case was announced, with no end on sight. The only sign of expeditiousness so far has been the HOL now setting the hearing for June instead of after their recess, and I think the banks should heed this as a warning that the courts are getting tired of their prevarications. But the OFT meanwhile STILL haven't completed their enquiry, for which even Smith J berated them . There is every chance that the banks will go on to the ECJ and god knows how long THAT will take!

 

Not borne out by facts? We'll have to disagree on that, I'm afraid.

[barry_2008]

Not borne out by facts? We'll have to disagree on that, I'm afraid.

 

 

Only when one of the W's I see will be an L.

 

Well its the House of Lords. The powers in charge of this sharade.

 

We no and they no its down to the lettering of the law and if a judge interprets it against us then maybe this would spark a big OFT apeal.

 

But with the OFT streamlineing im not sure on which banks the OFT feel safe about taking on.

 

Think it may be time to hold a flame to the wax and change those laws again. Its the same old story (same old old) Labour cant get to the people what the people need. Democracy only works for them when it work for them not us.

 

The government have spoken there unfair.

 

We need a change in the system.

[GuidoT]

Simplistically:

 

The courts including the HoL do not generally make the law. They just interpret it, frequently based on Acts of Parliament (legislation or statutes).

 

Politicians make the law through Acts of Parliament.

 

The judiciary should not be influenced by politics when passing down judgements, judges should decide the matter on its merits based on the facts and the law.

 

Whilst the system is far from perfect, we have one of the most efficient legal systems in the world, the model of our legal system has influenced (if not copied) by many other countries.

[barry_2008]

;)So we need a new government.

 

A one that will influence the judiciary and parliment.

A government that will do what it has been elected to do it should represent the people not just guide them along a line of national debt.

 

But my understanding is there argument is weather the tocs are clear and in plain inteligeable language not that they dont comply with the law.

 

A bit of a sneaky tactic if you ask me. Especially when there (the banks) are trying to recover from a hard scabed spot.

[car2403]

;)So we need a new government.

 

A one that will influence the judiciary and parliment.

 

If you google the "doctrine of separation of powers", you'll see that is something which we don't want.

[Bookworm]

Besides which, not wanting to go completely OT here, but I think it would be naive in the extreme to think that any other political party would act any differently in the matter, whether they had any influence or not in the matter (which is still hotly debated on these here forums, lol).

[GuidoT]

Just testing, shows 88 pages, but I cannot get to 88, I suppose it will sort itself out.

[Bookworm]

Speechless, Guido?

[GuidoT]

Just testing Bookie. I have edited my previous post to explain.

 

You make me laugh; well sometimes.

[barry_2008]

:DNot wanting to break the rules on here by going massivley off topic. But.

 

I agree with Bank Fodder we need a civil war if thats the only way to get an elected governmenet.

[d1cky]

showed 88 but there isnt 88 because of all the posts that have been deleted!