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

[paulwlton]

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.

 

Aren't agreements defaulted first then terminated?

[tomterm8]

Nope, they aint. Default and termination is an entirely different legal thing... a default notice is termination with cause, a termination notice is termination of the contract without any breach of the contract... in both cases, the contract ends, but in only once case is the debtor legally at fault for the early end of the contract...

 

they both require particular forms of writing etc, and a default notice is invalid where no breach of contract has occured, in the same way a termination notice is invalid where a breach has occured.

Edited May 22, 2008 by tomterm8

[MilkTrayMan]

Aren't agreements defaulted first then terminated?

That would depend on the cause.

It's a bit like footie...A DEFAULT is akin to being given a YELLOW card.

...But some offences carry an instant RED card...

Or, if U prefer...

If U contravene a condition of your Employment Contract at work, U MAY receive a Written Warning.

...Or be sacked for Gross Misconduct.

...

[carter56]

so any news yet ?

[car2403]

so any news yet ?

 

Seems not;

 

Page last updated at 08:12 GMT

 

The banks will make their decision known at a case management conference at the High Court in London on Thursday

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks may challenge charges case

[Ladidi]

Does anyone know if the banks have gone into court and said they are intent with appealing?

[kennythecelt]

According to Reuters there may be no announcement today and it may drag on into Friday.

 

Banks back in court over charges | Personal Finance | Reuters

 

Remember, this is only their slant on it.

[JOSH_IOU]

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?

 

In the terms and conditions there will be a refrence that states you accept the overdraft tarrif or something simmilar.

 

Which gives them implied right to chase you for the excessive dosh.

 

The banks will not put a price in the toc's as they would need to send out a new contract every time they did.

 

Please do not thing I am backing the banks on this I am not.

 

What I do think should happen though is that the banks come clean on what the service costs them to operate.

 

I'd love to have free banking but i'd perfer an account with more added security that it will be open on 6 month's time.

 

I hope that is the view of a lot of people and apreciate that is not the view of everyone.

 

rant over lol

[Ladidi]

News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

No firm decisions have been made or appeals lodged as yet but this is what has been discussed thus far so is what is likely to happen.

 

The Banks WILL appeal the UTCCR 1999 Regs.

 

There will be NO APPEAL on the Penalty Charges ruling for PRESENT T&C's

 

The OFT are requesting the right the appeal the PIL judgements subject to the outcome of the appeal on the UTCCR.

 

The OFT and the Banks have agreed that the UTCCR ruling when it is finally made is likely to apply to historical terms as well as present terms, but the Judge is reserving Judgement on this until such time as he has looked at historical terms.

 

Judgement on HISTORICAL TERMS will be handed down on the 6th/7th July 2008.

 

Banks are still submitting historical terms to the court.

 

 

The Judge said he was concerned over the length of time an appeal on PIL would take holding the claims up in the courts for the consumers to get ''THEIR'' money.

[HSBCrusher]

Where has this information come from?

[locutus]

News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

No firm decisions have been made or appeals lodged as yet but this is what has been discussed thus far so is what is likely to happen.

 

The Banks WILL appeal the UTCCR 1999 Regs.

 

There will be NO APPEAL on the Penalty Charges ruling for PRESENT T&C's

 

The OFT are requesting the right the appeal the PIL judgements subject to the outcome of the appeal on the UTCCR.

 

The OFT and the Banks have agreed that the UTCCR ruling when it is finally made is likely to apply to historical terms as well as present terms, but the Judge is reserving Judgement on this until such time as he has looked at historical terms.

 

Judgement on HISTORICAL TERMS will be handed down on the 6th/7th July 2008.

 

Banks are still submitting historical terms to the court.

 

 

The Judge said he was concerned over the length of time an appeal on PIL would take holding the claims up in the courts for the consumers to get ''THEIR'' money.

 

That last sentence sounds hopeful to get our stays removed!

[Ladidi]

Information from Legal begals website..

 

News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) - Legal seagulls

 

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Re the last line - will get proper quote at lunch, but yes it does sound pretty hopeful re the Judge being keen to lift the stays - this was a wee phonecall at a 10 min break just before midday. Hope to hear more in depth at lunch.

 

Judge also said something about not wanting to agree UTCCR will apply same to historical terms until he'd looked at the historical terms in full, so probably stays to stay in place until then (July)

[JonCris]

Well ladid that if correct means the banks will almost certainly appeal

[JonCris]

Legal seagulls

[Ladidi]

Legal seagulls

[Ladidi]

It should be l e g a l b e a g a l s..I have copied and pasted the link into here and it shows ok but when I submit it keeps showing disneyworld???

 

I`m so sorry i have tried every which I know how to send the link into here for the site for some strange reason I keep ending up with disneyworld!!!!!!! I dont know how????????????

 

The website I have the information from is on as I said l e g a l b e a g a l s. I dont know how else to get you the links so I will post everything that is put into the site here for you to read..Sorry...no spaces in the word though..it is driving me mad not being able to put the link in without it becoming disneyworld or disneyland..making me sound cuckoo!!! LOL

Edited May 22, 2008 by Ladidi

[car2403]

Links to that site shouldn't be placed on this forum

[locutus]

ok, every time you post the name of that website, it alters to disneyland.

[mrsc]

They wont allow a link to the site ladidi, it's not anything you are doing wrong. lol

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Please bear with me while I type this properly

 

 

The banks are DEFINATELY appealing UTCCR 99 and judge has accepted this appeal.

 

Judge was critical of the QC for OFT - the OFT still have no idea when publication of PCA report will be and he couldnt pin it down to being within a year. The QC is taking advice from the OFT on this for this afternoons session - and the Judge seemed keen to put pressure on the OFT to get this report completed.

 

The hold up is the Banks keep changing T&Cs so the OFT keep having to refer back to banks to get info on new T&Cs on 20th May all banks meant to have responded but all but two have asked for extension.

 

7th and 8th july hearing the judge will be making decisions re the penalty issues and utccr 99 on historic terms and basic accounts. This will be a declaration ( handing down of judgement ).

 

the Judge cannot say if Historic terms are subject to UTCCR 99 cause he hasnt looked yet he would be suprised if they were not broadly similar.

 

Penalty charge of historic oft work in last couple weeeks and have issued revised list of terms that the OFT still consider relate to penaltys under common law

 

OFT need till 5th June to submit to court. historic

 

no nationwide terms either present or histroic that considered capable of amounting to penaltys

 

judge wants to consider penalty and utccr at same time

 

questioning how the claims in courts structred are they mentioning specific terms in banks T&Cs or just general POCs...

[Ladidi]

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT pressurised over bank charges

[JOSH_IOU]

I'd be asking for money for dammages in our claim what do you think?

[Ladidi]

The banks are DEFINATELY appealing UTCCR 99 and judge has accepted this appeal.

Judge was critical of the QC for OFT - the OFT still have no idea when publication of PCA report will be and he couldnt pin it down to being within a year. The QC is taking advice from the OFT on this for this afternoons session - and the Judge seemed keen to put pressure on the OFT to get this report completed.

 

The hold up is the Banks keep changing T&Cs so the OFT keep having to refer back to banks to get info on new T&Cs on 20th May all banks meant to have responded but all but two have asked for extension.

 

7th and 8th july hearing the judge will be making decisions re the penalty issues and UTCCR 99 on historic terms and basic accounts. This will be a declaration ( handing down of judgement ).

 

The Judge cannot say if Historic terms are subject to UTCCR 99 cause he hasnt looked yet but he has said he would be suprised if they were not broadly similar.

 

Penalty charge aspect of Historic Terms - OFT have been working in last couple of weeks on a revised list of terms that the OFT still consider relate to penaltys under common law. The have issued these to the banks for their responses, which will be in and submitted to the court by the 5th June.

 

No NATIONWIDE building society terms either present or historic can be considered capable of amounting to penaltys.

Therefore Nationwide customers CAN NOT use the Penalty charges arguments under commmon law to reclaim their charges.

 

The Judge wants to consider penalty and utccr on historic terms at the same time - thus is pushing for the 5th June for the OFTs submission regarding terms in historic agreements it percieves could be deemed as penaltys under common law - in order to make the declaration on the 7/8 July.

 

The Judge was questioning how the claims currently in the county courts system are structured - re are they mentioning specific terms in banks T&Cs or just general claims that the terms are penaltys. He did not appear to have seen any POCs from the thousands of claims currently in the system.

 

He once more expressed his concerns over consumers money being held up in the courts system. He seems quite keen to get the stays lifted as soon as possible.

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

OFT pressurised over bank charges

 

 

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News, High Court

Thursday, 22 May 2008 13:37 UK

 

The High Court has been the seen of the latest legal battle

 

A High Court judge has told the Office of Fair Trading to reveal when it will decide if bank charges are fair or not.

Mr Justice Andrew Smith made his comments as he granted eight banks leave to appeal against his earlier ruling on the issue.

Last month he decided that the OFT had the power under consumer contract regulations to rule if bank overdraft charges were unfair.

Thousands of bank customers will have to wait for their cases to be heard.

'On hold'

An agreement between the OFT and the banks to use the courts to resolve the legal issues at stake has seen all current and new claims put on hold.

It is thought that there could be tens of thousands of bank customers waiting to see if they can pursue their claims.

 

We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims

 

 

Justice Andrew Smith

 

The appeal by the banks against the OFTs jurisdiction in this matter is likely to be held by the Court of Appeal this autumn.

The Judge said uncertainty about the length of the OFT's investigation risked being unfair to people whose refund claims are currently suspended in the courts.

"How long should we hold up the county court litigation?" he asked. "Are we talking months, years or weeks?"

"We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims."

When asked if the OFT would conclude its investigation this year, the regulator's QC said he did not know.

"The investigation is ongoing and substantial further work and consultation with the banks has still to be undertaken," he said.

He explained that recent changes to the terms and conditions of some banks' current accounts had extended the timescale for the OFT investigation.

The OFT has been investigating the fairness of bank charges for more than a year.

[JonCris]

The blasted OFT are complicit in delaying things after all