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

[photoman]

Hi Guys,

 

I have searched but I can not find the grounds on which the banks have been granted leave to appeal. As we all know a party can not appeal a court judgement because they simply don't like it, they have to have grounds for an appeal. Does anyone know what grounds the banks submitted an appeal for? Procedural irregularity? New evidence? Judge error?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

They're appealing because they're the Banks... !!

 

They're the ones who really run the country.

 

Unlike a Government they're not answerable to strict process, the voters or the Queen.

 

They have longevity, so they do not just have a short 5 year term in which to create and implement policy, or be dammed at the polls.

 

They have autonomy over interest rates,

They loan the government vast sums of money, who by return bail them out with taxpayers money when they make a mess.

They can make or break a government and so influence it's policy, which means they're the ones who really run the economy, so vis a vis the country...... and how dare their downtrodden subjects question them !!

 

 

That is the Dragon we all face......

 

 

....... Where's Saint George when we need him !!

[vogelrok]

vog remember to take ID with you won't you:)

 

i got it planned and sorted.

 

also don't forget to have your interest worked out when you close an account with a bank. it might just be a few pence but better off in our pockets.

 

 

im so looking forward to my day. i have been under so much stress due to bank charges i could never afford to pay. so this will be my hour to have my say.

 

ringing Portsmouth Credit Union on tuesday to find out how to set up an account. it even has an ISA account. so will be taking advantage of that to. this is going to be the year the consumer play the banks at there own game.

 

how hard would it be to setup a credit refrence agency. one where people can black mark a bank for unlawful bank charges. helping people decide who is the best to go with. like they use to decide who will get a bank account with them.

Edited May 24, 2008 by vogelrok

[darftblerk]

I have not missed the point - I just dont think

 

1) it will have that much of an impact- there is advice on lots of sites already about which are the most cost efective banks to use

2) We dont know 100% what will happen about the waiver until the next CC in July

3) you wanted the legality of the charges tested and that is what is happening this site and others should be proud of that . I know this is only the start of a long process but that is how the legal system works and the banks are enttled to appeal that is their right.If it was an individual in that position you would be championing for their cause.

4) The argument is a long and complex one - if it was not it would have been settled in a court case long before now.

5) Even if the waiver stays in place hardship cases are supposed to be deat with by the banks or the FOS - Therefore as they are not being dealt with why not start by trying to get the terms of the waiver tightened up.

6) the ruling on the historic terms has not yet been decided and the Judge seemed very critcal of both the OFT for not having completed their report on fairness and also he seemed concerned with the customers who are waiting for a outcome.

 

 

So to summarise I am not missing the point I just dont think it wll be effective I think there are other areas that should be concentrated on

 

1) Clarifying the whole point of how the banks can take peoples benefits in charges - in travel girls case the judge was very crtiical of this but said it should be tested in another separate case

2) aim to tighten up the terms of the waiver if it is extended

3) Get bad pubicity for the banks who do not help those in genuine financial difficulties

4) help those in genuine distress when the banks B/S are about to evict them when they are only 2-3 months in arrears - and publisise those cases.

5) I agree keep lobbying MPs - they are really worried about our votes right now

6) i view of the comments so far by the judge - double and triple check the POC and get people to chage them if necesary and yes keep lodging the claims or complaints maybe through the FOS not the courts.

 

IMO

 

and one genuine question Dave - you say CAG may not back you but dont you think people look upon you as CAG - you are an administrator? So what you suggest will be taken as a lead by others on the site?

 

Do you work for a bank?

 

Why pay more money to a company who is taking you to court/appealing ( and by 'you' I mean the OFT and every public member it represents), to stop you getting your money back. Your logic is crazy.

 

For example: if Sky TV suddenly doubled their monthly package prices, most customers would cancel their subscriptions and go elsewhere (Cable). You wouldn't sit around for a year arguing with Sky about the cost, each month still paying out £99.99 for Sky TV. If you wrote to the OFT and they investoagted Sky, you wouldn't wait for a year, and then hear that the case was going to take longer, so carry on paying extorionate fees for another year whilst the case was settled, you'd cut and run to another supplier who had customer service in their interests.

 

As for the violins playing in the background when 'hardship cases' come up; I earn a good wage now, but 6 years ago I was suicidal over debt caused by these banks. Now that I'm well off again, do I get to claim hardship rights cause I was poor 6 years ago?

 

I'm disputing all bank accounts that have received unfair charges, no matter how big or small. If the bank wants to put my claim on hold, I'll put theirs on hold also. Fairs fair? Just using the law to my advantage, as the Big 8 are at the moment.

 

Short of driving a transit van full of cemtex into canary wharf, there isn't a lot I wouldn't do to get my own back on the Big 8 for challenging the public representative I have appointed with my Tax money to kick their arses....

[Bookworm]

I did try to post on this one Bookworm, a message box came up to say I wasnt allowed to:confused:

 

I have copied that thread to General:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/145896-credit-unions-discuss.html

 

You should be all right there.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

Can someone please post up where I can find the reason/arguments the banks have submitted to be allowed to appeal?

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

Regarding the waiver

 

In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse'

 

Many banks have changed their terms and conditions and terms such as fees are now being used instead of charges since the waiver was put in place isnt this a breach of the waiver?

Also another condition of that waiver was that they would keep customers informed of the test case, has anyone had any update from banks concerning this?

 

I wrote to the FSA and asked the following

 

How can I register my concerns that the FSA waiver has been breached by my bank as they have changed my terms and conditions amongst other things which have affected me. For the waiver to remain in place conditions were clear and concise for those firms that for the waiver to remain in place they have to abide by these conditions. This is a breach of those conditions in my opinion and should be investigated.

 

Their answer

A. In the course of our review the FSA found that a number of firms had changed their terms and conditions in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges. In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that t applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse'. The FSA will be closely monitoring how any changes made by a firm will affect customers in practice and whether this amounts to a breach of the waiver. In view of this, we welcome information from consumers which would highlight wider concerns of a firm's use of the FSA waiver. If you would like to provide us with further detailed information, I can assure you that concerns will be carefully considered in light of our regulatory responsibilities.

 

Regards materially adverse changes to the charging structure, I came across this on the Telegraphs website (as originally published on moneyfacts):

 

 

 

Taking what the FSA ruled as terms to allow the waivers to stay in place, and have further re-iterated by response to Bigmacs questions ie:

 

"In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse".

 

.... I would say looking at the new charges, rates and fees structures, that the rates have evidently risen, the charges have increased, and the ways that the charges are now applied have ALL changed on all of these fronts ....... thus, this could definitely be considered as customer abuse, and so should be deemed that the terms governing the waiver have certainly been abused !

 

 

For the sake of clarity, it would be interesting if someone could perhaps post up a similar list (or link to similar list), showing what the charges were just prior to the waiver being granted.

 

 

PM

[TideTurner]

PM,

 

I don't have a list, but this should be monitored over the coming months also, as the banks change their charging structures.

 

Anybody got ANY rates for any of the big 8?

 

Tide

[Bookworm]

Top of my head, these are the ones I know (but subject to failing memory!) in 2007.

 

Barclays: used to be £25, went up to £30, but sometimes £35 depending on factors I haven't been able to ascertain. No monthly o/d charge that I can recall.

 

Halifax: £39 per misdemeanour + £28/mth unauthorised o/d charge.

 

Natwest: £38 charges per offence + £30 monthly "referral" charge.

 

Sorry, that's the best I can do at the moment.

[photoman]

Okay,

How can the following NOT be considered as being an adverse change in the billing structure ?

 

These are my calculations with regards how Lloyds "new & improved" charging regime could now effectively work out in practice.

 

If one month, you were to say inadvertently go over your overdraft limit by just £26, for just a 10 day period, then you would incur the following:

 

1/ A £15 one off "unplanned overdraft fee"

2/ A daily fee of £15 each of the 10 days.

 

TOTAL that month: £165 !!

 

For just inadvertently over borrowing by £26,

 

Then, on top of that, you would also incur interest at unauthorised rates (probably around 29-30% APR) on the whole sum (ie; the £26 + the £165 in charges).

 

This would then also mean, that the following month, you would be left around £200 short..... so if unable to pay this (which is actually quite a lot to find for some people), you would then incur another:

 

1/ A one off £15 monthly charge,

2/ Plus another 10 days of charges, but this time at £20 per day.

 

So another £225 in charges,

 

(again PLUS interest at the unauthorised rates of 29-30% APR).

 

 

By my reckoning, if this debt trap carries on for 12 months, this would potentially accumulate a whopping total of around ........ £2640 :o just in charges

(not accounting for the Unauth. interest) !!

 

..... just for borrowing £26 over your limit.

 

If my maths is correct , then this would be equivalent to about 10,153.85 % interest on borrowing the original £26 !!!!!

 

....and even then, this does not account for the compounded monthly interest at around 29-30 APR %.

 

So in actual fact, it would effectively be much higher !!

 

 

Remember, that before this "daily charging" business, if you had a similar situation (ie: an item that was allowed to clear and then took you over your limit) you would pay a one off unauthorised overdraft fee.

This was £38

Total that month = max £38.

 

(Still gross, but an easier debt to dig your way out of than the newly imposed £165 debt.)

 

If as above it was allowed to snowball, it would then incur another £38 on any subsequent month you were unable to rectify the overlimit situation.

But that would be it (apart from the interest).

 

So, if left or 12 months, as in the example above, this would have incurred around £456 in charges before the interest.

 

Still shocking and gross, but when compared to the new regime, it shows there has now been what amounts to nearly a 6 fold increase in the potential charges for the same occurrence.

 

Now, tell me this is not an obvious adverse change.

[Sparkie1723]

This is from the Bill of Rights 1689 which is classed as a Constitutional Law the third most important law of this Country and on which all other statutes from that date are based, It has been declared by the Divisional Court that his Bill can never be repealed or ammeneded because it is a constutional law.

 

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

 

Which interpreted means that a bank can't make you pay a penalty fee fine unless they take you to court each time they want to fine you a nd penalise you.....worth a try I think!!:D

Bet the OFT didn't think of this one!!!!

Edited May 25, 2008 by Sparkie1723

[TideTurner]

PM,

 

You'll have me swearing in a minute.

 

Given the publicity on this, the Eton Snob Shop still believe they can blatantly rip off their customers right in the face of the Courts, the Government and the Regulators

 

How can they expect to get away with this? Do they think they won't be challenged?

 

It is clearly obvious that the Courts and the Regulators actions are having no effect on these menials, and they think they can do what they like.

 

You've just awoken a monster.

 

Tide

[Bigmac versus]

PM its the same with the CB.

£35 for returned D/D before the waiver (one off charge)

After the waiver still £35 but now called unauthorised borrowing also £25 per day after that untill cleared.

The judge on the test case did note that changes had been made to the terms and conditions with some banks since the waiver was in place but said he found them to be ok as they were a request for borrowing.

[mailmannz]

This is from the Bill of Rights 1689 which is classed as a Constitutional Law the third most important law of this Country and on which all other statutes from that date are based, It has been declared by the Divisional Court that his Bill can never be repealed or ammeneded because it is a constutional law.

 

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

 

Which interpreted means that a bank can't make you pay a penalty fee fine unless they take you to court each time they want to fine you a nd penalise you.....worth a try I think!!:D

Bet the OFT didn't think of this one!!!!

 

Sparkle,

 

The good judge has already said the charges arent penalties (and the OFT has agreed)...so your going to be pushing sh1t up a hill trying to argue this one, unfortunately.

 

Mailman

[mailmannz]

Oh, the other thing is that in my last charges claim, prior to lodging the claim I requested copies of all terms and conditions since I joined HSBC (2003), which the HSBC declined to provide, stating that I had been given the terms and conditions at the time they were changed.

 

Mailman

[Sparkie1723]

It says "fines and forfeitures" the good judge was wrong in my view but I'm thick really...but even judges have been stated to be wrong and over ruled by the Law Lords,

if its not a penalty ....its a fine or forfeiture of money....that can be said about parking fines, etc.......i'm only thinking of more ammo to have in an armoury to fight these charges.

just points for discussion

 

sparkie

[JOSH_IOU]

If a parking ticket is given by a an officer of the law then this is acceptable as the officer is acting in the name of parliament.

 

If a bank gives you a fine and it is excessive. if I stress if a judge actually lets you use this act

 

( Bill of Rights (c.2) - Statute Law Database)

 

Then I guess there is a fighting chance.

 

There is so much against this I am not sure any Judge would say this applies.

[JOSH_IOU]

However..

 

If this act did not have any power the question is dose the queen?

 

Here is an extract from the act.

 

[ X5 And that every King and Queene of this Realme who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeede in the Imperiall Crowne of this Kingdome shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament next after his or her comeing to the Crowne sitting in his or her Throne in the House of Peeres in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled or at his or her Coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the Coronation Oath to him or her at the time of his or her takeing the said Oath (which shall first happen) make subscribe and audibly repeate the Declaration mentioned in the Statute made in the thirtyeth yeare of the Raigne of King Charles the Second Entituled An Act for the more effectuall Preserveing the Kings Person and Government by disableing Papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament But if it shall happen that such King or Queene upon his or her Succession to the Crowne of this Realme shall be under the Age of twelve yeares then every such King or Queene shall make subscribe and audibly repeate the said Declaration at his or her Coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such King or Queene shall have attained the said Age of twelve yeares.]

[Sparkie1723]

Hi JOSH IOU

The point is the divisional court has ruled this can never be ammended by any other Act as it is a Constitutional Law no act of parliament can over ride it Just as the American law on the Constitution....of course it would need a good Barrister to argue the case but its there to be argued for I believe. for another Act to over rule this the Bill of Rights would have to be ammended ......and it can't be ammended.

 

sparkie

[JOSH_IOU]

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 for refreerence for this thread.

 

"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 statue" 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

 

 

The banks have no permission from parliamnet to apply these charges/fines and therfore it is reasonable to assume that these chages/fines are not enforceable in a court of law.

 

 

How many other people are coming up with ways we can fight back?

[MilkTrayMan]

...I don't have a list, but this should be monitored over the coming months also, as the banks change their charging structures.

 

Anybody got ANY rates for any of the big 8?...

The following info is the most recent about Nationwide B.S....

 

Unauthorised overdraft charge...............................................£20 per month

Charge for transaction unpaid - insufficient cleared funds.........£30

Charge for cheques guaranteed - insufficient cleared funds......£21.50 per transaction

 

Overdraft interest rates.......EAR

Authorised overdraft rate........9.9%

Unauthorised overdraft rate...24.9%

(applied to whole balance)

 

 

...

[vinegarvera]

I have an overdraft made up of charges. The interest seems to have shot up a lot lately.

Does this mean the interest we are claiming should go up from 8 percent also??

[Sparkie1723]

HI again JOH IOU,

 

Thisact was enacted specifically to take power away from the monarchy and some hard bargaining must have been done.

 

It is so powerful that the queen who is the leade of our armed forces ...to enable her to keep an "army" (plus navy and airforce of course) and maintain it every year the budget for keeping it must be brought before parliament for the budget to be set ....this is purely a "constutional exercise" but if it wasn't given the OK from parliament the forces would have to disband.....never happen but that is the bottom line....the Queen has no say so what so ever even though it is about the "queens shilling"

 

But This is not the thread for this maybe a mod will move it to another thread for more discussion and arguments for and against.

 

sparkie

[JOSH_IOU]

Hi JOSH IOU

The point is the divisional court has ruled this can never be ammended by any other Act as it is a Constitutional Law no act of parliament can over ride it Just as the American law on the Constitution....of course it would need a good Barrister to argue the case but its there to be argued for I believe. for another Act to over rule this the Bill of Rights would have to be ammended ......and it can't be ammended.

 

sparkie

 

Parliment can only change law that is in its power to change. Only the queen can withdraw the Declaration of Rights 1689 as it is not a creature of parliament

 

It can be amended but not by Parliment only by the queen.

[Sparkie1723]

Parliment can only change law that is in its power to change. Only the queen can withdraw the Declaration of Rights 1689 as it is not a creature of parliament

 

It can be amended but not by Parliment only by the queen.

 

I must disagree with you JOSH IOU but thats what the forum is about discussion and arguments for and against ...but this Bill took ALL powers away from the Monarchy and as I have said she must have permission from parliament under this Bill to maintain an army for more than 12 months at a time. It can't be ammended full stop by anyone and that includes the monarchy

 

sparkie

[saintly_1]

I have an overdraft made up of charges. The interest seems to have shot up a lot lately.

Does this mean the interest we are claiming should go up from 8 percent also??

The 8% interest can only be claimed once it reaches the court stage and is a set %. The only interest amount that can possibly be altered is the CI interest

 

 

 

Well thats my understanding (but this area is not one of my strong points )