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

[Thailand]

Of course, they will only look to see if they can avoid paying.

 

Though they might if it is totally unrefutable.

[yourbank]

Of course, they will only look to see if they can avoid paying.

 

Though they might if it is totally unrefutable.

 

are you talking about financial hardship?

[Thailand]

Yes!

 

Maybe I am wrong, but those sons of b*tches never want to pay. I'm not being funny, YB, but c'mon... they lust after return that much they don't pay out where is required.

 

Big picture...let us not forget just how scheming & coniving (sp?) the little faceless, morally-inept and devious little turds are.

 

This may be a slant off topic - but I believe this to be the crux of what we are talking about.

[carpman]

my understanding is the only the HOL can refer it to the ECJ. I would be surprised if the HOL do not deny the appeal since they would have to overturn the First National case which has been referred to throughout the previous two judgements. However, I didn't expect the appeal court to deny the banks' leave to appeal to the HoL so who knows really.

 

so if the hol appeal goes against the banks, and they don't allow the banks the right to appeal to the european court. what happens then? is that final judgement and the oft can decide whether charges are unfair or not.still non the wiser what the likely chain of events could possibly be. also when will the hol decision be known?

[yourbank]

Yes!

 

Maybe I am wrong, but those sons of b*tches never want to pay. I'm not being funny, YB, but c'mon... they lust after return that much they don't pay out where is required.

 

Big picture...let us not forget just how scheming & coniving (sp?) the little faceless, morally-inept and devious little turds are.

 

This may be a slant off topic - but I believe this to be the crux of what we are talking about.

 

I don't agree with you at all however the difficulty is that it is such a complex argument that I am not sure that on an internet forum, I can go through the finer points to financial hardship and as this is the OFT test case thread we are moving away at a tangent(pity you weren't closer or the nearest pub would be getting our custom ). I spoke with the FOS this week and had a fantastic conversation re the FSA Waiver and hardship and I do understand a number of times why (1) people are not in hardship or possibly aren't arguing their case correctly and (2) when they go to the FOS why it takes soo long to get a response.

[yourbank]

so if the hol appeal goes against the banks, and they don't allow the banks the right to appeal to the european court. what happens then? is that final judgement and the oft can decide whether charges are unfair or not.still non the wiser what the likely chain of events could possibly be. also when will the hol decision be known?

The OFT should then move onto the substantive Issues which is the OFT identifying terms and saying that they think they are unfair and looking for voluntary compliance(yeah, like that will happen) and then more litigation.

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT to focus investigation into unarranged overdraft charges on three banks

The above is the next bit, I believe.

[carpman]

thanks Y.B .seems like we're no further forward if the hol goes in our favour then.

[yourbank]

thanks Y.B .seems like we're no further forward if the hol goes in our favour then.

We will be if the HOL uphold the decisions of the Appeal court.

[Thailand]

We could always meet up for a scrumpy and black, YB.

 

It's fine you don't agree and strangely, because I am aware of your affiliations, it bums my opinion out somewhat...though we'll never agree on this point (hardship, not what I just said,lol).

 

Quirks of claiming aside, I still think you don't know what the big picture is....to me, it is absolutely clear that these people just want to make love with money, and the 'dosser' who aint got nowt...pays for the opinionated, selfish jack-asses to form an opinion of their own, over freshly baked cupcakes.

 

I'm never clear...there is much, much more!

 

But please, they don't throw out a case of hardship because they 'aren't arguing their case correctly' or because that highly turdish, w*nky regulator takes too long, it is simply because those sl*ts are looking for any excuse not to pay out.

 

I will not rest until they are well and truely sorted. I may struggle with the technical detail, but I have no problems understanding what they are all about.

 

As a FB friend said... the UK is dead. The Banks have had it soooo good for too long, now they haven't....but on they charge.

 

T*ts.

[yourbank]

the regulator or FOS are taking so long on Financial hardship complaints because the cases are not clean. They have information missing so that delays things, they don't have a final response so that is a delay.

 

The way to argue hardship is how it was caused in the first place, for example, car breaks down and essential repairs needed for work takes money out of the budget and then leads to charges, the charges themselves start to spiral and it effects priority debts.

 

The next question is what do you want the bank to do? Refund the charges that will cover priority debt arrears and perhaps suspend charges for a period of time to allow you to get back on your feet.

 

Not saying that this argument would work but stating 100% charges or nothing is not gonna get the response you require and because banks cannot settle a claim with a partial payout then there is an element that is still on the table.

 

I believe that you have to work with what you have and try and get change by working with and not riling against them. I continue to believe that albeit I think the waiver is flawed.

 

When it is next renewed I want to see that £500 over 12 months either shortened to a period of say 4 or 3 months or removed altogether from the waiver.

 

Furthermore, and I think BankFodder highlighted this recently in the Mail, that there is more protection in place for those who have claimed against recovery action by the banks. The amount is clearly disputed once a bank charges claim is put into the bank. Anyway, I am digressing a lot.

Edited June 20, 2009 by yourbank

[carpman]

how can the fsa keep renewing the waiver? if the hol judgement goes in our favour then why up hold the waiver, i was under the impression the waiver was to stay in place till appeals had been heard or the oft ruled on fairness. seems like its just become a way to protect the banks while they're still free to **EDITED** people blind. disgusts me.

 

EDIT: Please refrain from making potentially libelous comments

Edited June 20, 2009 by car2403
EDIT: Please refrain from making potentially libelous comments

[Thailand]

I want the Banks to stop **EDITED**. Why are we even discussing this. (a paragraph or 5 wouldn't hurt matey!)

 

I got half way and gave up!, no offence pal!

 

EDIT: Please refrain from making potentially libelous comments

Edited June 20, 2009 by car2403
EDIT: Please refrain from making potentially libelous comments

[carpman]

We will be if the HOL uphold the decisions of the Appeal court.

 

ooops sorry forgot to ask, what you mean by that please.

[yourbank]

how can the fsa keep renewing the waiver? if the hol judgement goes in our favour then why up hold the waiver, i was under the impression the waiver was to stay in place till appeals had been heard or the oft ruled on fairness. seems like its just become a way to protect the banks while they're still free to rob people blind. disgusts me.

The decision is unlikely to be made before October judging on previous years cases heard around that time so the waiver is bound to be renewed in July

[yourbank]

ooops sorry forgot to ask, what you mean by that please.

If terms in bank contracts are assessable for fairness then we are at least 50% of the way there if not longer,

[carpman]

I want the Banks to stop **EDITED**. Why are we even discussing this. (a paragraph or 5 wouldn't hurt matey!)

 

I got half way and gave up!, no offence pal!

 

non taken

 

 

i'll leave

 

spaces

 

next time.

Edited June 20, 2009 by car2403
Quoting edited post

[yourbank]

I want the Banks to stop **EDITED**. Why are we even discussing this. (a paragraph or 5 wouldn't hurt matey!)

 

I got half way and gave up!, no offence pal!

Edited the post.......is that better?

Edited June 20, 2009 by car2403
Quotes edited post

[car2403]

Lets keep the conversation on topic and about bank charges, rather than making accusations that can't be substantiated please. This is a very important thread and posts need to adhere to forum rules or they will be edited and member accounts may placed on moderation if the rules are breached.

[Thailand]

Whoops. Sorry chaps...I didn't mean to be sarky. (I didn't mean you Carpman)

 

Yes, that's better, YB, lol.

 

The way to argue hardship is how it was caused in the first place, for example, car breaks down and essential repairs needed for work takes money out of the budget and then leads to charges, the charges themselves start to spiral and it effects priority debts.

 

Point being, why oh why do we need to explain such tut, when the Bank is just raiding accounts up and down the country. I have seen scams, but this, strangely, is the funniest. They just go into our 'stash' and help themselves! That sounds a bit emotive.... but since when was the whole [problem] not emotional... I have seen people in absolute ruin!

 

Banks stink.

[car2403]

I'm sure they will argue that they have your permission by including a term in the original agreement and you accepting it by using the account.

 

The answer is to not "bank", but we all know that isn't possible in this day and age.

[Thailand]

I'm sure they will argue that they have your permission by including a term in the original agreement and you accepting it by using the account.

 

The answer is to not "bank", but we all know that isn't possible in this day and age.

 

 

Except Barclays?.

 

I am now totally lost! since when was their terms fair? I feel that's the point, wholly!

[JonCris]

The Ombudsman stated to Dom (BBC 1) on telly the other night that anyone suffering hardship who has a claim with him should contact him & they'll move their case to the top of the pile

[yourbank]

Dom is doing bank charge claims?

[tifo]

The Ombudsman stated to Dom (BBC 1) on telly the other night that anyone suffering hardship who has a claim with him should contact him & they'll move their case to the top of the pile

 

Preferential treatment?

 

What about the rest of us who've been waiting a YEAR to have a case allocated, never mind looked at (credit cards and/or PPI)?

[JonCris]

No he did hardship claims The boss of FSA said they are snowed under (is it any wonder) but if anyone suffering hardship contacted them their compliant would go to the top of the pile (yeah right)