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

[Ladidi]

IMHO I think the Judge should just ask the banks to declare their true costs to avoid any more time wasting and use his Judgements based on the facts they present to him and inform that either the amount should be reduced to £? or all refunds should be given back to the consumer until the OFT & the Banks can come to some resolve on the issue no more monies can be collected from the consumer until a fair and just amount is in proportion to their true costs!!

[Ladidi]

How has he concluded Nationwide aren't penalties - wasn't it Nationwide unless my mind has gone that admitted they were and the QC had to say their leaflet was wrong?

 

ANSWER

The OFT issued the banks with a list of terms to which the banks had to respond. Only two did, one of which was Nationwide and the OFt have concluded that none of Nationwides terms either present or historical can be deemed penaltys under common law. Its not a judgement I think just an indication of what the OFT have found - so UTCCR only for Nationwide.

[locutus]

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

 

 

I hope that the county courts staying cases take this onboard!

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Oh that's a new spin then, so that's an OFT judgment not a Smithy Judgment.

 

In that case I'd say Nationwiders can still use penalties, but need to be prepared to argue against the OFT decision - keep it on track of, easy to sort out - disclose your costs. But that definitely means now for Nationwide T&C's are needed and the appropriate bits highlighted properly.

 

Then again I do like straws! lol

[Ladidi]

News from the CMC (OFT v Banks

 

yep I'd agree with you....need to have a look at the T&Cs from nationwide. Like I said will try clarify at next break. and no its not a ''judgement''.

 

Answer

 

nice one.

 

Just wish the OFT had appealed the penalty aspects, but they aren't interested in those at all are they.

 

The good thing is, it's already been said the Judgment on Penalties for current terms can be ignored because it flies 'so' in the face of history it's unbelievable.

 

But Smithy finding that they can be looked at under UTCCR because they aren't 'really' service fees, coupled with the OFT's disinterest in penalties means 'we' can if you are up for the argument, still forge ahead on penalty issue it just would be a more convoluted argument in Court now and not as simple as befire.

[darftblerk]

The blasted OFT are complicit in delaying things after all

 

It starts to feel that way. Surely it would be for the judge to decide?

 

If charge - cost = profit, then it's unfair.

 

I'd personally wet myself if the OFT came back and quoted £0.09

[Ladidi]

The TC has worked backwards to be fair. Historicals should've been dealt with first, then current but it's gone the other way nicely for the banks.

 

With the ruling on historicals still to come 7/8 July, I'm not sure the stays will be lifted unless Smith has spotted something he can genuine slip out. If he does it will be based on the fact he's found the current terms open to UTCCR and therefore it's assumed by all, even the banks, that ruling will pass to historicals. So stays could be lifted on that basis - even if elements dealing with penalties for historicals are still held over for TC Judgment.

 

The Courts can proceed on some issues and not others should they wish. And we all know, lift the stay, set a trial date IN BULK and the banks will settle again.

 

CMC is scheduled for today AND tomorrow. Hopefully by close today we'll know roughly what's on the billing for tomorrow.

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) OK Proceedings have finished for the day and we are back at the Bunker.

 

Here is a summary of the key points from todays CMC

 

Banks are appealing against judgement regarding UTCRR 1999 issues

 

OFT are not appealing Penalty charge aspects for current terms

 

OFT will decide tonight and advise Judge tomorrow if they will be appealing the PIL judgment for current terms.

 

The official applications regarding the appeals will be heard tomorrow.

 

Judge will hand down declarations regarding historic terms ( inc basic accounts ) at the CMC to be held on 7th/8th July.

Banks and OFT have basically agreed that UTCCR judgment will be carried over to historic terms and the OFT tried to suggest to the Judge that he should accept that agreement, however Judge wishes to do this properly so as to give correct guidance to County Courts ( basically in his own words - how can he be expected to make a judgment on something that he hasnt read or listened to arguments on ). However, he felt it likely that his view would be in line with that supposedly agreed between Banks and OFT.

With regards to Penalty charge aspects in relation to historic terms. OFT have produced an updated version of G1 and G2 annexes, taking into account initial judgment and issued this to the Banks yesterday. OFT are still working on this list and will continue discussion with Banks and submit final list to Court on 5th June. This list will determine which of the original terms the OFT identified as possibly being Penalties are no longer such ( as a result of the initial judgment ) and terms which the OFT still consider are penaltys. The list will include reasons and the OFT hope that this will be of assistance to the Judge.

 

Judge wishes to handle both the Penal aspects and the UTCCR aspects in relation to the historic terms together , in one exercise at the meeting on 7th/8th July.

 

More to follow

[JonCris]

I hate being a wet blanket about this but I think we are all jumping the gun a bit

 

We need to remember the banks utter determination to hang onto the huge profits generated by penalty charges. As we have seen already they will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the status quo

 

Even though the Judge has on some points refused leave to appeal that doesn't mean they won't attempt it & if granted delaying matters even further much beyond the July ruling.

 

Remember they have very deep pockets & they are fighting to hang on to a lot of our money so even if they can only delay the inevitable it's worth it to them in penalty fees alone which they will no doubt amass between now & it's conclusion

[Leecabs]

I think the OFT should rule that the banks charge should be £2 per item, I cant believe how unsurpportive they have been to us all.

 

They seem weak and unable to get the information from the banks that they require. I agree that the judge should ask them to present direct costs for these charges and a breakdown of how they arrive at them, this for me is the key issue and something the banks have never been able to provide to us!!!!

 

It makes me mad that we are having to wait a further 2 months just to see the appeal granted or not! Come on OFT it obvious what you need to do!!!

[JonCris]

Please remember that in the City the OFT run with both the Hare & the Hounds

[JOSH_IOU]

As soon as you bring common law into the sittuation they go hmmm errr hummmm eeeerrr uuuuu. Then you never get anything else apart from are you insane?

 

Common law statute law tort law they all are laws and must be upheld. If they are not then what is the point?

[bennyowen]

The OFT should go for it now by setting a date to reveal the result of its investigation. OFT is dittering on this matter. It has had more than one year to come up with something. Surely, they should be aware that is more than enough time.

[Deso]

it wouldnt surpirse me if the OFT case collapses now. Talk about being spineless and toothless..

[kennythecelt]

Deadline set on bank charges case, BBC: 22/5/08

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Deadline set on bank charges case

 

 

"A High Court hearing to decide the fairness of bank overdraft charges will now start before the end of the year.

The Office of Fair Trading and eight banks agreed the timetable under pressure from a High Court judge.

Earlier, Mr Justice Andrew Smith allowed the banks to appeal against his first ruling last month that the OFT has jurisdiction over the charges. If that appeal is successful, then any separate decision on fairness would be made redundant."

[Ladidi]

Ok everyone I must inform you that all post that I have pasted in here are from L E G A L B E A G L E S ON BEHALF OF AMETHYST. I did try to post the links but for reason they are not allowed in this forum. I just want to make clear I have been keeping you updated through sources of another website. Our very kind regards and thanks to Amethyst and all the others on the forum who have been allowing us to use the information they have posted in order for me to able to update you all with information to use at your discretion.

 

Ladidi

[JonCris]

[Ladidi]

Today, 16:33:PM this post was posted by BUDGIE on LB site

 

VIP Member

Golden Retriever

 

Join Date: Jul 2007

Posts: 253

Thanks: 74

Thanked 180 Times in 77 Posts

My Mood:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Continued.............

 

The judge expressed on several occasions that he was unhappy at the potential delays and uncertainty with regards to timescales as already reported in Ame's earlier posts. Before lunch he had requested that the OFT provide a more definite indication as to when they might expect to produce their PCA report and to progress further with the Banks on the fairness issues.

 

The Judge, during an exchange between himself and Malik ( Abbey QC ) hinted that a injunctive remedy may be applicable for people with stayed County Court claims who are still having charges applied to their accounts. More information to follow once we receive transcripts.

 

After Lunch the OFT QC, Richard Coleman reported that it is the OFT's intention to engage seriously with the Banks on the issues of fairness after the CMC on 7th / 8th July. If no disagreement with the Banks then the OFT would hope to be able to come back to the Courts in the period between October and Xmas having identified certain aspects requiring decision by the courts. This was obvioulsy still very vague although slighty more informative than the response given before Lunch. Obviously this all depends on how the appeal proceeds with respect to the original UTCCR judgment.

 

The FSA representative was also not very happy with the lack of information supplied by the OFT. They were expecting more discussion to have taken place at the CMC with regards to Phase 2 ( the hearings to argue whether terms are actually unfair or not ). The FSA were certainly expecting more definitive timelines to have been agreed and had been disapointed by the OFT's response before lunch. The FSA said that matters were now a little clearer however they did expect matters to proceed with the utmost expediency and wanted markers put down.

 

Our Comment - We found it quite remarkable that the FSA have actually been put in a postition that they are compalining about progress ( or lack of it ) being made by the OFT.

 

The Judge indicated that it might be necessary to hold an additional CMC towards the end of July if it proved not possible to lay down a firm timetable going forward at the CMC already organised for 7th / 8th July.

 

Apparantley the OFT and the Banks had agreed prior to the CMC that a judgment / declaration would not be required in relation to PIL for historic terms. However this may change if the OFT decide overnight to appeal the original PIL judgment.

 

At the end of todays events the Judge made an announcement regarding stayed County Court Claims.

He said " Regarding claims that have been stayed, pending guidance from this litigation, at each stage I have been considering whether this has changed. The reasons that those actions should not recede seem as strong as they were and will remain so until any appeal by the Banks regarding UTCRR 1999 has been resolved."

 

but hope that it gives people an insight in the meantime. ( Apologies for spelling mistakes above )

[enaid]

Thank you Ladidi for bringing the news to Cag users, I am sure they will appreciate it. Enaid x

[jansus]

yes thanks very much

 

good reporting

[citizenB]

Yes, thank you Ladidi

[MilkTrayMan]

Methinks someone types slower than even I do...

...Just get on with it Ladidi...Does it REALLY matter WHO/WHERE the info comes from??...

It's the 'little peeps' Vs the M.I.B. @ the end of the day...

...

[mrsc]

well done Ladidi you are doing really well.

[JonCris]

Yes it does matter who's given credit

 

Budgie has put a great deal of time & effort into this & it's only right they be given credit. Anyone passing off someones else's endeavours, even inadvertently, as their own is open to criticism & charges of plagiarism

[tomterm8]

Deadline set on bank charges case, BBC: 22/5/08

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Deadline set on bank charges case

 

 

"A High Court hearing to decide the fairness of bank overdraft charges will now start before the end of the year.

The Office of Fair Trading and eight banks agreed the timetable under pressure from a High Court judge.

Earlier, Mr Justice Andrew Smith allowed the banks to appeal against his first ruling last month that the OFT has jurisdiction over the charges. If that appeal is successful, then any separate decision on fairness would be made redundant."

 

?????? sounds like good journalism Did this guy even read the b****ng judgement? It certainly didn't give the OFT jurisdiction over charges, it gave the OFT jurisdiction to apply to the court if it considers the charges are unfair, in which case the court will consider it, after a long long wait.

 

And, why the heck are the OFT not appealing the penalty chage angle? Madness,