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

[Bookworm]

I don't think new evidence even comes into it, KA. AFAIK, it's only on a point of law that it can be heard, as in both the 1st judge and the appeal judges missed something so momentous that in this case, it would mean that the banks T&Cs are in fact exempt from the test of fairness under the UTCCR.

[yourbank]

They cannot produce new evidence to the House of Lords.

[koalaattack]

Ah ok, thanks for that!

 

So in that case it must just be an appeal to be allowed to appeal? Or am I wrong there too?

 

May be I didn't understand you at all bookworm!

[Bookworm]

You wouldn't be the first, KA!

 

But in this case, that is the question I was asking too, yes.

[koalaattack]

Ah, ok, good!

 

So in that case then it must mean they feel confident that they have sufficient evidence in their defence so far to justify the appeal as do the HOL which seems to indicate that they both think previous cases have missed something very important? In which case, is that not a bit of a put down by the HOL to the judges who have made the previous rulings?

 

Or, have the HOL said "ok, we'll look into whether you have grounds for appeal but you have two weeks to tell us what it is you think previous cases have missed out and only when we see this will we be able to grant your appeal or not"? If that is the case surely they're on to a hiding to nothing as they would have identified this as key evidence at each and every opportunity would they not and it would have therefore been given consideration by a number of people who have all found the same?

 

Just out of interest, how many appeals can one case have? Say for example I was accused of murder and was found guilty, could I just appeal and appeal and appeal? I thought you could only appeal if new evidence came to light?

 

Cheers!

[TheyrCriminals]

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? :-|

 

This is an excellent post and deserves commendation. The matters you raise Bookworm are highly important but yet none of us can find an answer. How unjust is this? You are absolutely right Bookworm you can not just appeal a decision on the grounds you simply don't like the deicision, there has to be genuine grounds for an appeal. As far as I can see a hearing has taken place at some stage, it may well be a hearing based on written submissions, and in that hearing the Law Lords have concluded that the banks do have grounds for a further appeal. When, where and how that hearing was conducted is anyone's guess!!!!

 

Does anybody know what the hell is going on?

 

TheyrCriminals

[yourbank]

This is an excellent post and deserves commendation. The matters you raise Bookworm are highly important but yet none of us can find an answer. How unjust is this?

The banks' had the legal right to petition the HoL and they did. It's not unjust for them to do so.

You are absolutely right Bookworm you can not just appeal a decision on the grounds you simply don't like the deicision, there has to be genuine grounds for an appeal.

The Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876

Section 11, I believe covers the grounds for appeal.

As far as I can see a hearing has taken place at some stage, it may well be a hearing based on written submissions, and in that hearing the Law Lords have concluded that the banks do have grounds for a further appeal. When, where and how that hearing was conducted is anyone's guess!!!!

 

Does anybody know what the hell is going on?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

Written submission needs to be made by April 15th. There is no way that the submission is allowed to be made late by even 1 day.

[InformedSearcher]

Hmm, what did I say 'yourbank'?

I'm sorry but I was under the impression that the financial institutions go to 'The House of Lords'? Am I incorrect in thinking this?

Thank you 'koalaattack' for the follow up too.

'yourbank' having drunk your coffee maybe explain exactly what happens then as an apology is not required from you. To twist a simple question into something else is rather unfair.

I'm actually with many in the cynical section these days as I've found 'trust' is now a bit of a distant thing where financial institutions are involved. I imagined 'The House of Lords' being all those people sitting there nodding/dropping off (as displayed on TV!) thinking of how to answer. Are we saying here that this is something totally different and does not in fact involve those people at all?

Having a bank account is fine. Being a Director or directly involved with any of those institutions is not.

Michael

[yourbank]

Have removed the comments Informedsearcher which I hope is satisfactory for you.

 

Suggestions for a google search under Law Lords(list of Law Lords). How appeals to the House of Lords work(their is a booklet which I am sure I have posted somewhere here) and then google search the list of Law Lords.

If any of the Law Lords holds directorships of financial institutions then it bars them from deliberating in this case. Interesting case where a petition was raised to appeal to the HoL when the Appeals Court said "no chance" is the McLibel case as it was known in 1999.

[Michael Browne]

The Law Lords are the most senior members of the judiciary in the United Kingdom. They constitute the highest court of appeal in the land for most legal cases, though the Privy Council has this role in some legal areas. The correct name for the Law Lords is Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. They were first appointed to the House of Lords in 1876 – the result of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876.

 

Law Lords are appointed by the serving Prime Minister but they are formally appointed by the monarch. They serve until they are 70 years old but this can be extended by the government to 75 – though any Law Lord of this age or above cannot participate in legal cases. The number of Law Lords who can adjudicate on judicial matters stands at twelve.

 

By tradition Law Lords do not participate in political discussions, as they need to be seen to be independent of political bias.

 

In 2005, the Constitutional Reform Act was passed. This will mean that once it comes into being, the Law Lords will sit as judges on a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

 

To be a member of the House of Lords, no one needs a specific qualification with the exception of the Law Lords. To become a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, an individual will have needed to have held a “high judicial office” for two years or to have been a practising barrister for fifteen years. The term “high judicial office” refers to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

The work of the Law Lords is supervised by the Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, or in his absence, the Second Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

 

Not all Law Lords meet to adjudicate on an issue. Panels known as Appellate Committees fulfil this task. Each Appellate Committee usually consists of five Law Lords though more may sit on a panel if the issue is deemed important enough. The Senior Law Lord appoints who sits on what panel. The judgement made by an Appellate Committee is made in the Lords itself.

 

List of Lords of Appeal here:

UK Parliament - The Law Lords

[InformedSearcher]

Have removed the comments Informedsearcher which I hope is satisfactory for you.

 

Suggestions for a google search under Law Lords(list of Law Lords). How appeals to the House of Lords work(their is a booklet which I am sure I have posted somewhere here) and then google search the list of Law Lords.

If any of the Law Lords holds directorships of financial institutions then it bars them from deliberating in this case. Interesting case where a petition was raised to appeal to the HoL when the Appeals Court said "no chance" is the McLibel case as it was known in 1999.

 

 

Thanks for that 'yourbank'.

To someone (like me) I thought it merely meant that it went to 'The House of Lords' and not 'The Law Lords'. Now we must hope that they uphold previous rulings. The problem with all that is that the Financial institutions jointly feel they 'can' win. The consequences to them losing is going to be a pure nightmare of shame to them ... and payouts to us!

I feel so much for them.

Thanks again 'yourbank'.

Michael

[TheyrCriminals]

Written submission needs to be made by April 15th. There is no way that the submission is allowed to be made late by even 1 day.

 

I was referring to written submissions in a hearing that may or may not have taken place, because something sure had to come before the Law Lords' eyes to grant the banks their new appeal.

 

TheyrCriminals

[InformedSearcher]

I'd like to ask a valid question. I know, I know we don't expect it BUT what happens if the financial institutions win in the end? Personally that would equate to circa £5k. I mean that they are not giving in without a fight are they? Each level higher costs considerably more (and it's our cash they are spending by either bail outs or charges). If they really expect to lose then why or why are they going on? It's not as if in the last year they have changed their attitude in any shape or form to charging these 'silly' rates. I have to say I notice HSBC have changed what they call charges, e.g. Authorised Overdraft (at £25 a month!) and so on.

I guess these outlets can all end up with taxpayers money (to bail them out) then it's a bit of a hollow victory either way?

Michael

[The Phantom]

I suppose they are playing for time.

The only worry I am having is that only the banks will appeal at every stage. If the OFT looses I fear they wouldn't appeal. So far we were lucky it always went for the OFT, but if at one stage it hadn't I don't think the OFT would have battled on.

What is after the HOL ? The European court ? I can't see the OFT taking it there but the banks would.

[yourbank]

The HoL would have to overturn their own ruling on First National Bank(have a read of the appeal decision which refers to it). I would be extremely surprised if they went back on themselves.

[yourbank]

Not sure that if the judges vote unanamously(spelt wrong) that the banks' would have any case to go to the ECJ and I think, someone may have to correct me at the minute, that they wouldn't be able to without a referral from the HoL.

[Alphageek]

This thread is broken, it shows one more page than there is. For example, it shows 83 pages now when there are only 82. One for the webmaster I think?

[car2403]

This thread is broken, it shows one more page than there is. For example, it shows 83 pages now when there are only 82. One for the webmaster I think?

 

It's not broken, it's just that there are unapproved posts/site team moderations that have taken place that makes it look like it is to normal members - in short, there are posts that have been removed due to being moderated which are only visible to the site team.

[d1cky]

hi, could some1 just comferm for me. When using the duocalc to work out my apr for a monument statement dated 13/03/08 , for a cash intrest rate of 2.529% does that equal to an apr of 34.9%?

 

sorry I know its completely off topic, but I have been following this thread and is probley one of the best to find the most clued up ppl, thx.

[photoman]

I'd like to ask a valid question. I know, I know we don't expect it BUT what happens if the financial institutions win in the end? Personally that would equate to circa £5k. I mean that they are not giving in without a fight are they? Each level higher costs considerably more (and it's our cash they are spending by either bail outs or charges). If they really expect to lose then why or why are they going on? It's not as if in the last year they have changed their attitude in any shape or form to charging these 'silly' rates. I have to say I notice HSBC have changed what they call charges, e.g. Authorised Overdraft (at £25 a month!) and so on.

I guess these outlets can all end up with taxpayers money (to bail them out) then it's a bit of a hollow victory either way?

Michael

 

They are carrying on, because commercially it still makes sense.

 

Even if deep down they know or feel that they would ultimately lose, the longer they can stall making the pay-outs the more they can continue to make in interest etc the meantime.

 

Even if forced to pay back everything to everyone, and have to pay statutory 8% interest on all claims, they still have the benefit of such funds in the meantime.

This they can continue to lend back out at commercial rates, ranging from anything from say 12/15% on loans right up to 29%+ on unauthorised overdrafts. Plus remember that such interest gains would be compounded, whereas statutory interest pay-outs would not be, and so this effectively increases such gains in real terms even further .

 

Plus, there is also the fact that the longer it all goes on, then more and more people will drop out, lose interest, convert their existing debts with them into profitable loans, or simply pop their clogs.

 

On the plus side for claimants; is the fact that the longer it goes on, the more and more you will earn in statutory interest (which is much much better than any pathetic savings account at the moment), plus the fact that having the matter judged by the highest courts and appeals possible will leave no doubt as to a claimants position once the issues are resolved.

 

PM

[yourbank]

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT to focus investigation into unarranged overdraft charges on three banks

 

OFT to focus investigation into unarranged overdraft charges on three banks

 

39/09 3 April 2009

 

The OFT has announced that it is to streamline its investigation into unarranged overdraft charges by focusing on the terms of three banks in particular. The aim is to progress the case in the shortest and most efficient way possible.

The OFT believes that the terms of the three selected banks provide the best representative selection of all the banks' unarranged overdraft charging terms, and therefore the outcome of this more focused investigation will be relevant to the assessment of other banks' terms.

The investigation will concentrate initially on the charging terms of Lloyds TSB, HSBC and Clydesdale. The OFT has written to all the banks under investigation to outline this decision.

It should not be assumed that the OFT is more or less likely to find the terms of these banks' unfair than those of the other banks. The investigation into the other banks' terms is merely on hold and the OFT has stressed that no banks' terms have been given a clean bill of health.

The OFT expects to reach final conclusions on fairness later this year.

NOTES

1. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs) protect consumers against unfair standard terms in contracts they make with sellers and suppliers. The Office of Fair Trading, together with certain other bodies, can take legal action to prevent the use of such terms.

2. In April 2007, the OFT announced its investigation into the fairness of terms providing for unarranged overdraft and returned item fees (referred to as 'unarranged overdraft charges'). This followed on from the OFT's initial review of unarranged overdraft charges, after which the OFT concluded that it shared public concern about the level and incidence of such charges.

3. In July 2007, the OFT entered into an agreement with the largest retail current account providers in relation to bringing a test case in order to ensure an orderly and timely resolution of the legal issues associated with its investigation.

4. In April 2008 the High Court gave a ruling, a key aspect of which confirmed the OFT's view that the OFT is entitled to assess the terms for fairness. The banks appealed this finding by the High Court to the Court of Appeal.

5. In August 2008, the OFT wrote to the eight banks setting out our approach to the assessment of fairness and, for seven of them, our concerns about their particular terms. This included a provisional view on the unfairness of particular terms and conditions that impose charges.

6. In February 2009 the Court of Appeal's judgment confirmed that the OFT is entitled to assess unarranged overdraft charging terms for personal current accounts for fairness.

7. The banks that are parties to the test case are Abbey National plc, Barclays Bank plc, Clydesdale Bank plc, HBOS plc, HSBC Bank plc, Lloyds Banking Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, and Nationwide Building Society. Together these current account providers account for about 90 per cent of personal current accounts in the UK.

8. In July 2008, the OFT published a market study which concluded that the personal current account market is not working well for consumers and that there were specific concerns about the charging structure. See market study page.

9. In the course of its work on the issue the OFT has liaised closely with the Financial Services Authority.

 

 

That is the next stage.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

The OFT's investigation into bank charges began in April 2007. We are now in April 2009, they have already had two years to 'investigate' this matter. It does not take this amount of time. A public enquiry would take less time than this. The latest response from the OFT and their new 'streamlined investigation' is to continue delaying until the outcome of the House of Lords appeal is known. It is the most ridiculous situation, the OFT cant do or enforce anything regarding unauthorised overdraft charges until the final outcome in the Commercial Court litigation is known. Yes they will continue the longest ever running investigation into a financial product they may even reach a conclusion this year (that would be nice) but they will not be able to do anything. They are trailing behind the test case and will have to continue to do so.

 

So what has the OFT done in two years? They have issued a prelimary report - welldone OFT you're really effective. They have been investigating all of the banks for two years but today we are told that they now intend to just focus on three banks, excuse me for pointing out the obvious but what's wrong with looking at all of the banks terms and conditions and conduct, afterall they have been doing this for TWO YEARS!!! So again I ask what the hell is going on?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

P.S Does anyone know yet on what grounds the banks were given the right to appeal to the House of Lords?

Edited April 3, 2009 by TheyrCriminals

[yourbank]

Point of Law I believe(not being sarcastic but it is on interpretation of the Law. Justice Smith and Court of Appeal referred to HoL case which was the First National one).

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

How do you know this and which point of law was being appealed?

 

TheyrCriminals

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

Ah sorry I think you mean the banks were entitled to appeal as they argued successfully that the judge in the High Court and the three Appeal Court judges misinterpreted the law on the UTCCR. How do you know this?

 

TheyrCriminals