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

[JonCris]

No the guarantee only refers to their conduct of the DD.

 

If no money they don't have tp pay.

[JOSH_IOU]

Right i'm finally getting the picture I think.

 

So the penalty charge has infact nothing to do with the BACS its the bank making a profit from not making the direct debit.

 

Its not a cancelation charge then. As no money as been payed.

[fergal71]

if they do appeal then maybe the judge should lift all stays this may force their hand.

[JonCris]

Yeah fergal if only as I suspect they'll immediately appeal any such order in which case the stay would remain in place

[BigBudgie]

The stays are all on claims which are / were governed by historic terms and the Judge hasn't made a decision on those historic terms yet so there is no chance of stays being lifted tomorrow.

 

Even if , by some miracle, he has had time to go through all the Banks historic terms I very much doubt if he will hand judgment down on these tomorrow. He might though set a date for doing so. After he eventually makes his decision known regarding the historic terms and assuming that things go our way then the Banks will have time to decide whether they wish to appeal on those decisions.

 

The Judge may actually issue some guidance to the County Courts regarding the stayed claims tomorrow. However I suspect it will only be that they should remain on hold at present.

 

The only glimmer of light we might have would be if the never ending delays can be turned to our advantage in that we can persuade the FSA to remove the waiver owing to the lack of progress being made in the test case.

 

Budgie

Edited May 21, 2008 by BigBudgie

[Spiceskull]

That's not a new article (edit: the BBC one, I meant, I was typing at the same time as everyone else), it's the same one that they published after the result of the case, they just have tweaked it to say "thursday" instead of "May 22nd". Sloppy journalism, that.

 

I have a feeling the banks may not appeal, you know. At the moment, they are sitting on a judgment which means that they come under the umbrella of the OFT, but that their charges are not penalties. An appeal could leave them wide open to have that second part challenged, and they stand to lose a lot more should the appeal court find against them on the latter than leaving it at the current status quo.

 

On the other hand, the temptation to drag their feet for a good few more months by appealing must be incredible...

I tend to agree - the ruling so far is broadly in favour of the banks in respect of damage limitation - it will cost them when the OFT makes a decision on the level of charges, but as with credit cards, the outcome will be bearable, if somewhat costly.

 

To appeal the judgement means to appeal the complete judgement - if one part is "flawed" then there is scope for the complete judgement to be flawed. The banks do not want to have the penalty issue decided as a judgement against them, as this would then result (eventually) in paying back ALL the charges to date.

 

A "fair" charge, as set by the OFT will see the banks repaying only about 50% of what they have taken, not 100%.

 

To appeal would be a very big gamble, not least because they will have 21 days to set out the legal grounds for the appeal...and if they do go ahead, then disclosure of costs must inevitably follow at some time...and we all know what they think about disclosure...

 

No...I think the "intent to appeal" is just more sabre rattling, to get the OFT onside after their "flimsy" victory, and to put them on notice that the banks, not the OFT, will set the "fairness agenda" from now on...

[smutley]

Nothing of interest to contribute, but reading all the posts with interest (you clever ones!) and keeping up to date... but dead excited to see what tomorrow brings!

[JonCris]

I plan to hide under the duvet

[JonCris]

I keep seeing on the bottom of the thread "New Banking Bill" & I want (desperately) to change it to "New Spanking Bill"

[JonCris]

good to hear from you bookworm i always appreciate your advice - roll on tomorrow so we will know what the next deadline will be

linda

 

 

BW you have another fan:)

[edgeofadhesion]

To appeal the judgement means to appeal the complete judgement ..

 

Dear me...

[african_igbo]

Ummh nice one folks keeping us mere mortals in the loop. fingers x.

[Bookworm]

What about you Bookworm, are you planning to be there?

Nope, as it happens, tomorrow is my daughter's 21st birthday, and we had made plans long before this deadline came up. Damn OFT and banks, how dare they?

[BigBudgie]

I tend to agree - the ruling so far is broadly in favour of the banks in respect of damage limitation - it will cost them when the OFT makes a decision on the level of charges, but as with credit cards, the outcome will be bearable, if somewhat costly.

 

To appeal the judgement means to appeal the complete judgement - if one part is "flawed" then there is scope for the complete judgement to be flawed. The banks do not want to have the penalty issue decided as a judgement against them, as this would then result (eventually) in paying back ALL the charges to date.

 

A "fair" charge, as set by the OFT will see the banks repaying only about 50% of what they have taken, not 100%.

 

To appeal would be a very big gamble, not least because they will have 21 days to set out the legal grounds for the appeal...and if they do go ahead, then disclosure of costs must inevitably follow at some time...and we all know what they think about disclosure...

 

No...I think the "intent to appeal" is just more sabre rattling, to get the OFT onside after their "flimsy" victory, and to put them on notice that the banks, not the OFT, will set the "fairness agenda" from now on...

 

 

Sorry to disapoint you folks but if the Banks do appeal they DO NOT have to appeal the whole judgment. Individual parties can appeal whatever part of the Judgment that they wish. This was reported somewhere but I cannot find the reference. So for example the Banks can just appeal against the judgment wrt UTCCR 1999 but this does not mean that the PIL or penalty aspects are automatically up for appeal.

 

Will try and find the reference and post !

 

 

Here it is :-

 

Unsurprisingly for such a complex case, the banks will not be able to appeal the entire judgment wholesale, but only individual clauses they disagree with. '' http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/campaig...in_page_id=507

Edited May 21, 2008 by BigBudgie

[Bookworm]

No, that's correct, but I suspect that what Spicey meant was that if the banks appeal the part they're not happy about (the UTCCR), then the OFT will be likely to appeal the not-a-penalty part, whereas if they don't, the OFT will be more likely to let things be as they are and concentrate on then establishing the unfairness of the charges as per their remit.

[JOSH_IOU]

:rolleyes:as if the banks would offically release a proper projection form

[BigBudgie]

No, that's correct, but I suspect that what Spicey meant was that if the banks appeal the part they're not happy about (the UTCCR), then the OFT will be likely to appeal the not-a-penalty part, whereas if they don't, the OFT will be more likely to let things be as they are and concentrate on then establishing the unfairness of the charges as per their remit.

 

I very much doubt if the OFT will appeal the penalty aspect ( they were not actually seeking a declaration about this in their original POC anyway) the OFT may appeal the PIL judgment though. Although there isnt really anything for the OFT to gain by doing so as they got the declaration they actually wanted wrt UTCCR anyway. The OFT may just prefer to put all their effort into defending the UTCRR judgment should the Banks appeal that particular point.

 

Personally I would rather see the OFT concentrate on the Job in hand, defend against the appeal, forget the penalty and PIL aspects for present terms and get on with other things ( IE issue the bloomin reports into personal current accounts etc ) Some help for those of us with stayed claims ( IE Some good work by the OFT on the historical aspects would be also be extremely well received ).

 

Budgie

Edited May 21, 2008 by BigBudgie

[Bookworm]

I very much doubt if the Banks will appeal the penalty aspect

Well, obviously, since it went in their favour. :-? As for the OFT, I agree that appealing on the plain and intelligible language part would be fairly pointless, it always felt more like a fallback option, tbh.

[BigBudgie]

I have corrected my obvious typo !

[Spiceskull]

No, that's correct, but I suspect that what Spicey meant was that if the banks appeal the part they're not happy about...

I do have fans...and yes, I did qualify my post by saying "...there is scope for the complete judgement to be flawed..."

 

That is not to say that the whole judgement is flawed, or that a challenge will be made based on flaws, only that if the banks open the first scab (by appealing) then the OFT can pick the next scab...and so on and so forth...

 

The judgement was a pretty good deal for the banks, leaving them room to arm-twist the OFT into a mutually acceptable "fair" charge for "penalties"

 

As many have said before, my guess is the banks and OFT will call it quits on this judgement, there will likely not be an appeal, and six months down the line the OFT will "judge" £12 to be a penalty charge below which they will not consider action against the banks...

[JOSH_IOU]

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

 

-- Albert Einstein

[rdm2006]

is there a time limit when their appeal has to be in by - will we get to know what they are doing today or will we have to wait until tomorrow?

[tomterm8]

Well, obviously, since it went in their favour. :-? As for the OFT, I agree that appealing on the plain and intelligible language part would be fairly pointless, it always felt more like a fallback option, tbh.

 

 

I'm not at all convinced that it did go in their favour, or that their arguments make legal sence at all. this aspect of the law is, I believe, going to bite the banks on their arses...

 

Think about the logical conclusion of this judgement... late payment is not a breach of contract ... well, if that's the case, then what basis did they apply for their CCJ's where someone has been unable to pay their debts? Look at the contracts.... there's no point in time where people are contractually obligated to actually pay the bleeding debt, as far as I can see

 

All those defaults registered... all those CCJ's... are perhapse not worth the paper they are printed on:D

[reallymadwoman]

Excellent point, tomterm.

 

But isn't there a clause somewhere that overdrafts are repayable on demand, so if you don't pay on demand, could that not be a breach of contract?

[tomterm8]

But, there is a format for a termination without clause, as supposed to default... and historically, most agreements were defaulted and not terminated. Heck, this argument was always the banks lame duck argument IMHO, I don't think even the banks really believed it.