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

[Bookworm]

Not really, as it's a bit of a non-starter, and the end result is the same, if they don't want to give you more than 6 yrs, they won't and will lie about it. (allegedly!) Incidentally, Natwest did tell me that it was only 6 yrs back in 2006 and sent me nothing else, the swines. However, I may still get them sooner or later with "sample" old statements still in my possession, but that's by the by for now. ;-)

[yourbank]

I remember speaking to our statement department AFTER 2006 and they told me 10 years

However, those that used to work for natwest know that statements over 7 years old are printed on Saturday

[JonCris]

If they are sell your shares in Iron Mountain

[yourbank]

If they are sell your shares in Iron Mountain

PMSL( I do understand what you mean)

[HSBCrusher]

However, I may still get them sooner or later with "sample" old statements still in my possession, but that's by the by for now. ;-)

I have every bank statement I have ever been sent

[HSBCrusher]

Go wash your mouth with soap, HSBCrusher, surely you are not saying that the banks would LIE to us?

[kennyh]

But if wotever bank denies the existence of documentation (following an SAR) then, hopefully, they cannot deploy any residual documentation surreptitiously in later court actions - can they?

[JonCris]

kenny look around you There are a multitude of thread were the lenders have suddenly 'discovered' additional evidence which they have then produced in court. It's known as the ambush & as county courts are so lax when it comes to the rules of evidence many Judges allow it. If this happens one should kick up an almighty stink there & then

 

So the answer to your question is yes they shouldn't but they do all of the time

[kennyh]

Sorry Jon - I seem to have spent an inordinate number of my 67 years online but hadn't come across those instances - but if it happens to me then you can bet that an almighty stink will ensue with quotations from any denials that they have issued for the SAR!!

[car2403]

kenny look around you There are a multitude of thread were the lenders have suddenly 'discovered' additional evidence which they have then produced in court. It's known as the ambush & as county courts are so lax when it comes to the rules of evidence many Judges allow it. If this happens one should kick up an almighty stink there & then

 

So the answer to your question is yes they shouldn't but they do all of the time

 

Here, here...

 

Happened to my against Barclays - CCA'd an overdraft, and they claimed they didn't have the documentation to comply with the OFT's Determination under s.74. I sent a SAR, and they responded with "everything [i'm] entitled to under the DPA". I even wrote back and said, where is the documentation relating to interest rates, only to be told that "this is everything you're getting".

 

When the claim came to Court, they turned up with everything they needed to defend - the Judge wasn't bothered about failure to comply with the SAR, saying "I only want to deal with the issues on the table, here, today".

 

I didn't push the non-compliance issue, as the case was adjourned for an amended Defence from Barclays, but they settled out of Court before that deadline.

[kennyh]

Thanks Car; they know there's a loan & ppi involved so if the info isn't forthcoming I'll go after the Data Controller and distruction certification (if that's what they contend) before going after any pecunary satisfaction and I shall 'push' the non-compliance issue should it turn out that way.

[seen the light]

hi there

 

im a bit out of touch with the bank charges debate, i received a refund from nat West just before the breaks weer put on. Nationwide possibly owe me about £350. should i start the process to claim now do you think or wait ?

 

many thanks

 

seen the light

[yourbank]

Put your claim in now.

 

 

For everyone else, the HoL date has been moved by a day to the 23rd June 2009. Still scheduled for 3 days. Hopefully someone here who has the power to change the thread title can do so or is that a silly thing to say. This is only the second time I have mentioned it on the forum so maybe three is the charm

[car2403]

This is only the second time I have mentioned it on the forum so maybe three is the charm

 

Gazumped ya...

 

[jcjazzy]

Hi all, can anyone tell me in simple terms what is the position in this saga at present,preferably in english and not "legalese"?

Much obliged.

[peterlucas]

Hi all, can anyone tell me in simple terms what is the position in this saga at present,preferably in english and not "legalese"?

Much obliged.

 

One court told the banks the OFT could asses the lawfulness of bank charges under the UTCCR, a set of consumer protection regulations. The banks appealed. The Court of Appeal told the banks where to stick it, and now the banks are wasting taxpayer's money by dragging it up to the House of Lords, the country's highest court, where the case is being heard next month.

 

Simple enough?

[Alphageek]

Very succinct

[yourbank]

One court told the banks the OFT could asses the lawfulness of bank charges under the UTCCR, a set of consumer protection regulations. The banks appealed. The Court of Appeal told the banks where to stick it, and now the banks are wasting taxpayer's money by dragging it up to the House of Lords, the country's highest court, where the case is being heard next month.

 

Simple enough?

The banks appealed the Court of Appeal said NO. The bank Appealed to the House of Lords and they said YES. Not sure HSBC, Barclays, Nationwide, et al are wasting taxpayers money but following their legal right. I am sure you wouldn't appeal if you lost a case and had the resources to do so

[banker_rhymes_with]

The banks appealed the Court of Appeal said NO. The bank Appealed to the House of Lords and they said YES. Not sure HSBC, Barclays, Nationwide, et al are wasting taxpayers money but following their legal right. I am sure you wouldn't appeal if you lost a case and had the resources to do so

However, only banks, tycoons, media stars and the exceptionally affluent can afford to even think about Appealing once it gets to that level.

 

The average Litigant in Person with a far stronger case than these dull greedy bankers, usually gets their neck severely slapped at the bottom rung of this rather expensive ladder. Climbing up to the next rung is almost beyond the reach of all but the most suicidal and determined Litigants in Person. Going beyond the 2nd rung takes balls of steel.

 

If you now peer up to the very top of this ladder, it's not a very pleasant sight. All we surfs can see are the rather ample banking backsides pointing down at us, while the other end that makes the main noise is busy spending our money to protect the indefensible.

 

Not that this will stop serious money from buying them the result they want.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Bookworm]

You forgot to mention that strictly speaking the taxpayer is now funding both sides of the legal battle.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Bookie!

 

You forgot to mention that strictly speaking the taxpayer is now funding both sides of the legal battle.

Absolutely. I tried to allude to that...

 

If you now peer up to the very top of this ladder, it's not a very pleasant sight. All we surfs can see are the rather ample banking backsides pointing down at us, while the other end that makes the main noise is busy spending our money to protect the indefensible.

You are quite right, the banks are spending our money on the one side, and the Courts are spending it on the other.

 

They get to play the game, we get to fund it no matter who wins. Gin and Tonic in the bar afterwards for all sides. We pay for that too.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[koalaattack]

As a slight aside to all of this, anyone else think we should make them all work on Monday? That'll show 'em!

[kennyh]

dragging it up to the House of Lords, the country's highest court

Surely they won't stop there with Europe to go at - YES I know, Yourbank, it's undoubtedly their God given right to appeal to anyone, anywhere, but I still believe these legal costs should be ringfenced, NOT funded directly or indirectly by Tax payers, and heavily challenged at AGM or even an EGM; really somebody within their tight boardroom circles should be held to account - heaven only knows they don't appear to have been to date!

[InformedSearcher]

Surely they won't stop there with Europe to go at - YES I know, Yourbank, it's undoubtedly their God given right to appeal to anyone, anywhere, but I still believe these legal costs should be ringfenced, NOT funded directly or indirectly by Tax payers, and heavily challenged at AGM or even an EGM; really somebody within their tight boardroom circles should be held to account - heaven only knows they don't appear to have been to date!

 

This might be because someone might just spot the investment accounts getting opened with circa £15/£20 million in each one to support each pension payout!

Michael

[car2403]

Surely they won't stop there with Europe to go at - YES I know, Yourbank, it's undoubtedly their God given right to appeal to anyone, anywhere, but I still believe these legal costs should be ringfenced, NOT funded directly or indirectly by Tax payers, and heavily challenged at AGM or even an EGM; really somebody within their tight boardroom circles should be held to account - heaven only knows they don't appear to have been to date!

 

The European Courts can only be appealed to after the HoL if issues of European Community Law are concerned.

 

From Wikipedia;

 

The only further appeal from the House of Lords is to the European courts (the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights), and only then in matters concerning either European Community law or the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

If there's even a chance that they don't have to repay every charge that has been reclaimed, plus be open to further complaints from anyone that hasn't reclaimed, (like the Mortgage Indemnity Fee issue) surely there's a good business reason to continue to drag it out as much as possible.

 

What they haven't considered is the impact that has on the Public's perception of what they are trying to do - for me, this is beyond repression now, but it's just a shame I can't choose not to Bank in this day and age.