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

[Aequitas]

We all know what regulation 5 says and there is no doubt that it applies to contracts for banking services.The essence of the problem is even if regulation 5 seems to apply you must clear the hurdle of regulation 6 (2) and that is what the test case appeal was all about and where the banks won.

[car2403]

We all know what regulation 5 says and there is no doubt that it applies to contracts for banking services.The essence of the problem is even if regulation 5 seems to apply you must clear the hurdle of regulation 6 (2) and that is what the test case appeal was all about and where the banks won.

 

I don't think that's the case - 6(2) is very specific, but 5 is much wider. 5 challenges the whole contract, which is where I think we'll see the Banks capitulating and settling before it gets to Court. (De ja vu, then... )

[Aequitas]

I don't think that's the case - 6(2) is very specific, but 5 is much wider. 5 challenges the whole contract, which is where I think we'll see the Banks capitulating and settling before it gets to Court. (De ja vu, then... )

 

I do not follow this. You cannot take regulation 5 without regulation 6. If you can, what is regulation 6 doing there? What exactly is it "very specific" to?

[noomill060]

Im veering towards Aequitas' point of view now, but I'd love to read what Cox QC has to say on the matter.

[noomill060]

My outstanding charges date from 1987-92, so I presume arent retrospectively covered by the 1995 Regs anyway.

[HSBCrusher]

We all know what regulation 5 says and there is no doubt that it applies to contracts for banking services.The essence of the problem is even if regulation 5 seems to apply you must clear the hurdle of regulation 6 (2) and that is what the test case appeal was all about and where the banks won.

so why did the HOL suggest if the OFT want to have another go they should use regulation 5? Surely if it was dead in the water they would have said so.

 

I don't think the banks will go to court on this.

[reallymadwoman]

There is a suggestion that the higher courts never say never, just in case someone comes up with a scenario no one had ever considered before.

 

I don't have any personal stake in the bank charges thing other than wanting to see the consumer beat the big boys, but I also have doubts about whether reg 5 will work.

[caro]

Having read the full judgment I'd be surprised if it failed on regulation 5, and I'd be quite surprised if the banks were keen to turn up in court to defend themselves. I think we could be back at square one, but hope the OFT take on board what the Supreme Court has offered.

 

Until the banks are better regulated though, I believe they'll continue to be a law unto themselves, as the stupidity with RBS still wanting to dish out bonuses after nearly going to the wall, demonstrates only too clearly.

[caro]

BTW, I've dusted down the spreadsheet with hubbys charges from Lloyds so we're ready to go when we have new advice and POC.

[hacksaw]

I can't wait till the OFT say they're going to start court proceedings against the banks under Regulation 5. Hopefully they'll announce their position this month.

[ncf355]

I can't wait till the OFT say they're going to start court proceedings against the banks under Regulation 5. Hopefully they'll announce their position this month.

 

 

I see,

 

Hungry for another 2 year court case and stay that takes us nowhere are you?

 

Personally I'd be more than happy if the OFT just dissapered up its own jacksy and left us to it

 

[the_shadow]

I see,

 

Hungry for another 2 year court case and stay that takes us nowhere are you?

 

Personally I'd be more than happy if the OFT just dissapered up its own jacksy and left us to it

 

 

Seconded....

 

would be nice if they gave a parting shot whilst admitting defeat... something along the lines of..

 

"We acknowledge the supreme courts suggestion of the use of regulation 5 to challenge in ours and the publics opinion these unfair fees but feel its not in the best interests of the public for the OFT to continue with an appeal that will obviously involve a further stay and a continuation of fees being charged with no redress for customers, therefore we invite customers to take their banks to task for these fees direct utilizing the county courts in either a class action or individually"

 

S.

[kennyh]

Originally posted by shadow

would be nice if they gave a parting shot whilst admitting defeat

In your wildest mate...

[MilkTrayMan]

...Until the banks are better regulated though, I believe they'll continue to be a law unto themselves, as the stupidity with RBS still wanting to dish out bonuses after nearly going to the wall, demonstrates only too clearly.

If RBS are allowed to successfully get away with dictating to an elected NEW Labour government, the Conservatives will walk next year's general election, make no mistake about that.

 

The entire current RBS Board should be summarily dismissed forthwith, no if's or maybe's but NOW!!!

 

This present government's credibility ebbs by the hour whilst these selfish charlatans expect US,the impoverished UK taxpayers, to pay for their past, current + potentially future indulgences.

 

 

:-x:-x:-x:-x

[JonCris]

MTM is would appear that now we are about to bail out Dubai because of RSB's disastrous investments as orchestrated by Goodwin Browns banker

[ncf355]

Nice to see that the audit office estimate of the total cost to the taxpayer to bail out the banks will be around £850bn

 

WT (naughty word) couldnt we plumb this into the post office/ giving cash to those that lost out when the banks went tits up and just let all but say 1 or 2 smaller banks fail?

 

 

 

RBS and the like shouldve been left to go to the wall, I dont believe for a minute we would have had the doomsday scenario the govt. use to justify this disgrace that has befallen us over the last year or so

 

 

I mean, how many cancer drugs/sets of body armour for the troops/helicopters/etc would this £850bn have bought

 

And I'm not interested in the "thats a different area of the budget" rubbish either - as far as I'm concerned it comes from the public purse (e.g: tom, dick and sally) so its a valid question

[JGJ]

MilkTrayMan,

 

I completely and utterly agree with your comments and YES they should be dismissed, arrogance personofied me thinks.:mad::p

 

Love the avatar.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[the_shadow]

Originally posted by shadow

 

In your wildest mate...

 

...and yes I still believe in the little people at the bottom of the garden along with Santa and the Magic Elf

 

S.

[kennyh]

Shadow,

I ain't 'avin' that!!

[InformedSearcher]

Now listen 'ere! 25th December I expect pressies and calling Santa on the board are going to potentially mean he might not deliver. I have a list for Santa!

 

Michael

(imagining RBS board on resigning all wearing Santa Claus outfits)

[the_shadow]

Michael

(imagining RBS board on resigning all wearing Santa Claus outfits)

 

tis funny, my image of any banker is below:-

 

 

The late great Mr Sim as scrooge.

 

S.

[citizenB]

Now listen 'ere! 25th December I expect pressies and calling Santa on the board are going to potentially mean he might not deliver. I have a list for Santa!

 

Michael

(imagining RBS board on resigning all wearing Santa Claus outfits)

 

So do I

[elsinore]

 

RBS board queueing for dole (in my dreams).

 

Els

[Undercover-Elsa]

They've averaged it out at £40grand per family.

Fine - I won't ask for mine if they don't ask for theirs...

[InformedSearcher]

Well the RBS board have said they would resign if restricted on bonus payments for their staff, especially investment bankers. Whilst it won't happen it'd be funny to see them do it and the aftermath! OMG, government civil servants running a bank - the pure nightmare of it!

 

Michael

(who loves the images btw and stands next to CitizenB for Santa's visit)!)