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

[TideTurner]

Aequitas,

Below is an extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section that I have highlighted:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

 

 

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statute" and may not be impliedly repealed. As stated in the 'Metric Martyrs' Judgment in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant section 62 and 63):

62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ... 63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"

 

I am sure that if the right to bear arms was included, that is what we would be doing today.

I hope this doesn't add to the risk of going off subject here.

Tide

[Bookworm]

I hope this doesn't add to the risk of going off subject here.

I think that worry probably comes 3 or 4 pages too late, TT.

[JOSH_IOU]

Interesting...

 

 

• UK weights and measures legislation is of a Byzantine complexity. If a legislative assembly had chosen to confuse the public, then it has succeeded in this case.
  
  
• In passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament surrendered its sovereignty to the European Union.
  
  
• Every national court must set aside any national law that conflicts with Community law. Implied repeal of the 1972 Act by the 1985 Weights and Measures Act cannot apply since the old principal which said that where two laws are incompatible the later one is good, is no longer relevant. The 1972 EC Act is a "bold new source of law".
  
  
• The 1998 Human Rights Act is similar in nature to the 1972 EC Act. It states that the courts can overthrow any act that contravenes it in the future.
  
  
• The European Union would be destroyed if states went on legislative frolics of their own.
  
  
• Membership of the European Union is not entrenched. The 1972 Act may be repealed.
  
  

[Aequitas]

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

 

A premium paid for the grant of a lease is a "fine". Anyone fancy starting a court case to get back the money they paid for their flat? Should a landlord ensure you are convicted before selling?

 

Landlords regularly forfeit leases. Should they have to get the tenant convicted first?

[JOSH_IOU]

I would not no where to start

[Aequitas]

In passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament surrendered its sovereignty to the European Union.

No it did not.

The 1998 Human Rights Act is similar in nature to the 1972 EC Act. It states that the courts can overthrow any act that contravenes it in the future.

 

No it does not.

[JOSH_IOU]

District Judge Morgan 9th Paril 2001

[Aequitas]

Two extracts from the judgment worth quoting:

The defence argue that in relation to our constitution the older the doctrine the better. The concept of the older the better may well apply to certain vintages of claret but old law, like old wine eventually goes off. What happened in 17th, 18th and 19th century does not necessarily tie Parliament and the courts today if they have evinced the intention of not being so tied because there would be an apparent and obvious conflict with recent legislation and case law.

***

Constitutional law is not like a stagnant pond - never changing. It is like a fresh running stream, constantly changing as it does to accommodate the surrounding land and the varying weather patterns, so it is with our Constitution in order to meet the needs of the time and age in which we live. Constitutional law has and always will evolve as of necessity to fit into the demands of the time.

[InformedSearcher]

Hmmm, whilst we have ventured drastically from the thread. the EU/EEC and whatever was quite simple at the begining. A concept to be able to negotiate and challenge for fair trade worldwide to compete with places like the USA. We are now down to 'scary' Euro MP stories, trade is secondary and the UK keeps all it's 'punative' laws et al. If we want to streach this at all we should understand that laws governing say Customs & Excise were initially made for amendment later - Like they are now precidents set in stone! In the end just another way for polaticians to weild there power they'd otherwise be ignored. Just as I personally see it in a nutshell anyhow.

Michael

[JOSH_IOU]

Correct me if i am wrong but if someone implys in a contract you must pay a monthly sum of £12. Dose contract law apply?

[SELV]

Hey JOSH - IOU, are you still talking about them under/overweight bananas here or a contract for a boat load?? ..SELV..

[car2403]

I think that worry probably comes 3 or 4 pages too late, TT.

 

And it's now 4 or 5

[SELV]

Hi Bookworm, haven't spoken to you for a while ,how was the wild salmon?.....roll on the 22nd might have some posts I can understand ..SELV...

[Cashback75]

Too much spam here i just checked in to see latest developments and gather that we are still waiting for 22nd May appeal by banks? everyone is doing a great job on this forum but this thread is over my head...thanks peeps... BTW i am on stay with my court case, HSBC owe me $2890..

 

keep up the good work peeps..

[noomill060]

The Bill of Rights is basically the conditions by which William, Duke of Orange accepted the English throne to become King Billy III. (He had seen what we do to Kings we get fed up with and had no intention of ending up the same way)

 

He accepted only on condition that he was a constitutional monarch and in doing so broke with the ancient convention that kings and emporers ruled with direct authority of the gods.

 

This revolutionary idea finally dragged England out the Dark Ages and gave PROTESTANT England a century's headstart over our Catholic European friends/enemies.

 

While they were still furiously burning witches and pagans or arguing over the hierachy of the choirs of angels, England was developing steam power, mass production and developing international trade based on the legitimate profit motive, rather than the age old method of simply killing backwards Johnny Foreigner, then stealing his stuff. (eg: the Spanish and Portuguse in South America)

 

(OK, it took a fair while to eradicate this, but eventually the practice of killing Johnny Foreigner to get his stuff developed into the more modern notion of politely ripping him off, with a benevolent smile. A noble tradition which Capitalism of course continue to this very day!)

 

The right for a Protestant to bear arms for his defence probably had more relevance in the Ireland of the late 17th century (where there was/is a large population of people less than sympathetic to English Protestantism) than to England where conversion to Protestantism was almost 100%.

 

The Buill of Rights in many ways is of its time, but without it, the Crown has no power, therefore the Crown in Parliament has no authority and the 319 year old British Establishment collapses like a house of cards.

 

( The Monarchy claims its power by precedence and inheritance based only on the constitutional model set up by King Billy, not on the ancient notion of Divine Right of Kings.)

 

The BoR is not going anywhere.

 

WTF this has to do directly with the OFT test case, I have no idea

[nomomoney]

Hello,

I am new here and wanted to say hi. I heard some news today oh boy!!

Apparently the same revolt against banks has been going on in France. TV news today announced that a decree is to be passed on 16 May 2008 whereby banks cannot charge more than a certain amount for bounced cheques or failed DD's. They will only be bale to charge a fee of €30 for cheques inferior to €50 or for €50 and will charge €50 for cheques of €60 and above. A flat fee of €20 for any failed DD. Still excessive but French banks used to be able to charge penalty fees of up to €100 for bounced cheques and failed DD's. French consumers have also been trying to reclaim their charges back for a while now, although I am not familiar at all on how it works over there and far they can go back.

[JOSH_IOU]

I cant see any one else contributing anything of releavance.

It sounds like the same message is being used right away across the site.

 

Whats wrong with using the unfair terms in contracts act 1977?

 

We have already established the Unfair terms in consumer contract dose not apply to limited companies etc. It would seem we need a new tool in the tool box.

 

I am sick and tired of trying to contribute something and then someone laughing because I have contributed that fact.

 

Pelase give me a valid reason why we can not use the Unfair terms in contract regulations thats the UTCA 1977 not the UTCCA 2006.

 

Quoting Colorful Metaphors is not helping anyone.

[determindator]

I refer to the Limitation Act 1980. Can I use section 6 special time limit for actions in respect of certain loans. Can anyone confirm if this would be relevant for an overdraft as it does not have a fixed or determinable date for repayment.

 

Great thanks

 

D

[JOSH_IOU]

Q1

Do you mean can you extend the period you have to take action on a claim?

 

And can you rely on that section of the act?

 

Q2.

 

Are you still tied into the contract which cover's the loan in question?

[TideTurner]

Determinator,

 

why would you need to rely on this? Any limitation runs from the point of discovery of the demeanour - S.32 Limitations Act 1980. Dependant on the claim, this may be 3, 6, 12 years, FROM THE POINT OF DISCOVERY.

 

Tide

[JOSH_IOU]

Thats what i read as well tied.

I thought maybe the period had run out.

 

Or maybe there was some clause in the loan contract that said Determinator had a certain amount of time to make aclaim.

 

This is not uncommon but if it is shorter than 6 years then the contract maybe unfair as the lender is trying to escape responsibility. Maybe perhaps I thought.

[photoman]

Josh IOU,

Nobody is ignoring you, I just think people are currently a bit unsure as to what acts, laws and statutes they can and can't use.

 

Here is my take on UCTA77

 

Section 4 says:

 

4. Unreasonable indemnity clauses. —

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

 

(2) This section applies whether the liability in question—

(a)is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

(b)is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.

 

 

In short, it deals with forbidding any attempts to recuperate costs from a consumer (us) that were incurred by the other (in this case the bank) by making reference to a term in the contract and claiming that such costs were incurred were due to a breach of such a contractual term (or some negligence has occurred).

 

So, this depends upon how the charges were presented at the time to the claimant.

 

In the past, some Banks in such circumstances would present the charges as pertaining to service charges or fees (which they are all now attempting to do, but have just had dismissed as untrue)

However, others did actually present them as relating to a recuperation of costs incurred dealing with such events.

Lloyds (and a few others) certainly did the latter.

 

If the former case (presented as service charges or fees), then claiming sec4 of UCTA would do no good anyway, so instead, one needs to argue and question just what service was actually provided (which is in fact currently none, as proven by the recent OFT judgement, and will soon also be deemed as applicable historically).

 

If the latter, and they were claimed to be a recuperation of costs, and arose due to a returned item ie. your attempt at going over your limit, ie. a failure to adhere to an agreed limit, then this could plainly be deemed as arising due to a breach of contract (an agreed limit is after all a contractual obligation).... so I personally think section 4 could definitely be invoked.

 

So, for those banks that presented them as relating to a recovery of costs (which we lay claim as also being due to a breach of contract), then under the terms of UCTA77 they had no contractual rights to claim such sums, and the pursuit of such "costs" should have really been pursued through the courts (rather than just calculating, massively marking up and then enforcing themselves, without any accountability as to the true cost).

 

If this had been the case, then they would have had to go through the same processes as ourselves; i.e. prelim and LBA to demand the true costs to be paid under threat of court action (which at just a few pence we would all just pay). If they then persisted in presenting them at massively marked up rates, and it went to the court, they would have lost, and would also have massive costs to bear.

 

That's my tuppence worth anyhow.

I think it's a fair assessment, but I would be interested to hear others views.

 

PM

[JOSH_IOU]

have a look at

 

The “reasonableness” test

 

downwards

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

[JonCris]

Whilst sec 32 is an argument could I also mention that if you made any payment within the last six years toward a debt which was over 6 years old then the creditor may not be able to rely on limitation to cut off their liability at 6 years as they have acknowledeged the debt within 6 years .............. by accepting payment within 6 years in much the same way as the debtor making a payment out of time allows the creditor to restart the clock the same would apply to the debtor

[TideTurner]

Wishing my life away - roll on the 22nd:rolleyes: