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

[JonCris]

So he acted for the government who were on the side of the banks & which as they lost, is why they have now revoked sec 127 of the CCA on which most of the judgement in Wilson found in favour of the consumer

 

And which was a corner stone of the Consumer Credit Act & it's revocation will result in there being a post code lottery in consumer law in that the judges now get to decide, without argument, what is & what isn't permissible in the form of enforceable documentation

Edited July 7, 2008 by JonCris

[yourbank]

He was working and was retained exclusively by the government in the period 1998-2006(its on his CV page 1).

[breeze1996]

It looks like someone called in the big guns.

 

He needs to win or it will look bad on his CV.

 

Just think do you really think he would have taken the case if he didn't expect to win. The man has gone from strength to strength and I really do think this is a case of putting someone who will fight every step of the way for the side that employs him.

[Dizzy736]

Have we a representative at the hearing?

 

it would be nice to get a blow by blow account.

[yourbank]

the answer is no. But there is plenty of press covering the hearing so I am sure no one will miss when a big decision is made.

[breeze1996]

Someone is listening for Legal Begals.

 

They have been talking about old terms, and the QC is fighting our corner very well.

 

There is going to be a Case Management conference at 2pm.

 

Also the Judge thinks the OFT should apply for an injunction against charges being applied, but I will believe that when I see it in print as a legal document. Also did the judge actually say that?

[Shuff]

Also the Judge thinks the OFT should apply for an injunction against charges being applied, but I will believe that when I see it in print as a legal document. Also did the judge actually say that?

 

I reckon that would help to see a speedy resolution to this

[choco]

Hello

 

Just a suggestion, but after wading through all the off topic stuff, it occurred to me that rather than splitting the thread, (or even if the thread is split) why don't we have stickys that only the moderators can change that provide up to date information.

 

An example is the list of dates that Bookworm provided earlier in the thread. Really, stuff like that should be stand alone, and not part of a complex thread like this.

 

Only a suggestion, so don't shoot me down.........please

 

matt, I have suggested this before too. I really just want to know what's going on as and when it happens. I'm so p-ed off with this whole thing that I dont want to talk about how much we hate the banks etc etc all I want is updates as to what is happening, so I know when I'm going to get my money!

The mods really should take into consideration having a thread that wont get sidetracked and just sticks to the topic - please!

[breeze1996]

Nothing decided today OFT not ready to start a case will be sending a letter 24th or 25th July to judge.

[jansus]

There were lots of ups and downs today - but they are carrying on tomorrow for various reasons.

 

Quotes from an other site who have attended have been posted around the site. (without permission I may add)

[yourbank]

there is the test case news on Penalty Charges site that has updates if you want to find out. Not much on the news wires and they do not seem to be covering the CMC that well.

[jansus]

I am sorry - and I am being honest here I post on other sites - but what is wrong here?

 

There are important issues being discussed in the case - and even if there are not final decisions being made - dont posters here want to know what is going on????

 

I am totally bemused that there are more posts about someones rice salad(in the bear garden) than what has gone on in the court case.

 

What is going to happen to hardship cases if they do not lift the waiver - what about the banks abusing the terms of the waiver -

 

discussion of the banks defence can breed ideas

 

what is happening here. I just dont get it..

[yourbank]

Jan, I was formerly on LB , I am not gonna play politics with anyone anymore. CAG and LB have had a "handbags at dawn" moment and no permission has been given for posts from test case of those who were there from that site.

Penalty Charges is a site this forum is OK with so I mention that forum.

The Test Case updates from the press are allowed.

I try to keep away from the plain stupidities involved on the bank charges forums that are ongoing and refuse to take an obvious dig at people(yes I did spot it a mile away).

Bear Garden/off topic areas are for just that for talking nonsense.

The test case does not appear to be that important from my reading, Jan, so if you want test case discussions as I do, there are other sites you can go to for that.

[jansus]

I would pm you to discuss further - but have been banned . Was not having a go at anyone in particular and I can and do read up on other sites - was not trying to provoke anything -not my style .

 

But I have other contacts still on here that I think may be interested and am sure they do want to know whats going on.

Believe what you want about my post I am sure you know me anyway and all I have tried to do on here is help some hardship cases, long after i had my case settled.

[yourbank]

Jan, I do understand what you are saying. But the rice thing was a dig and I read that thread in the Bear Garden. You have to work within the parameters of this site, even if you dislike it, despise it or disagree with it.

You know where nattie goes so there are other sites you can discuss it on via PM

[jansus]

ok - fair comment - not meant like that - but can see how it came across. Just frustrated on behalf of other posters-at least you have pointed them to where the reporting is. Thought some of the banks shot themselves in the foot. Especially the comment from Abbey about "exorbitant fees" The new guy for the OFT seems on the ball and the judge seems to be taking in all the comments on historical terms ( or is that hysterical terms) which must be quite difficult and a bit like Groundhog day.

 

The judge seems at times to want to reach conclusions quickly and the comment about some cases coming to court anyway if the final decision as in favour of the banks was interesting ( so in other words a test case by a member of the public could still happen)- but the fact is it still seems as if it is going to drag on much further. ( hoping I have understood te comments I have read- I am not an expert)

[Bigmac versus]

What is going to happen to hardship cases if they do not lift the waiver -

 

Hardship cases do not require the lifting of the waiver to be dealt with, if the bank refuses to deal with a hardship case then they are abusing the terms of the waiver and the Banking Code itself. A complaint to the FOS can and has made them reconsider the claim put to them. The problem we have regarding hardship cases is that there isnt any clear guidelines you need to meet to be considered and the banks are really left to decide if your case is of genuine harship. They only need to be sympathetic towards you which can be shown by way of a partial offer. Court claims made in respect of Hardship also hit the same problems in respect of what is regarded as hardship, the FSA have added to the confusion by giving some examples but these exclude many things i myself would consider hardship.

 

What about the banks abusing the terms of the waiver?

 

 

There has also been a lot of discussions on this very subject, i have written to the FSA regarding my banks conduct had a response and provided further information as the FSA have requested for them to investigate further.

There is also http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/146952-complain-fsa-about-misleading.html?highlight=complain+fsa

 

There is work going on behind the scenes in respect of how to proceed after this case which covers several outcomes.

[jansus]

I agree about the hardship waiver but have been dealing with two cases that have done exactly that. Unfortunately the FOS have said that the waiver clause does not mean that the charges will be refunded only that the banks should act within the banking code and treat those in financial hardship with sympathy ( what ever that means) I have a letter from the FOS stating that fact. The only crumb of comfort is that in this particular case they stated that the remaining OD caused by the charges should not be pursued until the case was settled.

 

I have posted many times on this site about the hardship clause and suggested letters to help posters with CRFX . I think they are down in the

"ideas and comments" area somewhere:(

 

the letters were based on a successful claim this way by an A&L customer who got charges back after the waiver. But now the FOS are playing hardball.

[carter56]

from the martin lewis site

Tues 8 July 08. Appeal likely to take place in November

 

Today was day two of the second case management meeting in the Bank Charges trial. So far little major news has come out of it except the possible date of the Banks' appeal against the ruling that bank charges are governed by fairness rules. From what can be gleaned, The Court of Appeal was willing to hear the case in July and the banks were ready but the Office of Fair Trading needs more time so the hearing is likely to be delayed. The meeting continues tommorow and any more news will be added here as soon as we know it.

[rdm2006]

I Know its off topic but i have just been offered a full refund in my hardship case with RBS.

[Too Hip]

I Know its off topic but i have just been offered a full refund in my hardship case with RBS.

 

Through the FOS?

[mopster]

RDM has a thread in the RBS forum. Its at top at the moment so you should find it quite easily.

[Too Hip]

Thanks mopster

[ohoh4312]

The latest:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Decision awaited on historic fees

 

Hardly inspiring, but to be expected I suppose.

 

Jo x

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

Thanks for that OhOh.

 

TheyrCriminals