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

[sparks199]

im of the thinking now that this rulling was only made to stop auto refunds

 

but everyone can still make there case

[adamski]

sparks I agree it stinks

[noomill060]

Indeed- the stays should now be lifted and Banks made to justify themselves- if they dare.

[elsinore]

The courts decided (quite inexplicably) that they weren't and the OFT didn't appeal.

 

You missed a bit out, Seminole:

 

The courts decided (quite inexplicably) that they weren't and the OFT (quite inexplicably) didn't appeal.

 

Els

[Undercover-Elsa]

I notice that this is stated as relating specifically to unauthorised overdraft charges. What is the situation regarding OTHER bank account charges, ie unpaid DD, £50 charges for issuing Default Notices etc?

[noomill060]

You missed a bit out, Seminole:

 

The courts decided (quite inexplicably) that they weren't and the OFT (quite inexplicably) didn't appeal.

 

Els

 

Looking back, its clear that this was part of the stitch up.

 

(Unless the OFT now decides it wants to appeal)

[Seminole]

You missed a bit out, Seminole:

 

The courts decided (quite inexplicably) that they weren't and the OFT (quite inexplicably) didn't appeal.

 

Els

 

Sorry, yes you're right of course. In retrospect that decision not to appeal something that really could have opened the floodgates on claims looks very, very suspect now.

[charley2212]

Well The Banks Shares Are Up In The Light Of This , Yet More Millions For Them , Perhaps This Was Designed As Such So They Could Pay For The Eventual Outcome Ie The People Vs The Banks

[noomill060]

Very, very suspect.

[Bookworm]

The Court said it would not allow an appeal by the OFT to the European Court of Justice.

Well, the appeals courts hadn't given permission for the banks to appeal to the HOL and they still did, not sure how it goes at the ECJ, but can't the OFT appeal anyway?

[PGH7447]

Angela Knight, from the BBA, was asked whether they would continue to make unauthorised overdraft charges.

"The banks are mindful of their customers, they know the concerns of those who have paid the unauthorised overdraft fees and those who have not," she said.

"Individuals can avoid any charge by putting their overdraft arrangements in place first

 

-----------

 

Arghh cant this bloody woman ever say anything straight

[Sammythebest]

Just filled out my N1 Claim form, looks good with the interest , just writing a cheque and going to the court. Be Back soon

[danielr]

..... & remember there's a GE on the horizon so get lobbying your MP NOW

I can't remember the last time a pre-election pledge was honoured...

 

in any case, I can't see any party saying vote for me and I'll get you loads of charges from the bank to be refunded... they might say vote for me and we'll re-visit the case, but after a further 2 years I'd imagine that the same arguments would be trawled up, re-examined and the same judgements reached.

 

...and the Supreme Court has decided that not only that they can't but that the OFT can't appeal to the European court.

can a person decide that you're not allowed to appeal? surely the European courts are a higher power than the supreme courts? and surely the right to appeal a decision of a court by a higher court, (or even in the same court) is a basic principal of the justice system in this country/economic union?

[Bookworm]

Angela Knight, from the BBA, was asked whether they would continue to make unauthorised overdraft charges.

"The banks are mindful of their customers, they know the concerns of those who have paid the unauthorised overdraft fees and those who have not," she said.

"Individuals can avoid any charge by putting their overdraft arrangements in place first."

So short answer: "yes"

 

Edit: @ PGH, there's your answer, was typing at the same time, lol. Can't think why., but the site seems to have gone ever so slow...

[PGH7447]

Sarah McCarthy Fry, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said the government were "determined" to make sure the system was made fairer in future.

"Consumers, who have been waiting a number of years, will be extremely disappointed with this outcome.

"It is clear that in the past, banks were not thinking enough about their customers. That needs to change for the future.

"The government will work with the OFT and Financial Services Authority to reach a new framework for fairer bank charges going forward."

[photoman]

So what you're saying is all our claims got put on hold so that we could see if the OFT could assess for fairness.

The courts say no, the OFT can't assess for fairness.

But it doesn't mean the charges are fair.

Which takes us back to the OFT's statement on credit card when they said only the courts could decide what constitutes a fair charge.

So we have to go back individually to the courts for each individual judge to decide on fairness.

So, the last 2+ years have been a giant waste of time??? :-? :-? :-?

 

 

 

 

CONSUMER LEGISLATION ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT'S WRITTEN ON !!

 

 

 

IF IT CANNOT BE ENFORCED, IT IS POINTLESS.

 

 

 

THE OFT IS REDUNDANT

 

 

 

PARLIAMENT IS POWERLESS AND REDUNDANT.

 

 

 

 

 

THE BANKS ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY !!!

 

 

 

 

WELCOME TO THE ORWELIAN FUTURE.

 

 

 

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[JGJ]

I have a hearing in my local court TODAY! To amend the POCs to UTCCR 1999, from the previous claim of penalties, contrary to common law.

 

Also Limitation Act sec 32c for claims beyond 6yrs.

 

Any info/advice will be eagerly received.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[adamski]

I keep hearing about regulation 5 that contracts should be negotiated, none of us ever ever negotiate credit agreements or bank acount T&Cs surely this is the route we must now base our claims on?

[fergal71]

lets let the dust settle and all decide on a course of action to resolve this once and for all.... we might have to follow the french

 

only people power will resolve this

[Undercover-Elsa]

Mr Lewis says he's had a message from Gordon Brown saying he's taking a personal interest in this. Maybe he's thinking that a successful outcome would have taken the money out of the banks coffers, put it back on the high street, thereby back into the economy and boosting his tax bucket.

Hmmm.

[HSBCrusher]

unless we are prevented from doing so, there is now no reason why we can't continue to claim via the courts.

Why should the waiver now remain? I can see no reason.

this judgement does not state the charges are fair... in fact goes to great effort to say it does not cover this issue. It is still unresolved. A court can still decide... and will have to.

[PGH7447]

By Ian Pollock, personal finance reporter, at the Supreme Court

It took Lord Phillips just a couple of minutes to deliver a profoundly important ruling for UK banks and their customers.

 

The Supreme Court has decided that for the past two and a half years the OFT has been barking up the wrong legal tree.

The result is that banks can continue charging high fees for customers who go overdrawn without authority to subsidise the cost of providing current accounts to other customers who stay in the black.

[Seminole]

Well, the appeals courts hadn't given permission for the banks to appeal to the HOL and they still did, not sure how it goes at the ECJ, but can't the OFT appeal anyway?

 

Would we want them to?

 

There is a chance that a successful appeal could mean that the UK government would have to put in place the refund mechanism that we have all been hoping for so that people could avoid having to go to court.

 

The downsides are that it would take years to be heard and the stays would no doubt be left in place in the meantime. Moreover, even if the OFT won I've a feeling that the establishment would find a way to ignore or water down the judgement.

 

What we are going to see now is a concerted attempt to persuade the public that they should give up pursuing historic charges (a lot of people will be duped into believing that they can't claim back charges) and a continuation of moves by the banks to make us believe that their charges are "fair" and "transparant". Personally I think today's ruling is liberating. Assuming that there's no stitch up over the stayed claims, I think people are free to start claiming again.

[noomill060]

Yes, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say about the waiver.

 

Is it the MoJ who is responsible for keeping it in place?

[whizzkid001]

Essentially yes, I think.

 

The original test case seems to have had two strands. The first considered whether the charges were penalties. The courts decided (quite inexplicably) that they weren't and the OFT didn't appeal. The second was whether the OFT could exercise their regulatory powers and the Supreme Court has decided that not only that they can't but that the OFT can't appeal to the European court.

 

My take is that everything after the penalties ruling has been a waste of time. The courts can decide whether the charges are penalties and whether they are fair. The penalties approach was dealt a heavy blow by the court ruling but no court has given a definitive ruling on whether they are fair or not. I'm no lawyer but I think that issue remains unresolved and individuals could still pursue claims. We are going to get an answer to this one way or another because I can't see any reason for the stays to remain in place now.

 

Bankfodder will have a view on this but personally I think we should swamp the courts with claims again, swamp the banks and the Financial Ombudsman Service with complaints and bury our MPs in letters.

Except a part in the ruling states "The Relevant Charges levied on any particular customer greatly exceed the actual net cost to the bank of complying with the request(s) impliedly made by the customer leading to the incurring of such charges. But it is obvious on reading the charging structure that charges cannot be directly related to the actual costs of providing any particular service triggering them."

Does this seem to be suggesting the court accept that the charges don't, and won't, reflect the true cost and further, that it is accepted that the charge pays for the overall service. How could you win an argument in court then on this basis?