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

[HSBCrusher]

"3. The Banks’ appeal to the Court of Appeal has now failed and we have now refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal."

 

The high court judges wrote the above. There was not a No chance, or a Don't bother whatsoever.

The banks exercised their right to appeal.

 

 

the appeal has failed, they were denied a further appeal.

 

all this is saying is that the banks could ask the HoL to ask for the right to ignore the courts and ask for the right to appeal, for the HoL to overturn the courts denial of further appeal. Not actually appeal, which I assume would come along if the HoL allowed them to do so.

 

Until the HoL give them the right to appeal, they have NO right to appeal.

 

If it was anyone else but the banks it would end here and the OFT could get on with its job... its a farce, it disgusts me.

[yourbank]

I don't agree.

 

the appeal has failed, they were denied a further appeal.

 

all this is saying is that the banks could ask the HoL to ask for the right to ignore the courts and ask for the right to appeal, for the HoL to overturn the courts denial of further appeal. Not actually appeal, which I assume would come along if the HoL allowed them to do so.

 

Until the HoL give them the right to appeal, they have NO right to appeal.

 

If it was anyone else but the banks it would end here and the OFT could get on with its job... its a farce, it disgusts me.

 

On a point of order you are right. They haven't appealed but exercised their right to ask permission for the right to appeal to the HoL which is their right under UK Law.

 

Bit in bold, did you read that booklet? Without asking the HoL I would not be able to fully answer the question as to the number of cases that were refused leave to appeal yet petitioned the court to appeal.

For reference it is pages 4 and 5

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofLBpJudicial.pdf

 

I think we differ in our view.

[HSBCrusher]

I think we differ in our view.

 

it would be a dull world if we all agreed on everything though:D

[car2403]

...... this is getting more and more like a Monty Python sketch everyday !!

 

It's more like 'The Chuckle Brothers';

 

"To me, to you..."

 

[HSBCrusher]

[koalaattack]

I think the implicit message is there. The banks of course choose not to hear it, not because they have a chance of succeeding unless the old boys network comes out to play, but because they will resist this to the bitter end regardless of their earlier promises.

That's the bit that worries me though. Someone has already mentioned Fred Goodwin and how he's been allowed to get away with what he's been doing. All it takes now is a couple of old drinking buddies who's Daddies used to share a dorm at Footlights and the whole thing's screwed.

 

I'm fairly confident this sum it all up perfectly...

 

YouTube - University Challenge - The Young Ones

 

"Yes you're almost there, can you give me anymore?"

"Certainly, will £50 do?"

"Absolutely spot on..."

[yourbank]

That's the bit that worries me though. Someone has already mentioned Fred Goodwin and how he's been allowed to get away with what he's been doing. What did he get away with?

All it takes now is a couple of old drinking buddies who's Daddies used to share a dorm at Footlights (there are no dorms at footlights as it is a drama club at Cambridge University) and the whole thing's screwed.

 

I'm fairly confident this sum it all up perfectly...

 

YouTube - University Challenge - The Young Ones

 

"Yes you're almost there, can you give me anymore?"

"Certainly, will £50 do?"

"Absolutely spot on..."

 

What total and utter rubbish. Paranoia at its worst.

 

Albeit I love The Young Ones and that episode was an absolute classic.

[koalaattack]

Hmmm, don't know what happened there! See below.

[koalaattack]

What total and utter rubbish. Paranoia at its worst.

 

Albeit I love The Young Ones and that episode was an absolute classic.

Well that's one way to look at it. Alternatively you could say that your view is "total and utter rubbish" and is in fact naivety at its worst.

 

But then I guess it comes down to something along the lines of "you say potato..."

 

Do you really not think that people look after their own in times of hardship and do you really believe the banks are learning from their mistakes? If they have, could you explain how the fact that I have lived in three houses in the last three and a half years meant that Barclays found a credit check too difficult to do when I was speaking about a short term loan for around £3k and yet they told me it would be no problem to sort me £20k if I wanted it?!

 

Forgive me if I'm being cynical but the banks have hardly covered themselves in glory have they?

 

PS Sorry, I meant to add that I'm not blaming all of this on you yourbank, far from it, it's good to have differing opinions. I just re-read it and it seemed imply that to me so sorry if it looked like that to you too.

Edited March 27, 2009 by koalaattack

[yourbank]

Well that's one way to look at it. Alternatively you could say that your view is "total and utter rubbish" and is in fact naivety at its worst.

 

But then I guess it comes down to something along the lines of "you say potato..."

 

Do you really not think that people look after their own in times of hardship and do you really believe the banks are learning from their mistakes? If they have, could you explain how the fact that I have lived in three houses in the last three and a half years meant that Barclays found a credit check too difficult to do when I was speaking about a short term loan for around £3k and yet they told me it would be no problem to sort me £20k if I wanted it?!

 

Forgive me if I'm being cynical but the banks have hardly covered themselves in glory have they?

 

The least thing you can do if you are referring to Footlights is to get your facts right.

 

Are we talking about the OFT test case or are we talking about your paranoia?

 

FWIW, Barclays were upselling you 20k loan cos it would mean more to them over their target than a 3k loan(it would be cheaper for you as well but I guess I shouldn't suggest that they indicated something of benefit to you cos that would clearly be wrong).

[HSBCrusher]

Paranoia?

 

Peeps are bound to feel that way.

 

They have no faith in the banking system, all they see is the corruption, the mismanagement of our savngs and tax money on so many levels.

 

Trust the system? Trust the banks? Remember when the gingerbread man trusted the fox...

[fergal71]

how long do the banks have to appeal decision to house of lords what are we waiting for it should be open season... the oft should have had their house in order expecting this result??????????? fred goodwin vandalism I believe is only the start of worse to come...

 

mp expenses

banks charging

£4 direct debit admin fees

gross mis selling of insurances, endowments , shares

0845 and 0870 numbers....

increase in council tax, fuel tax almost every other tax

what next?????this country has been brought to its knees by greed

 

this government or any other government does not know how to stop the train rolling on

[koalaattack]

The least thing you can do if you are referring to Footlights is to get your facts right. I was making a flippant remark about the whole idea of an old boys club based largely around the whole Young Ones joke in the link I posted. It wasn't necessarily factually correct but you're right, it should be. Must try harder.

 

Are we talking about the OFT test case or are we talking about your paranoia? I was talking about the case whilst no doubt having my views tainted by my paranoia. I probably am paranoid but given the way that I have been treated by Barclays in the past my paranioa comes from previous experience. My thread is about in the Barclays forum if you can be bothered (I can't blame you if you can't!) - there's an interesting exchange that happened in my local branch where I was being pressured into taking a Barclaycard out by an account manager (or whoever, I didn't have her full title so sorry about the facts).

 

I don't think I'm alone either, especially given that my bad experiences have been extremely minimal compaired to some on here and no doubt others who have never heard of CAG. That doesn't excuse them though.

 

FWIW, Barclays were upselling you 20k loan cos it would mean more to them over their target than a 3k loan(it would be cheaper for you as well but I guess I shouldn't suggest that they indicated something of benefit to you cos that would clearly be wrong). Yes, I was fully aware of why they did it, what I was asking was whether you believed that they had actually learnt their lessons? I don't believe they have as agreeing to give someone a loan for £20k when they are after £3k seems a little strange to me.

 

I'm also not entirely sure how being £20k in debt rather than £3k is beneficial to me other than I may pay less in interest percentage-wise. Surely that's negated by the fact I would owe nearly seven times what I was actually after though?

I'm guessing from your user name you have a more indepth knowledge with all of this than me. My experience of banks is that of a customer pure and simple so I accept that I have to bow to your greater experience on this if I am right. And as I said in my post, I welcome this as I can learn more and start to build a full picture of things, so thanks for taking the time to answer me directly.

 

The main point I was making was that I have no doubt that sometimes people in power make decisions that will benefit their own regardless of whether it is the correct, moral decision. Whether that power is as a football referee, a parent, a policeman, Senior Managment etc doesn't alter the fact that sometimes it happens. I don't think that can be argued with really. My point about Fred Goodwin was that whilst legally he may be right to cliam his incredible pension due to his contract, morally I think he is on dodgy ground. But that's my opinion only. I doubt I am alone in this however.

 

I don't want to hijack this thread though as that isn't fair on other users so may be it's best we agree to disagree?

 

By the way, I love the in quote answers idea so I hope you don't mind me knicking it!

 

Cheers.

[PGH7447]

Paranoia?

 

Peeps are bound to feel that way.

 

They have no faith in the banking system, all they see is the corruption, the mismanagement of our savngs and tax money on so many levels.

 

...

 

Could not have said it better

 

How can the banks etc expect people to trust them when it is highlighted everyday that the only thing they care about is the shortterm profits to be made by carrying out as many dodgy deals as they can, and if the little man in the street gets burned so what.

 

I'm all right Jack with my gold plated pension, paid for by you mugs, the Tax payer.

[Thailand]

Talking of potential paranoia, I change my mind about the good ol' legal system all the time. Can't help Mr part time Plumber in the SCC, but I remember things like Customs and Excise 'having a word' in duty free reclaims etc....

 

Watching Peep Show last night watching a juror clubbing with the defendant didn't help lmao.

 

It's all diminishing now since we are getting some form of justice (I do not understand how they are not penalties....how could I since they are) but until it's over I'm always going to worry about the gov. or some other sh*tes managing to stop justice. Who really doesn't worry about that possibility? It shouldn't be possible, but I can't help but think it is!

 

Crush, I agree 100%

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Anyone seen this?

 

It looks as though the House of Lords have already decided that the banks can have another appeal, that was very quick!!!! So the litigation continues, appeal hearing probably expected in late summer/early autumn.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks will appeal on charges case

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited April 2, 2009 by TheyrCriminals

[InformedSearcher]

I think it would be interesting to see how many people in the House of Lords actually have connections with financial institutions. Where can one find that information from I wonder?

Michael

[yourbank]

COMMENTS REMOVED

Edited April 2, 2009 by yourbank

[psm]

If you have read my thread you will be in little doubt that I am more than a little cynical regarding our chances of getting justice in the UK when taking on an institution like the British banking system. However "the jury is out" on this latest twist. From my understanding the banks had 8 weeks to put their arguements to the Law Lords, on past record they would have waited 7 weeks 6 days 23 hours and 59 minutes before submitting, they would be hoping that the process would then take sufficient time that no decsion would have been made before the Lords summer recess. We would then not have a decision untill October at the earliest, yet more time wasted. What the Law Lords have done is blow the whistle on the banks time wasting antics. They have stipulated that the petition of appeal be lodged by 15 April. How long it will take for the hearing to be listed remains to be seen but I hope that it will be listed quickly to be heard before the Lords summer break. I believe that we have to get this hurdle out the way so that, if/when the banks lose their appeal they will take the it to the European Law courts enabling us to get a final decission sometime in 2010. Then again we will see the closing of ranks and not see a plugged nickle.

[koalaattack]

I think it would be interesting to see how many people in the House of Lords actually have connections with financial institutions. Where can one find that information from I wonder?

Michael

 

That is verging on libelous. We are not talking about your political Lords but Legally trained Law Lords with years of experience. Name 1 LAW LORD who has links to financial institutions outside of the fact that they have a bank account?

Ah ha, we clash again yourbank! Have a look at this definition I found...

 

"In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is often, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false, and, or alternatively, that the publication is made to someone other than the person defamed."

 

Going by that, I don't really see how asking how many or which people have connections with banks is libelous?

 

If the statement read as something that clearly outlined that the poster was 100% certain that the only reason that this had happened was because X, Y and Z were looking after their own interests then that would be libelous (or certainly verging on it) but the poster is just asking a question so I don't see how it is even close to being libelous?

 

I'm sure you can let me know though

 

What the Law Lords have done is blow the whistle on the banks time wasting antics. They have stipulated that the petition of appeal be lodged by 15 April. How long it will take for the hearing to be listed remains to be seen but I hope that it will be listed quickly to be heard before the Lords summer break. I believe that we have to get this hurdle out the way so that, if/when the banks lose their appeal they will take the it to the European Law courts enabling us to get a final decission sometime in 2010.

 

I really want this to be correct but I am afraid I still haven't seen anything to calm my cynicism. Yet!

[yourbank]

I withdraw the comment koala as my early morning coffee was not sinking in

However, the Law Lords could have taken 8 weeks to make a decision for/against the petition but in fact took 1 week which I think is commendable of them.

The next process is that they have 14 days to submit paperwork. It will be interesting to read the banks' submission.

[koalaattack]

I withdraw the comment koala as my early morning coffee was not sinking in

However, the Law Lords could have taken 8 weeks to make a decision for/against the petition but in fact took 1 week which I think is commendable of them.

The next process is that they have 14 days to submit paperwork. It will be interesting to read the banks' submission.

No worries yourbank - you don't know how proud I am at the moment, I've never been right on the internet before!

 

You're right about the bank's submission though - will it be public and will we get to read it or do we just have to reply on what gets reported in the press?

 

Cheers!

[sillygirl1]

Perhaps the banks DONT have the money to hand back to people they have taken in 'overdue/late charges' over the years and the accrued interest on these charges. That is probably why they have appealed, although the 'decent' thing all round would be to offer each customer over the period a £300 or £500 lump sum as part payment for their errors... would save a fortune on legal fees all round. These delighted customers would then go out and spend spend spend before the banks can think of a way of taking it back and thereby kickstart the economy again...

 

But of course it is FAR too simple for them to comprehend how taking money from somebody's account the day before payday as they will be 'overdrawn' when they take the direct debits out at midnight on the day before rather than 24 hour later which they used to do!

[Bookworm]

I am now thoroughly confused about what appeal, whose appealing to whom for what.

 

Let me get this straight, for me and I am sure I am not the only one:

Bank loses in Appeal Courts.

Appeals court deny them the right to appeal their decision.

Bank go straight to HOL to appeal against the Appeal court's decision.

HOL grants them the right to appeal.

 

Soooo... the submission is for the HOL to reconsider the Appeal Courts verdict, right?

 

Now, correct me if I am wrong (I often am), but isn't it the case that for an appeal to be heard it has to be on a point of law and not simply because you disagree with the decision? That being the case, doesn't it mean that the HOL must have already heard a decisive argument for them to allow the appeal to go ahead? Or are the banks being allowed to submit their argument to be granted an appeal? (Yes I know, I confuse myself too)

 

What I am trying to say is: is the submission coming up a plea to be allowed to proceed with the appeal in the HOL, at the end of which the HOL would say: "yes, you make a valid point, we'll hear it" or "no, you have no new grounds, stop wasting everyone's time" or is it the actual appeal against the appeals court?

 

Does anyone understand what I am asking here? :-|

[koalaattack]

Bookworm - yes, I completely understand what you're saying but I have no idea what the answer is, sorry!

 

If it is that they have new evidence etc then it'll very interesting to see what that is. As far as I am aware, the only new evidence that could be really significant would be the banks detailing how they calculate these charges in the first place but is that really going to happen?