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

[headoutthesand]

I think all these appeals and 'phases' are to get the matter decided, legally, for once and for all. The Judges are not 'pro' bank at all, they are 'pro' law.

 

To come out half cock will be no good to anyone.

 

15th April the banks have to have their petition to appeal in, then I think 6 weeks for all the paperwork, so its definately going to be end of MAY before any dates can be set. The HoL thus far have dealt with it quickly, they have their breaks tho which will slow the next bit up, and we know the banks won't rush.

[buck rogers]

Please allow me to sum up.....

The banks are charging us causing hardship and distress we fight back and are blocked by a government institution which is "Helping us".

This institution takes so long, the banks stuff up the whole economy so the gov has to use our money to bail most of them out!

As punishment the chief banker who caused most of the problems for his bank gets told off and sent home with a £703000 a year pension.

we are now faced with the situation of the government sueing it's self!

I lost my business due to this mess. Yesterday I was 12p short on a cheque and have just been charged £35.

is that about right? anyone else feel a bit bitter over this?

 

The soloution. Have our gov get some balls, force the banks it controls to lower their charges. The others will follow along as soon as people start leaving them.

Once this has been done stop the action and use the money saved on both sides to pay back the charges to the people. Simples.

 

what do you think?

Edited April 6, 2009 by buck rogers
forgot the full stops in my rant!!

[yourbank]

Please allow me to sum up.....

The banks are charging us causing hardship and distress we fight back and are blocked by a government institution which is Helping us(what are you talking about? OFT?). this institution takes so long the banks stuff up the whole economy so the gov has to use our money to bail most of them out! as punishment the chief banker who caused most of the problems for his bank gets told off and sent home with a £7003000 a year pension.

we are now faced with the situation of the government sueing its self!(The OFT is suing banks' and not all of them have government shareholding so are privately owned banks)

and i lost my business due to this mess was 12p short on a cheque yesterday and have just been charged £35.

is that about right anyone else feel a bit bitter over this?(nope)

 

The soloution. Have our gov get some balls force the banks it controls to lower their charges(which the OFT did with Credit Cards and what happened? People continue to sue banks through the courts. Do you want a solution that is viable long term or a short termed solution that takes you back to the start again?) the others will follow along soon as people start leaving them. once this has been done stop the action and use the money saved on both sides to pay back the charges to the people. Simples.

Fair enough, we'll have £12 set as the limit and I am sure everyone on CAG will not sue their banks. Right?

what do you think?

 

I think I know where you are coming from but it is unworkable.

[buck rogers]

Of course it wont work its not the point really. Its just showing how little we all mean down here and if you think any different then im jelous. What are the odds of the dicision going our way honestly. It would cost the banks and in turn now the goverment millions/billions. it would bankrupt the country. The mess is farcical caused bu the people behind closed door and will be handled by people behind closed doors.

[newbody]

Well not posted for a long time fed up of all this now to be honest but still log in from time to time to see what happening i am one of those who was due to be paid in july 07 and then got stayed

 

so to make sure i am upto date on all the different happenings

 

1) andrew smith ruled current charges not penalties but are subject to ucctr

 

2) banks appealed

 

3) andrew smith then went on to rule that historical terms are generally subject to ucctr and not penalties (Except for a couple of banks)

 

4)banks appeal on current terms conditons was heard beggining of feb in appeal courts and they lost and basically refused right to appeal to house of lords

 

5)Banks requested to house of lords for right to appeal their right for an Appeal in the house of lords

 

6) this was granted and they now have until 15th april 2009 to have submissions into the house of lords for why they have the right to appeal

 

7)meantime the OFT have to employ more than one person half a day a week :lol: to now actually try and summatize what a fair charge would be for the banks to charge in these matters (and to alieviate the pressure on this poor person are reducing it down to just 3 of the banks infarstructure

 

 

Question on point 3 as all my charges will come under historical terms due to the miracuriously coincidental JULY 07 rewrite of TOC's has this point been appealed by the banks if so what is the state of play and what are the next dates to watch out for in this part of the saga

 

not trying to be smart mouthed or anything else

 

In 06 when i started my claims i was very read up on here and other places for what was going on now i struggle to just keep abreast of what our next delay date is to be and exactly what the state of play is

 

Thank you in advance for any responses to my post

[d1cky]

dont know the answer too your question but from what I can gather you are pretty much bang on with your points!

 

can some1 help me out pls monument charges!

[InformedSearcher]

I will reply to this as a 'layman'. I see it as the slow rolling rules of law that should have vanished 50 yerars ago. We have instant access to so much these days so why not law?

A perfect example is my mother dying last year. We cremated her in late July but I never received probate for almost 4 months. I was the sole living reletive too! It was in fact little but I tell you the funeral directors and solicitors took their share fast!

Things run way too slowly these days. It's only the judiciary lagging behind it would seem! C'mon almost 2 years to come to ... NO final decision!

Michael

[yourbank]

I will reply to this as a 'layman'. I see it as the slow rolling rules of law that should have vanished 50 yerars ago. We have instant access to so much these days so why not law?

A perfect example is my mother dying last year. We cremated her in late July but I never received probate for almost 4 months. I was the sole living reletive too! It was in fact little but I tell you the funeral directors and solicitors took their share fast!

Things run way too slowly these days. It's only the judiciary lagging behind it would seem! C'mon almost 2 years to come to ... NO final decision!

Michael

 

I think the problem is that there are thousands and thousands of cases in the court system. Adequate time has to be given for a case to be heard. For example, the UTCCR 1999 is about European Law so it is on very minute terms of reference. The first parts of the cases involved legal teams from both sides and skeleton arguments as well. Justice Smith for example, had about 20 or 30 binders of information. We are moving faster forward now IMHO.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Can anyone help with this query. Two of my friends are going through a divorce at the current time. They commenced a claim for the recovery of their bank charges on a joint account. I am assuming as their is joint liability then any payouts would be to both of them too. However obviously when the divorce comes through they wont be Mr. and Mrs. anymore so would the bank, if the time comes, pay any refund half and half to each of them equally?

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

[yourbank]

Hi Guys,

 

Can anyone help with this query. Two of my friends are going through a divorce at the current time. They commenced a claim for the recovery of their bank charges on a joint account. I am assuming as their is joint liability then any payouts would be to both of them too. However obviously when the divorce comes through they wont be Mr. and Mrs. anymore so would the bank, if the time comes, pay any refund half and half to each of them equally?

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

Gotta say that I don't know the answer to this one. I think they would refund to one of the parties but again that is a guess. I would get them to write to the bank and ask and then post here(so we all know if it comes up again).

[billyfarr]

My worry is that the government think it is in their interest NOT to pay back the charges as this would put a hole in the money they have bailed some of the banks out with.

Also a decent/reasonable profit on future charges ensures that their ''stakehold'' in some of the banks is more sound.

 

My guess anyway

[yourbank]

BBC NEWS | Business | One million in bank charge logjam

This is interesting re stayed claims.

[kennyh]

Fair enough, we'll have £12 set as the limit and I am sure everyone on CAG will not sue their banks. Right?

We ARE still using the basic argument that OFT can fix whatever figure they like (as with the CC companies)-Yes ? But we then deploy the argument that OFT word is NOT law and then invite the offending parties to "show and tell" which, of course they don't. This remains the case - yes?

[HSBCrusher]

We ARE still using the basic argument that OFT can fix whatever figure they like (as with the CC companies)-Yes ? But we then deploy the argument that OFT word is NOT law and then invite the offending parties to "show and tell" which, of course they don't. This remains the case - yes?

sort of.

 

£12 is the limit that would cause action against the cc company, that's all. It is not a level that is deemed to be fair.

 

therefore you can still argue that £12 is too much.

[yourbank]

We ARE still using the basic argument that OFT can fix whatever figure they like (as with the CC companies)-Yes ? But we then deploy the argument that OFT word is NOT law and then invite the offending parties to "show and tell" which, of course they don't. This remains the case - yes?

The OFT figure was always going to be a temporary measure. I suspect that they will relook at this on the conclusion of the OFT test case issues. The Law, as you have said, is the Law.

[HONESTKNOB]

Just seen this on HSBC website. Sorry if it's already been posted.

 

Latest Update: 3 April 2009

 

The OFT has announced the next phase of its ongoing enquiry into overdraft fees. To streamline and potentially shorten the enquiry, which was commenced in March 2007, the OFT has decided to look at a representative sample of three UK banks current account terms and conditions, including those of HSBC.

The OFT has made it clear that the selection of the three banks is not to be seen as an indictment of these banks - they are purely representative of the different terms and conditions that exist among the many banks and building societies that offer current accounts and overdrafts in the UK.

HSBC welcomes this initiative and we will continue to cooperate fully and constructively to the ongoing enquiry.

The OFT enquiry investigation is running in parallel with the high court test case. Within this the banks have just been granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords regarding assessing terms and conditions for fairness, and will progress the appeal as quickly as possible.

[djgordyp]

The OFT enquiry investigation is running in parallel with the high court test case. Within this the banks have just been granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords regarding assessing terms and conditions for fairness, and will progress the appeal as quickly as possible.

I took that seriously until I saw that last bit:D:shock:

[yourbank]

I've given up on the serious comments now. I mean, why bother now

[car2403]

Just seen this on HSBC website. Sorry if it's already been posted.

 

Latest Update: 3 April 2009

 

The OFT has announced the next phase of its ongoing enquiry into overdraft fees. To streamline and potentially shorten the enquiry, which was commenced in March 2007, the OFT has decided to look at a representative sample of three UK banks current account terms and conditions, including those of HSBC.

The OFT has made it clear that the selection of the three banks is not to be seen as an indictment of these banks - they are purely representative of the different terms and conditions that exist among the many banks and building societies that offer current accounts and overdrafts in the UK.

HSBC welcomes this initiative and we will continue to cooperate fully and constructively to the ongoing enquiry.

The OFT enquiry investigation is running in parallel with the high court test case. Within this the banks have just been granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords regarding assessing terms and conditions for fairness, and will progress the appeal as quickly as possible.

 

My opinion, should you want it, (those that don't can go "back" and read the next subbed thread without causing offence) is that this should be welcomed.

 

Imagine the further delay if all the T&C's had to be considered - this way, a "pilot" will be done to test the waters.

 

The only issue will be where the other Banks don't accept the analysis of the "pilot"/"water testing" and challenge their own, end-to-end.

 

Of course, though, this is a warning salvo to the Banks that the OFT will not accept any unacceptable delay - I mean, how can these Banks justify not complying with the investigation and still say they want it dealt with as quickly as possible.

 

In my case, all I want the OFT to do is be ready to release their findings/decisions when this darn Test Case outcome is known.

[kennyh]

The only issue will be where the other Banks don't accept the analysis of the "pilot"/"water testing" and challenge their own, end-to-end.

 

That's OK 'Car' - then one of us can 'invite' them to court for a 'show & tell' session!

[GuidoT]

OFT Fairness Report Expected in Late 2009.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guidot,

 

Where did you get this information. I can't see it on the OFT website, its probably me, can you post up a link please?

 

Cheers,

 

TheyrCriminals

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guidot,

 

Sorry just re-read your post, got it now!!

 

TheyrCriminals

[MARTIN3030]

The main reason the Banks dont want the OFT to test the fairness is because they know they will lose and even if the 12.00 fee is agreed -it still wont be statute and so could still leave the doors open to carry on with the claim.

Interestingly we have seen default fees come down to as low as £8.00 now.

Even Business charges have seen amazing change;RBS have agreed to freeze all business charges for a year.

The fee for an unpaid cheque or unpaid standing order on a Barclays business account is now £2.00

I remember this costing up to £39.50 with their added little extras.

Their excuse that its now so low ?????

"We have managed to improve our processing and handling systems " Ha Ha what a joke-but interesting that these figures were introduced around the same time as they changed the wording of their Terms and Conditions to include the word "RETAIL".

[yourbank]

The fee for an unpaid cheque or unpaid standing order on a Barclays business account is now £2.00

Wasn't sure where you got that from Martin.

 

I presume you have misinterpreted

Cheques returned to you unpaid £2

which actually refers to

Cheques returned to you unpaid – This is where a cheque is paid into your account which is returned unpaid by the drawer’s bank.

Barclays Business Accounts are still charging £30 odd

 

If there are insufficient funds in your account when we receive

cheques or other items for payment, it is within our discretion

whether the payment is processed. If we do, you will incur a

Paid Referral Fee of £30. This will only be charged when the

unauthorised overdraft is more than £30 and on each occasion

it increases by more than £30. We understand that we all make

the odd mistake and as such we won’t charge the first Paid

Referral Fee in each charging quarter. The interest rate for

unauthorised borrowings, including those within the £30 buffer

zone, is charged at 29.5 per cent a year. Additionally, if an item

is returned unpaid due to there being insufficient funds in your

account, we will charge you an Unpaid Fee of £35 for each

such payment, which is our fee for having considered whether

to process such payment.

http://www.business.barclays.co.uk/BBB/A/Content/Files/P59204_Barclays_tarriffs.pdf

 

If not and they have reduced their unauth charges to £2 then that would be fantastic news.

Edited April 17, 2009 by yourbank