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

[jansus]

"The charges will be invalid under the UTCCR and therefore you should be able to recover them in full."

Should that not read perhaps Excesive rather than invalid?

Again just IMO I dont think the majority of claimants want to look greedy - they just want the charges to be fair - and I know the banks have made a profit out of these charges - but two wrongs dont make a right and I think the site risks getting a bad name for claimants if the tone of this statement is reported elsewhere. Of course I am not referring to cases that have had subsequential circumstances caused by the charges or hardship cases

IMO

[steven4064]

Again, I think the correct word should be 'unfair' since that's the word actually used in the UTCCR

[jansus]

So If we claim now, what do we put on the prelim claim form and the LBA?

 

 

Yes will the POC need a change of wording ?

 

Not for me I have already reclaimed mine but just asking for those who may file claims now as a result of the above advice?

[Bookworm]

Yes, everything is being worked on as we speak, but it's lots of docs and few people, so bear with us! ;-)

 

Star Scream, if you want to send in your letters, you might just want to remove the reference to the charges being unlawful at common law, but keep the reference to the UTCCR and send them like this, they don't read the letters anyway, and it's more important to get your complaint in than whether the wording is polished just right. ;-)

[jansus]

"What form might an FSA repayment scheme take?

 

We envisage that the scheme will take the form of payment on demand within a time limit agreed between the FSA and the banks. Given the size of the problem (all created by the banks) the time limit is very likely to be much longer than the current FSA approved 8 weeks for settling customer complaints. It may be as long as 3 months and maybe even 6 months"

Oh I get that comment now! I thought it meant a scheme existed - maybe this will be discussed at the CC if the banks decide not to appeal;)

[Bookworm]

I think that BF actually meant to say FOS, not FSA, Jansus, I could be wrong, but it makes more sense if it's the FOS. ;-)

[patrickq1]

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE EU MANDATE ON UNFAIR PRACTICES

perhaps we should ask emm Margret Hodge or the oft no that wont help

perhaps we look in detail at the EU MANDATE and see the wording and if it has any relevance on all this especially when you consider the team that was bringing the case upon the banks cause they certainly pulled the wool over our eyes

patrickq1

[photoman]

Yes, everything is being worked on as we speak, but it's lots of docs and few people, so bear with us! ;-)

 

Bookie,

 

If I could be of assistance in any way, happy to help.

Just PM me if needed ?

[star_scream]

Yes, everything is being worked on as we speak, but it's lots of docs and few people, so bear with us! ;-)

 

Star Scream, if you want to send in your letters, you might just want to remove the reference to the charges being unlawful at common law, but keep the reference to the UTCCR and send them like this, they don't read the letters anyway, and it's more important to get your complaint in than whether the wording is polished just right. ;-)

 

Thank you BW I will do that

[jansus]

Yes, everything is being worked on as we speak, but it's lots of docs and few people, so bear with us! ;-)

 

Star Scream, if you want to send in your letters, you might just want to remove the reference to the charges being unlawful at common law, but keep the reference to the UTCCR and send them like this, they don't read the letters anyway, and it's more important to get your complaint in than whether the wording is polished just right. ;-)

 

 

Hi

 

Are you saying then that it is still all Work on progress? If so surely it would be better to finalise the documents /wording before posting the document above . I am sure after all this time people would rather wait for the right instructions rather than go steaming ahead and have to re-word POC claims afterwards?

[credit allergy]

I have scanned a text book tonight. A breach of contract is where an obligation has not been fulfilled. So if there is no term and conditon in your contract saying you must keep money in account then the penalty route is weak. I think this is what the judge meant last week. The utccr route is safer at present IMO. The onus is on the consumer to show unfairness. This has to be due to a reason in sch 2. one of which is disproprtianiately high charge. So if someone has evidence that it cost them 2 pound then the oft amount will be invalidated. Because every case has to be dealt with individually surely the court will listen to each case.

[Sparklez30]

But how would you get evidence that it costs them less than £2?

[steven4064]

I have a business account and NatWest charge me 37p to pay a DD. How on earth can it cost them more than that NOT to pay a DD

[Bookworm]

Hi

 

Are you saying then that it is still all Work on progress?

I thought the title:

 

Bank Charges at April 2008 - draft work in progress

 

would have been a bit of a clue. ;-)

[jansus]

OOPS

 

silly me ! missed that bit ! Was so engrossed in the content missed that important proviso. Its all such a lot to take in and so confusing its easy to make mistakes.

 

isnt it?

[TideTurner]

I have a business account and NatWest charge me 37p to pay a DD. How on earth can it cost them more than that NOT to pay a DD

 

Maybe a deal has been done after all, and the banks will have to justify any charges made.

[photoman]

I have a business account and NatWest charge me 37p to pay a DD. How on earth can it cost them more than that NOT to pay a DD

 

Perhaps it went through the same process 100 times more ??

[Aequitas]

So surely there must be a way to have stays lifted now.

 

I still maintain that more pressure on MP's now should have an effect.

 

This would involve the legislature seeking to influence the judiciary - a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the cornerstones of the constitution.

[JonCris]

Aeq do you really think there is never any 'discussion' about a particular matter, even when before the courts, around the tearooms of the HoC & HoL which involve the government & the judiciary. If you do then you live in a world I know little of

[JonCris]

Incidental we don't have a Constitution cos Tone never got round to it

 

We have the Magna Carter, Common Law & we had the Bill of Rights until this government emasculated it......but no Constitution

[star_scream]

This would involve the legislature seeking to influence the judiciary - a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the cornerstones of the constitution.

 

You know, That's exactly what I thought after I had sent it.

I said to myself Star , you idiot, that could be a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers'

 

But it was too late !!

[patrickq1]

sch 2. one of which is disproprtianiately high charge. So if someone has evidence that it cost them 2 pound then the oft amount will be invalidated. Because every case has to be dealt with individually surely the court will listen to each case.i seem to remember the DWP did a costings as to their data research and response to enquiries and it cost the approx .79 pence to use the automated data proccessing and 1,22 to use clerical services .....just a thought that 2.00 is an exceptionally and inacurate figure perhaps the use of the 2.00 figure is to include a fair profit margin in their eyes

patrickq1

[qbal]

Ok, you lot seem to be pretty clued up on all this with the judgement and stuff at the moment, so here's a little poser for you to think about.

 

I have a basic bank account, which doesn't have the facility for any form of authorised overdraft. But when a direct debit got refused due to lack of funds the letter I got stated the charge was for an "Instant Overdraft Request Fee".

 

Now, since there can be no consideration for an instant overdraft on this type of account does that mean that the charge is illegal as it has been made contrary to the terms of the account?

[Aequitas]

Incidental we don't have a Constitution cos Tone never got round to it

 

We have the Magna Carter, Common Law & we had the Bill of Rights until this government emasculated it......but no Constitution

 

If there is no constitution I wonder why so many books on it are around.

 

I have started a thead on the Bill of Rights here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-knowledge/143166-bill-rights.html#post1503693

[Aequitas]

Aeq do you really think there is never any 'discussion' about a particular matter, even when before the courts, around the tearooms of the HoC & HoL which involve the government & the judiciary. If you do then you live in a world I know little of

 

I think you underestimate the independence of the judiciary.

 

Lots of contributions in this forum suggested that the outcome of the case was a foregone conclusion and that the banks would win. It did not happen.