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

[greedfighter]

Like everyone else I am getting totally fed up with this now. But it seems that in reality nothing will be moving anywhere fast. Where is the judgement on historic terms ? Mr Justice Smith said this would not take as long as the original case ! This judgement seems no where in sight.

 

I am also not convinced that the government is not intervening behind closed doors for a delay on this. Given the credit crunch and alleged financial instability that banks are apparently suffering (a load of old tosh - they can still increase shareholder dividends) I cannot see the government wanting them to suddenly have to refund millions of pounds.

 

It is a bit worrying that the secretray of State can issue an intervention notice as evidenced by the HBOS/LLoyds Merger to stop the OFT pursuing any particular lines of investigation ? how do we know he hasn't interfered in the bank charges refunds issue.

 

I for one am not happy with the idea of a 'superbank' its like feeding a fifteen stone bully meat pies !

 

My claim has been running now for nearly two years and I really need this money. I was eventually forced into an IVA and my life has been totally ruined by these greedy banks.

 

Rant over. Not a particularly helpful post but I feel better.

[determindator]

All these charges contributed to the exorbitant coffers the banks 'had' 'have' and so we have all contributed to the economic rise in this country. Another stealth tax? We want a clear answer as to the delay because there is a reason. Who is going to stop the appealing by Banks? They refunded charges not for good will as they try to bend the law in their favour, that being the case the share holders could have said 'what's all this good will charity you're giving away without our consent' but because the case against them is true. Now heed the foundation of our laws in this country,ignore them and you turn your back on your people and democracy.

[adamc6671]

All these charges contributed to the exorbitant coffers the banks 'had' 'have' and so we have all contributed to the economic rise in this country. Another stealth tax? We want a clear answer as to the delay because there is a reason. Who is going to stop the appealing by Banks? They refunded charges not for good will as they try to bend the law in their favour, that being the case the share holders could have said 'what's all this good will charity you're giving away without our consent' but because the case against them is true. Now heed the foundation of our laws in this country,ignore them and you turn your back on your people and democracy.

 

A great deal of sense in what you say D - the case against the Banks is indeed very strong. Goodwill? - never! Trying to minimise losses? - yes.

 

However, in the present financial climate, with many banks in serious trouble largely due to the over-extended credit they have encouraged people to take on, I can't see the Government allowing the OFT to 'win' this case thus leaving the banks open to having to repay countless millions in 'unfair' charges. Very much hope I'm wrong, but we'll see later today what the Judge has to say.

[SPROUTY]

Wednesday 08 October 2008

COURT 73

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Not before 16:30

For Judgment

2007-1186 Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC

 

Judgment will be available on the Court Service website shortly after 4.30.

 

This would usually be "Front Page News" COME ON CAG, MAKE SOME NOISE

 

 

 

The dubious practice of penalty charges has enriched the banks by around £32 BILLION often taking the money off the most vulnerable members of society.

 

 

 

Banks have additionally gained on interest earned (off the same customers) whilst all the claims have been frozen, pending the outcome of the "Test Case" The banks always knew the court case would take years to settle and they will, no doubt appeal today’s decision and kick it into the long grass of next year before any settlements are paid out.

 

HOW MANY FORCLOSURES MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE UNNESSECERALY IN THIS TIME?

 

(The payouts would have help customers to avoid mortgage arrears)

 

 

 

If the banks returned these "ill gotten gains" it would return money to exactly the right place in society both morally and practically, to offer a life line to the private individuals who have been absolutely "hamstrung" through the banks actions and this has been compounded by the credit crunch caused by??...the banks... mmmmm

 

 

 

Government pressure as SHARE HOLDERS can now be exerted on the banks to "do the right thing"...give back the money...Come on MR Brown your quick enough to bail out the city what about YOUR VOTERS ???

[Bookworm]

Wednesday 08 October 2008

COURT 73

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Not before 16:30

For Judgment

2007-1186 Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC

 

Judgment will be available on the Court Service website shortly after 4.30.

 

This would usually be "Front Page News" COME ON CAG, MAKE SOME NOISE

 

Errr, it is "front page news", lol:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=84&a=141

[The Phantom]

A great deal of sense in what you say D - the case against the Banks is indeed very strong. Goodwill? - never! Trying to minimise losses? - yes.

 

However, in the present financial climate, with many banks in serious trouble largely due to the over-extended credit they have encouraged people to take on, I can't see the Government allowing the OFT to 'win' this case thus leaving the banks open to having to repay countless millions in 'unfair' charges. Very much hope I'm wrong, but we'll see later today what the Judge has to say.

 

One regulator wasn't afraid to fine A&L 7 million for mis-selling PPI insurance despite the difficult situation for banks.

So there is a ray of hope

[SPROUTY]

Hi BOOKWORM,

 

I meant "front page" news in the media.

 

Of course its No.1 here!

 

It has been buried by the The Banks (lucky for them) & Government by "Banks Rescue Package" and Interest rate cut.

 

Well done "The Jeramy Vine Show" (radio 2) one fleeting referance to Charges (which was skirted around) then on to such consumer interests as Camilla's shortened trip to India, a bloke who creates queues in Tesco and St Johns Wort

 

WELL DONE THE BBC!!! That justifys the license fee on its own! (not)

[JonCris]

Me wonders who will pay when the shareholders get round (on mass) to suing the banks for their fiduciary duty failure.

 

It'll make the bank charges claims seem like small beer by comparison

[JonCris]

Me wonders who will pay when the shareholders get round (on mass) to suing the banks for their fiduciary duty failure.

 

It'll make the bank charges claims seem like small beer by comparison

 

This suggestion isn't fanciful either as it's already begun in America I understand

[JonCris]

Hi BOOKWORM,

 

I meant "front page" news in the media.

 

Of course its No.1 here!

 

It has been buried by the The Banks (lucky for them) & Government by "Banks Rescue Package" and Interest rate cut.

 

Well done "The Jeramy Vine Show" (radio 2) one fleeting referance to Charges (which was skirted around) then on to such consumer interests as Camilla's shortened trip to India, a bloke who creates queues in Tesco and St Johns Wort

 

WELL DONE THE BBC!!! That justifys the license fee on its own! (not)

 

Yup & most of those 'news' stories have been nicked from the papers

[Bookworm]

Hi BOOKWORM,

 

I meant "front page" news in the media.

Oooooohhhhhh!!!! Sorry!!! We've had so much grief in the past about not being "on top of things" I misunderstood! Sorry again!

[adamc6671]

One regulator wasn't afraid to fine A&L 7 million for mis-selling PPI insurance despite the difficult situation for banks.

So there is a ray of hope

 

Yes indeed there is, Phantom. However, 7 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the total of bank charges being reclaimed!

 

Adam

[noomill060]

I suspect an awful lot of charges are in actual fact, simply fake debt and interest levied thereon.

 

If the banks never actually had their hands on it, they cant bleat when the fake debt is removed.

 

;-)

[ANDENA]

I suspect an awful lot of charges are in actual fact, simply fake debt and interest levied thereon.

 

If the banks never actually had their hands on it, they cant bleat when the fake debt is removed.

 

**What is the difference between inventing a fake debt and fr**d?**

Andena what i want to know where is all the money that we paid in Bank charges and do we have a chance getting are money back.

[The Phantom]

Yes indeed there is, Phantom. However, 7 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the total of bank charges being reclaimed!

 

Adam

 

Yes, but this is a 7 million fine for just one bank despite the difficult climate

- I meant to say there should be some hope that the judgement today will be equally fair and unbiased

 

By the way...what is the judgement. It is 6 o'clock. Wasn't it due out an 4.30 ?

[Mr lex]

It was being handed down 'not before 16:30.'

 

You can keep an eye on it here :-

 

What's new on the Judiciary of England and Wales website

 

Lex

[The Phantom]

It was being handed down 'not before 16:30.'

 

You can keep an eye on it here :-

 

What's new on the Judiciary of England and Wales website

 

Lex

 

They like to keep us on edge, eh ?

I will keep on checking back thorughout the evening.

Trust any news will spark a discussion here on the forum anyway, so I will keep checking

[Thailand]

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/oft-oct-judgment.pdf

 

I daren't look....

[Mr lex]

Hi Phantom,

 

I rather feel, which ever way it goes, it will be subject to appeals

 

Lex

[The Phantom]

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/oft-oct-judgment.pdf

 

I daren't look....

 

I have read it but can't interpret it, I don't understand the jargon. If anybody can interpret it for me I would appreciate it

[Thailand]

Yes, me too please... gobbledegook.... Part 28 didn't sound good.

[Bona]

Cant under stand a word of the Judgement can some one explain

[The Phantom]

Somehow I didn't like the sound of it, but can't say really why as I just cannot understand it properly.

Will have to wait for site staff to read and digest it and then regurgitate for us

[JOSH_IOU]

The judge apears to be giving an opinion and it would not be a final judgement from what i can see.

 

I think the Judge is correct to do this. However he should invite opinions from consumer groups.

 

Lets await the full and final decision well at least the OFT is backing us with there research skills.

 

Saves some time loosing the will to press the next button But of course if you have more than £500 IN charges between the last 3-6 months and you are still drownding in the banks red zone then you can apply for a stay being lifted on Hardship grounds.

 

I am aware Lloyds TSB are settleing cases. I am takeing my next case to court tomorrow.

[Penfold92]

Hi,

 

I was an HSBC customer and in the transcript above the Judge mentions he looked at the T&C's from 2001 and I believe my accounts were pre this date (in fact just checked and was 1997!). Can I appeal to the Court to lift my stay on the basis that my account t&c's are not covered in the test case?

 

Just trying to find a way to lift my stay, but thought it may be worth inviting some responses...(if only in hope...)

 

Penfold

Edited October 8, 2008 by Penfold92
added a bit