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

[reallymadwoman]

It's probably much better to use your own words. Even the PM will spot multiple copies of the same email.

[fergal71]

https://email.number10.gov.uk/Contact.aspx

 

email asap

 

this needs to be sorted sooner rather than later

[fergal71]

https://email.number10.gov.uk/Contact.aspx

 

email asap

 

;-)

this needs to be sorted sooner rather than later

[sparks199]

https://email.number10.gov.uk/Contact.aspx

 

email asap

 

;-)

this needs to be sorted sooner rather than later

 

dont bother .. just make your claim as norm

 

the stays are no longer in place .

 

you can still claim back your charges

[kennyh]

Can someone advise what amenments to poc are now needed - please?

[adamski]

I say carry on as we once did before the OFT interfered with people power we were all getting refunds and I beleive we still will if we use the SAR, Letter before action and court route using Regluation 5, enough of us do this then the banks will have to think again, they won't fancy fighting thousands of court battles will they!

 

The banks will now expect people to give up hope and use the media to enforce this idea saying there is no hope, but the judegment left doors open and did not say once and for all the charges were fair, I say lets all start again only there will be more of us this time.

[sparks199]

Can someone advise what amenments to poc are now needed - please?

 

give it a day or 2 .

 

let the dust settel then all will become clear to what and how

[kennyh]

Usury - if we're now taking the establishment on for 'fairness' then it would be useful to know where acceptibility (in the eyes of the law) ends and usury begins.

[scared001]

sorry, i didnt mean to offend anyone, was just letting out steam!!

[car2403]

Usury - if we're now taking the establishment on for 'fairness' then it would be useful to know where acceptibility (in the eyes of the law) ends and usury begins.

 

Probably right, but the issue is not whether the charges are fair or not, it's whether the Banks will allow their fairness to be tested in open Court.

 

Before the OFT TC, this was a no-no, and I suspect nothing has changed, there.

 

I think we need to take a deep breath and relax. Amending POC instructions, if they are needed, will be here for us to get to. Panicking now may cause further issues down the line.

[hsbcfiddled]

However, using regulation 5 is still subject to the clauses about core terms and price so I think that to use it we would have to find a way of arguing that charges are not part of the price for the services, and how could they be if most people do not have to pay them? The package of services is provided for a charge. Let the banks justify that charge being so much higher for a relatively small proportion of their customers. Debate on this one, please, hopefully leading to amended particulars of claim.

 

nice one , ask them to justify them in court

 

Does this mean that people who dont get charges also pay for this service?

If not then the service is a CHARGE?

 

Or am i going mad?

[adamski]

This is going to be an interesting time for CAG i think

[hsbcfiddled]

sorry, i didnt mean to offend anyone, was just letting out steam!!

 

 

I know- just click on the edit button on the said post.

 

 

Its Ok Car has done it for you!

Edited November 25, 2009 by hsbcfiddled
add text

[noomill060]

Yup- its basically back to pre-test case business as usual!

 

If they want to argue fairness in Court, let them come and have a go if they think they're hard enough!

[Seminole]

Probably right, but the issue is not whether the charges are fair or not, it's whether the Banks will allow their fairness to be tested in open Court.

 

Before the OFT TC, this was a no-no, and I suspect nothing has changed, there.

 

I think we need to take a deep breath and relax. Amending POC instructions, if they are needed, will be here for us to get to. Panicking now may cause further issues down the line.

 

Absolutely. The banks will be hoping that everyone panics, allows claims to lapse and basically come to believe that this ruling means something that it doesn't.

[adamski]

Here here Seminole

[InformedSearcher]

You know is it me or did I detect there really is hope? The original case by the OFT included the pressure on the court system. The banks were paying everyone out but the system was getting clogged up requiring multiple cases to be run.

To that point of time the courts were ruling in favour of the 'man on the street' and although the ruling today changed the 'ease' or procedure it does not stop anyone from claiming. In fact this is probably one of those times you do not want to be in the court service. However cases will now not be able to be heard 'em-mass' but individually and there's nothing apart from precident on today's ruling to stop continued potential wins.

I'd like to see the BBA's face when they realise their legal teams have to be increased for all their members.

 

Michael

[sparks199]

keep an eye out for the goodwill gesture letters over the next 3 weeks

[noomill060]

Thats that sorted then.

[emmasot]

so the claim i have going now will just continue?

[reallymadwoman]

Does this mean that people who dont get charges also pay for this service?

If not then the service is a CHARGE?

 

Or am i going mad?

 

Everyone pays for banking. If you have 'free banking' and don't incur any charges for returned DDs etc, you are still paying. The bank have your money and are using it to earn interest whilst paying you next to nothing even if you have an account that earns interest.

 

Using nice round figures, say the bank earns an average of £100 a month from the money you pay in to your account, they might pay you £5 in interest if you're lucky and you maybe cost them £10 in admin for DDs etc, so they make a profit of £85, therefore you are paying for the service even if you don't realise that you are.

[Coactum]

I've not read through all prior posts in this thread and so this point may well have been raised already. As I understand it where the banks dicates terms they are in a dominant position and this makes it unjust, but terms mutually agreed are acceptable. So, surely proposing terms to our banks that we consider fair is an appropriate statting point.

 

Let's say your bank want to charge £35 for an unauthorised overdraft and you propose that £5 is more appropriate. The bank can either reject your offer telling you take your business elsewhere, accept your offer, or try to negotiate an alternative sum.

 

I'm prepared to lay bets that whatever sum is mutually agreed will fall somewhat short of what the banks have historically charged and as such this must be good for the consumer.

[adamski]

Following on

 

I think this whole test case was a set up, the banks and the county courts could simply not cope with the massive influx of millions of court cases they had to do something to curb the tide, hence the test case.

 

Now the banks will use the media to qwell this up rising, but we must not give, do they really think after all we have been doing for years that we will just throw in the towell? I think not we must start again and carry on regardless of this pointless meaningless judgement

[Coactum]

Just had another thought. When this action started the government had not bailed the banks out. Not that the state is the majority shareholder pressure might have been applied find in favour of the banks

[whizzkid001]

So doesn't it now require the Master of the Rolls to lift the blanket stays that were put on court claims or could/should we apply to lift them individually?