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

[yourbank]

Thanks Car for your response, I was going to add that one of the banks are insuring losses of £250 billion which dwarfs legal bills and possible payouts from the conclusion of the OFT test case.

Furthermore, RBS which I am sure you are alluding to stood at 10p in January and today it is at 43.3p as of just now. The option price the government bought them in at was 65p. In time the share price will increase further giving the taxpayer a healthy profit from selling their stake in the bank. UKFI invested in the banks.

 

Public perception is emotionally charged, unfortunately, the law is not about public perception but interpretation of the law. I have always believed that the bank should appeal until they cannot for the simple reason that when they lose the argument, they cannot say that they didn't appeal or did not argue their cause until they could not.

[patrickq1]

indemnity fee issue what is that car .... i am getting close to the end of my MI and am thinkin i am some 15,000 short so i can see this being a big issue since i had no alternative but to take it not once but twice ?

i digress sorry guys

[yourbank]

Gazumped ya...

 

 

you missed one

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : OFT Test Case Updates and Discussion

[car2403]

Furthermore, RBS which I am sure you are alluding to stood at 10p in January and today it is at 43.3p as of just now. The option price the government bought them in at was 65p. In time the share price will increase further giving the taxpayer a healthy profit from selling their stake in the bank. UKFI invested in the banks.

 

Not that the taxpayer will benefit from any profits made, but we do see the detriment when we lay out these huge amounts.

 

Public perception is emotionally charged, unfortunately, the law is not about public perception but interpretation of the law. I have always believed that the bank should appeal until they cannot for the simple reason that when they lose the argument, they cannot say that they didn't appeal or did not argue their cause until they could not.

 

Yes, I can just see it now, "we are refunding charges applied as a goodwill gesture, as we disagree with the Legal binds placed on us, but we will comply with them anyway, without admission of liability", etc, etc.

 

indemnity fee issue what is that car .... i am getting close to the end of my MI and am thinkin i am some 15,000 short so i can see this being a big issue since i had no alternative but to take it not once but twice ?

i digress sorry guys

 

Mortgage Exit Fees: Reclaim £100s if you've switched or repaid a mortgage...

 

you missed one

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : OFT Test Case Updates and Discussion

 

Yes, there's quite a bit of updating to be done and only so many site team hours available to do, unfortunately...

[yourbank]

Not that the taxpayer will benefit from any profits made, but we do see the detriment when we lay out these huge amounts.

 

If you are arguing taxpayer is battling itself directly against itself then I am happy to argue that the 70%+ issue with RBS is one that the government will reduce once the share price goes above the amount that they stated as an option price, ie 65p(way too high and I said so at the time).

Yes, I can just see it now, "we are refunding charges applied as a goodwill gesture, as we disagree with the Legal binds placed on us, but we will comply with them anyway, without admission of liability", etc, etc.

 

 

 

Mortgage Exit Fees: Reclaim £100s if you've switched or repaid a mortgage...

 

 

 

Yes, there's quite a bit of updating to be done and only so many site team hours available to do

I'll keep digging you in the ribs then , unfortunately...

 

Thanks Car(you know I spot a few things from time to time and use that Red Triangle--thank god it didn't have the same connotation as those Channel Four theme nights from many moons ago ).

[alanalana]

Hey BRW,

 

was this a hint at a name change..

 

balls of steel.

 

aa

[alanalana]

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.

 

How absolutely true car2403 bring back the brown envelope pay packet.

This would though have implications of being possibly mugged on the street:eek:

 

At least you would see face to face the person taking your cash and be able to give the police a description. with the banks everyone taking your cash is faceless, nameless and a few other esses.

 

Sadly the police cannot also arrest them and bang them up for a short term.

 

aa

[anney63]

So is this the final hurdle . If they loose we will we get our money at last ?

[GuidoT]

No it could go to Europe.

 

Then there is the assessment of fairness.

 

To my mind we are not even half way through yet.

[kennyh]

Guido- it's just not fair; this arriving on a Monday Morning an'all!!

[Mr Silver]

If a bank that owes us money (for unfair charges) - like former semi-nationalised BoSporan:-) now Big Dark Horse Ltd:-) goes bankrupt (becomes insolvent) and or a credit rating agency like T B Ratings downgrades the 'sick' UK Plc from ''AAA to FFF'

Who refunds us consumers? After pension payments to ex-directors etc., will there be any money left?

I'm thinking worse case (realistic) ''test stress' scenario here - two years hence in 2012 - after the legal wrangling and ruling in our (consumer's) favour.

[GuidoT]

It is very unlikely the government will allow a bank to enter into a formal insolvency arrangement.

 

If one does we stand very little chance of obtaining the refunds in respect of bank charges.

[brown1950]

Two Labour peers face suspension

 

 

Four Labour peers met undercover reporters posing as lobbyists

 

Two Labour peers face suspension from Parliament for six months after being found guilty of misconduct. Ex-trade minister Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn were accused by the Sunday Times of being willing to change laws in exchange for cash.

The two men denied the allegations but they now face sanctions following a probe by a House of Lords Committee.

Labour's leader in the House of Lords had described the allegations against them as "very serious".

Parliamentary vote

The Lords Privileges Committee has recommended the two men be suspended from the House for up to six months after an investigation into allegations made against four Labour peers.

The final decision on their fate will rest with the House of Lords itself, which will vote on whether to exclude them - possibly as early as next week.

Two other Labour peers - the former minister Lord Moonie and Lord Snape - were cleared of wrongdoing, but invited to make apologies to the Lords for showing an "inappropriate attitude" to parliamentary rules banning paid advocacy.

The BBC's political correspondent Gillian Hargreaves said it was exceptionally rare for members of the Upper House to be suspended, the last case of its kind being in the 17th Century.

The Sunday Times alleged the two peers were prepared to change proposed legislation while it was passing through the Lords in return for money - which would have been in clear breach of parliamentary rules.

These rules state that peers should not seek to influence legislation in return for money.

The Sunday Times released details of secretly recorded conversations Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor had with their reporters in which they discussed what help they might give them and how parliamentary procedure worked.

The two men maintained they had never discussed taking money in return for tabling amendments to legislation.

Baroness Royall, Labour leader in the Lords, vowed to get to the bottom of the allegations, the latest in a series of recent scandals to have damaged the integrity of Parliament.

The police decided not to mount a criminal investigation into the case earlier this year, citing the difficulty of obtaining evidence among other factors.

 

Are you thinking what I'm thinking ?

[yourbank]

I guarantee you we are never going to think the same cos if I told you what I am thinking I would get banned from the site

[Sparkie1723]

I guarantee you we are never going to think the same cos if I told you what I am thinking I would get banned from the site

 

Hi yourbank,

 

All I can say to that is ....(as they say in those places) "Hear" "Hear" I would get banned from the internet as a whole.

 

sparkie

[car2403]

Hi yourbank,

 

All I can say to that is ....(as they say in those places) "Hear" "Hear" I would get banned from the internet as a whole.

 

sparkie

 

If I posted what I'm thinking I'd be CAGbotted!!!

[InformedSearcher]

Now what was that saying? Ahhhh, 'One law for one and another for everyone else'. Where else can one be accused of potentially being available for bribery and get suspended for a year? Bet that does not include the 'bar' (no pun intended).

Michael

[yourbank]

Mine's a pint Michael, while you're there

[patrickq1]

Two Labour peers face suspension

 

 

Four Labour peers met undercover reporters posing as lobbyists

 

Two Labour peers face suspension from Parliament for six months after being found guilty of misconduct. Ex-trade minister Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn were accused by the Sunday Times of being willing to change laws in exchange for cash.

The two men denied the allegations but they now face sanctions following a probe by a House of Lords Committee.

Labour's leader in the House of Lords had described the allegations against them as "very serious".

Parliamentary vote

The Lords Privileges Committee has recommended the two men be suspended from the House for up to six months after an investigation into allegations made against four Labour peers.

The final decision on their fate will rest with the House of Lords itself, which will vote on whether to exclude them - possibly as early as next week.

Two other Labour peers - the former minister Lord Moonie and Lord Snape - were cleared of wrongdoing, but invited to make apologies to the Lords for showing an "inappropriate attitude" to parliamentary rules banning paid advocacy.

The BBC's political correspondent Gillian Hargreaves said it was exceptionally rare for members of the Upper House to be suspended, the last case of its kind being in the 17th Century.

The Sunday Times alleged the two peers were prepared to change proposed legislation while it was passing through the Lords in return for money - which would have been in clear breach of parliamentary rules.

These rules state that peers should not seek to influence legislation in return for money.

The Sunday Times released details of secretly recorded conversations Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor had with their reporters in which they discussed what help they might give them and how parliamentary procedure worked.

The two men maintained they had never discussed taking money in return for tabling amendments to legislation.

Baroness Royall, Labour leader in the Lords, vowed to get to the bottom of the allegations, the latest in a series of recent scandals to have damaged the integrity of Parliament.

The police decided not to mount a criminal investigation into the case earlier this year, citing the difficulty of obtaining evidence among other factors.

 

Are you thinking what I'm thinking ?

being willing to change laws in exchange for cash. all this for EXPERIUM AND THE CHANGES TO THE DATA PROTECTION ITS A SCANDAL ISNT IT when no one has questioned the companies involved ?

[yourbank]

It's scandalous but completely irrelevant to the title of this thread. Anyway, Michael, you got that pint for me as you were going towards the bar(pun intended!!)

[InformedSearcher]

It's scandalous but completely irrelevant to the title of this thread. Anyway, Michael, you got that pint for me as you were going towards the bar(pun intended!!)

 

Hehe, when we all get our cash back - you're on!

[locutus]

Are you thinking what I'm thinking ?

 

Probably... is it "how much will it take for US to bribe a law lord?"

[yourbank]

Probably... is it "how much will it take for US to bribe a law lord?"

 

Why would the US be bribing or attempting to bribe a UK law lord? Is the CIA or FBI got an interest in a legal case here? Wow, this topic is getting more interesting the more we go on with it.... which case is the US going after?

[Meadows15]

The stay that banks were granted whilst this case goes on, when on earth does this expire??

 

I am constantly being hounded by HSBC to repay my overdraft, and yet they are telling me I have no right to hound them over my unfair charges that FAR exceed the overdraft owed, because of this bl**dy case!

[InformedSearcher]

Why would the US be bribing or attempting to bribe a UK law lord? Is the CIA or FBI got an interest in a legal case here? Wow, this topic is getting more interesting the more we go on with it.... which case is the US going after?

 

ROTFL!

US = us all as in you, me and everyone else!!

At least I'm laughing.

Michael