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

[yourbank]

I believe so strongly in re-incarnation, that if I die before the Test Case is resolved, I'm leaving everything to me!

 

Oh...and I hope to come back as a Meerkat

 

And I will sell you insurance. Simples!

[gillypam]

Hi srfrench.nice one:p

[car2403]

I believe so strongly in re-incarnation, that if I die before the Test Case is resolved, I'm leaving everything to me!

 

Oh...and I hope to come back as a Meerkat

 

No, there's no need for discussion like that, as the Government is involved now, and we all know what that means, don't we?

 

New Government!

[yourbank]

No, there's no need for discussion like that, as the Government is involved now, and we all know what that means, don't we?

 

New Government!

 

This is so strange, the government in the guises of the regulator(OFT) are involved in the OFT test case and you have just spotted it?

CAR, I am truly shocked.....am off for a lie down now to recover

[car2403]

This is so strange, the government in the guises of the regulator(OFT) are involved in the OFT test case and you have just spotted it?

CAR, I am truly shocked.....am off for a lie down now to recover

 

Nope, I'm still confused as to the meaning of the CAG announcement on the subject.

 

The OFT is involved in the Test Case?

[yourbank]

Nope, I'm still confused as to the meaning of the CAG announcement on the subject.

 

The OFT is involved in the Test Case?

 

The title of the announcement is based on a white paper published which is surprisingly in Plain and Intelligible Language outlining what is going on in the OFT test case and the next steps should the OFT win at the HoL

If you need an explanation of the title I would PM Alanfromderby or BankFodder(between you and me, I don't have a clue what they are talking about with the title).

On a separate announcement, please remind them that Government is spelt Government and not Givernment(DLA announcement bit).

[car2403]

The title of the announcement is based on a white paper published which is surprisingly in Plain and Intelligible Language outlining what is going on in the OFT test case and the next steps should the OFT win at the HoL

If you need an explanation of the title I would PM Alanfromderby or BankFodder(between you and me, I don't have a clue what they are talking about with the title).

On a separate announcement, please remind them that Government is spelt Government and not Givernment(DLA announcement bit).

 

Well, no, the title of the announcement is based on the content of it, which is a quote from the report;

 

the Government therefore calls on the regulators and the banks to explore whether there is a quicker way of resolving these cases that is preferable for customers to pursuing further litigation, and provides the certainty that regulators and banks need. The Government will also work with interested parties with a view to moving the market to a more efficient, equitable, and transparent system as quickly as possible.

 

I can't see how CAG has misinterpreted it, then?

 

I'm going over old ground here, but for the sake of clarity, I'll give it a bash. (I'm glutton for punishment)

 

My point is this;

 

(I will say this only v'once...)

 

That the test case process is a very poor show and seriously dents consumer confidence in "the system".

 

By drawing it out unnecessarily, all parties are failing to deliver on their promise to complete this process speedily and efficiently - the FSA doesn't have the balls to manage the waiver correctly, (even missing key protection for the consumer on key issues in the original one, meaning it needed to be revised) or to hold the Banks to account. (They are "monitoring" compliance with the waiver - how much monitoring is needed!)

 

The Government asking them to revisit any way they can conclude this is a further kick in the knackers for the consumer - in effect, the only way we the consumer can achieve "fairness" in this situation, is to wait for another few years for some senior Judges to, eventually, decide the issue one way or another, (which will take too long, IMHO) or rely on the goodwill of the Banks to heed the Government's request to make a back door deal with the OFT one way or another. (Which will probably happen on the Court steps on the final day!)

 

The shocked emoticon doesn't express my distaste enough, but that's all I have;

 

I'll crawl back under my rock now. (And hope tomorrow isn't another groundhog day!)

[InformedSearcher]

No, there's no need for discussion like that, as the Government is involved now, and we all know what that means, don't we?

 

New Government!

 

ROTFL!

Governments are governments. They do NOT work for the people who elected them but for themselves. Once governments get involved with anything that begins the road to rack and ruin. Anyone care to differ?

Michael

[yourbank]

Well, no, the title of the announcement is based on the content of it, which is a quote from the report;

 

So regulator set up by the Government is being told by the Government to speed it up. Test case so far has been 2 years. Is that reasonable for a Test Case?

For example, First National Case(how long did that one take from court to conclusion)?

I can't see how CAG has misinterpreted it, then?

 

I'm going over old ground here, but for the sake of clarity, I'll give it a bash. (I'm glutton for punishment)

 

My point is this;

 

(I will say this only v'once...)

 

That the test case process is a very poor show and seriously dents consumer confidence in "the system".

If their expectations are unnecessarily lifted then they will be disappointed.

By drawing it out unnecessarily, all parties are failing to deliver on their promise to complete this process speedily and efficiently - the FSA doesn't have the balls to manage the waiver correctly, (even missing key protection for the consumer on key issues in the original one, meaning it needed to be revised) or to hold the Banks to account. (They are "monitoring" compliance with the waiver - how much monitoring is needed!)

Complaints against the waiver since August 2008 is exactly 18. When CAG was asking for the Waiver to be got rid of, there was exactly 0 complaints(Jan to March 2009). Is anyone actually complaining about breaches of the FSA Waiver?

The Government asking them to revisit any way they can conclude this is a further kick in the knackers for the consumer - in effect, the only way we the consumer can achieve "fairness" in this situation, is to wait for another few years for some senior Judges to, eventually, decide the issue one way or another, (which will take too long, IMHO) or rely on the goodwill of the Banks to heed the Government's request to make a back door deal with the OFT one way or another. (Which will probably happen on the Court steps on the final day!)

You read the summary of the OFT test case on the announcement which more or less gives you the process involved. We go back if we do not show some patience

The shocked emoticon doesn't express my distaste enough, but that's all I have;

 

I'll crawl back under my rock now. (And hope tomorrow isn't another groundhog day!)

 

Good evening,

YouTube - Sonny And Cher - I Got You Babe

[car2403]

So regulator set up by the Government is being told by the Government to speed it up. Test case so far has been 2 years. Is that reasonable for a Test Case?

For example, First National Case(how long did that one take from court to conclusion)?

 

The Government intervention means nothing until it achieves a result. Your suggesting we have to wait until the end (the very end) of the Test Case, but that isn't what is being asked of the Banks/Regulators - if you re-read my post, or the Announcement, (you will need to read between the lines) you'll see what I mean.

 

If their expectations are unnecessarily lifted then they will be disappointed

 

Quite. Clearly, having expectations that the legal system is able to deal with my argument that I'm being treat unfairly, that the regulators do their jobs and manage the market, and that the Government don't allow this injustice to continue is too high an expectation to hold. I totally agree.

 

Complaints against the waiver since August 2008 is exactly 18. When CAG was asking for the Waiver to be got rid of, there was exactly 0 complaints(Jan to March 2009). Is anyone actually complaining about breaches of the FSA Waiver?

 

Ask the FSA. The point is, how many people will seriously follow up that complaint, as they will see it as a dead end and a waste of time - which it seems to be, IMHO.

 

You read the summary of the OFT test case on the announcement which more or less gives you the process involved. We go back if we do not show some patience

 

I'm clearly alone, here, then? Oh, no, hang on, the Judge (from the October 2008 Judgment) thinks the same as me, so that's at least 2 of us.

 

Good evening,

YouTube - Sonny And Cher - I Got You Babe

 

You clearly don't "get" me.

[InformedSearcher]

I think many miss the point here!

This is simple, on one hand people want a result and on the other is a drastically lathargic system that does not work that way. The 'old boys' network reigns as it always does.. We can argue and winge but they are the simple facts.

 

Now to make me disbelieve what I'm saying , is anyone here either a top banker [sic], high court judge or a QC with the honours? - I guess not. Okay lets ask is anyone here from a well 'deserved' public school with the (stolen) history to go with it or maybe just a 'climbed up the ladder from nowhere' person - I guess not? In fact in reality there are so few no one knows any of them. In the simple terms of reality they (being the legal and honourable law profession) drag it on, we suffer but alas we are the peasants you know, the unwashed and unclean (in their eyes) and anyhow, how dare these low lifes dare challenge us they ask devoid of the world of reality as we know it. That was a view 50 years ago and it's still rock solid now!

 

You see you can go on and on and on but in reality you cannot profess anything at all. You have no control over the old school HoL, no control of the 'Banks' and no control over the infernal law soceity. In fact as when I went on jury service the Manager said 'This is not Judge John Deed or Kavanaugh QC' and she was right. I am here.....

I rest my case.

Michael

[Shuff]

Call my cynical but I'm sure it will all be sorted next year and everyone will be getting there money back just before the election.

[HSBCrusher]

Call my cynical but I'm sure it will all be sorted next year and everyone will be getting there money back just before the election.

[yourbank]

The Government intervention means nothing until it achieves a result. Your suggesting we have to wait until the end (the very end) of the Test Case, but that isn't what is being asked of the Banks/Regulators - if you re-read my post, or the Announcement, (you will need to read between the lines) you'll see what I mean.

 

 

 

Quite. Clearly, having expectations that the legal system is able to deal with my argument that I'm being treat unfairly, that the regulators do their jobs and manage the market, and that the Government don't allow this injustice to continue is too high an expectation to hold. I totally agree.

 

 

 

Ask the FSA. The point is, how many people will seriously follow up that complaint, as they will see it as a dead end and a waste of time - which it seems to be, IMHO.

Car. I just told you what the FSA told me. 0 complaints Jan to Mar 2009. August to July 31st was 18 complaints in total.

 

 

I'm clearly alone, here, then? Oh, no, hang on, the Judge (from the October 2008 Judgment) thinks the same as me, so that's at least 2 of us.

Does moore Blick count as more contemporary from the explanatory note to the Court of Appeal in February 2009?

 

 

You clearly don't "get" me.

Disappointed on the last comment it took me at least 5 minutes to find the best Sonny and Cher clip(from Groundhog Day film cos I love the film ).

[InformedSearcher]

Quote:

the Government therefore calls on the regulators and the banks to explore whether there is a quicker way of resolving these cases that is preferable for customers to pursuing further litigation, and provides the certainty that regulators and banks need. The Government will also work with interested parties with a view to moving the market to a more efficient, equitable, and transparent system as quickly as possible.

 

I had to smile as I read this and thought of all the typical conutationsthis conjours up.

The government who set up all these regulators in the 1st place together with whatever quango on the go at the time would have gleaned everything from 3rd parties. Their well paid 3rd party advisors will have drafted up the original documents and the government will have stipulated their exact requirements. Off we go, read once, twice and voila all is happening.

Move forward to who can do what, when and where and we find the fits set of buffers. Bodies like DWP and HMRC have time scales for everything. In these cases no one expected anyone to have the nerve let alone think of arguing against perceived unfair charges. People heard that they could whizz along to a court and get 'em back. The courts ran out of time and budget so enter the FSA and OFT. Monoliths of bureaucracy have to fire up the engines. Legal seagulls thrive and the excuse is 'requirements of law' with on one hand the general public suffering, banks desperate to stay up there in the clouds at all costs, the court system at breaking point and the OFT bright sparks into their pilot seats.

In fact when you look at it as an overview there's not really that much to it. On one hand you have the financial cartel and on the other the poor suffering general public who have basically handed the financial sector everything they have/had. In the middle comes this lethargic set in 1900 legal system with each mit still holding a quill pen. In (supposedly) the middle these regulators who are really out of their depth but dare not admit to the public as such. The banks know they are and the legal teams just love it all.

So what could/would the government/FSA/OFT and anyone else propose happen? Cut out the legal teams and there would be uproar from whoever it suits at the time. I keep thinking of the terminolgy 'Office of Fair Trading' and just wonder what they base this 'fair' word on, certainly nothing I've ever been taught.

Michael

(offering the soap box to others in a fair manner)

[car2403]

Quote:

the Government therefore calls on the regulators and the banks to explore whether there is a quicker way of resolving these cases that is preferable for customers to pursuing further litigation, and provides the certainty that regulators and banks need. The Government will also work with interested parties with a view to moving the market to a more efficient, equitable, and transparent system as quickly as possible.

 

I had to smile as I read this and thought of all the typical conutationsthis conjours up.

The government who set up all these regulators in the 1st place together with whatever quango on the go at the time would have gleaned everything from 3rd parties. Their well paid 3rd party advisors will have drafted up the original documents and the government will have stipulated their exact requirements. Off we go, read once, twice and voila all is happening.

Move forward to who can do what, when and where and we find the fits set of buffers. Bodies like DWP and HMRC have time scales for everything. In these cases no one expected anyone to have the nerve let alone think of arguing against perceived unfair charges. People heard that they could whizz along to a court and get 'em back. The courts ran out of time and budget so enter the FSA and OFT. Monoliths of bureaucracy have to fire up the engines. Legal seagulls thrive and the excuse is 'requirements of law' with on one hand the general public suffering, banks desperate to stay up there in the clouds at all costs, the court system at breaking point and the OFT bright sparks into their pilot seats.

In fact when you look at it as an overview there's not really that much to it. On one hand you have the financial cartel and on the other the poor suffering general public who have basically handed the financial sector everything they have/had. In the middle comes this lethargic set in 1900 legal system with each mit still holding a quill pen. In (supposedly) the middle these regulators who are really out of their depth but dare not admit to the public as such. The banks know they are and the legal teams just love it all.

So what could/would the government/FSA/OFT and anyone else propose happen? Cut out the legal teams and there would be uproar from whoever it suits at the time. I keep thinking of the terminolgy 'Office of Fair Trading' and just wonder what they base this 'fair' word on, certainly nothing I've ever been taught.

Michael

(offering the soap box to others in a fair manner)

 

Thank the Lord for your post!

 

If there's a due legal process, let's go through it, (even if it takes 2 flaming years!) to put the issue to bed.

 

Government intervention at this stage is ludicrous - where were they when the destitute were being crippled by the charges applied and the resulting Defaults that people have suffered unnecessarily?

 

Call this justice?!

[locutus]

Call this justice?!

It's the best justice money CAN buy I think:(

[car2403]

David Cameron commits to payback of bank charges - MoneySavingExpert News

[Alphageek]

David Cameron commits to payback of bank charges - MoneySavingExpert News

 

2 down, just Brown and his cronies to go.

[Conniff]

2 down, just Brown and his cronies to go.

 

Now that is funny, very funny. He would lie if you asked him his name, he would probably say Fred Smiff or something.

 

Then again, he may not be fibbing, he might be so thick he believes that, after all, he believes the peasants are all on £650 per week.

[Bookworm]

Yeah right, I'll believe that one when I see it.

[InformedSearcher]

Now what I find 'just' a little surprising is that 2.5 - 3.5 billion quid X 6 years comes to a damned sight more that 10 billion. Having guessed that David Cameron will be next in we can all laugh at the things he's proposed and the factual realities. I recall the new London Mayor Boris Johnston prior to his election saying Congestion Charges would be changed dramatically and smoking would be allowed by adult decision.

 

I also recall the DWP minister on open TV telling people Jobcentres are there to help people into work - In fact they are there for you to sign on and nothing else unless you wander over to the JobCentrePlus screens and look for a job yourself. In fact if you felt depressed going into one you'll certainly feel a whole lot worse on leaving.

 

In reality it should not be like this at all with all out cynisism and disbeliefs. However when you finally detect (as one gets older) that 95% of the politicians are out to make something for themselves and no one else and tell the British public otherwise you seem to disbelieve anyone and everyone.

 

Michael

[Rhia]

I am wondering if Mr Cameron already knows which way the final judgement will go - in other words he knows they will find in favour of OFT so he is already putting down his marker and making it look like he had supported it all along.

 

Or am I just an old cynic?

[Aequitas]

DC says: "...once the legal issues have been resolved I agree with you that bank customers must be compensated quickly and fairly for any unfair charges that they have had to pay."

 

The legal issues currently being decided concern whether or not bank charges can be assessed as being unfair, not whether they are actually unfair. That will come later and most likely be subject to more litigation. By the time that issue is eventually decided there may have been more than one change of government.

 

He also says, "So I've asked my Shadow Treasury Team to look at your suggestion that banks should pay money back automatically if the courts do rule that the charges are unfair."

 

Not much of a commitment there. He is just going to ask the team to look at the suggestion. When they have looked at it what will they decide? When they have decided, will they implement their decision if they are in a position to do so? Further, it all depends on the courts ruling that charges are unfair as to which see above. He is not offering any hostages to fortune.

 

If the hurdle of whether or not charges can be assessed as unfair under the UTCCR is cleared, the next hurdle is assessing the charges for unfairness. It is by no means a foregone conclusion that all or even some charges will be assessed as unfair. The argument is going to be very similar to that of whether or not charges were contractual penalties and we all know how far that got.

 

Even supposing that we get to the stage that a significant proportion of charges are deemed unfair, whoever is in power will have to face the economic reality. Ordering the banks to pay back billions of pounds in bank charges even if their finances improve will involve payments on an unprecedented scale. It may result in the government having to shore them up further and what you gain in bank charges you will pay back in tax.

 

The best I can see happening is some sort of compromise where the banks are not required to actually pay anything back, but to reduce their charges.

[Camdenite]

If we are compensated "quickly & fairly" as DC promises, will this be inclusive of interest at the statutory 8%? Furthermore, what about those who have claims in calculated at the Contractual Rate? I assume they would still have to go through the courts for that?