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

[yourbank]

Why do we want to bribe a law lord? You got any dodgy pictures of them in compromising situations???

[Mr Silver]

Hear! Hear!

 

Sorry, can't stay long, must go and claim my ''mistaken'' ''expenses'' for my ''mortgage''??? Or have I already paid it?

 

Accounting was never my strong point but I know how to count cash and I respect the ''honest'' and 'Honourable'' Law Lords, after all it keeps a check on those in the

Other House.

 

Hear! Hear!

 

Gin and

tonic! Chin

up! It could be worse! You could be a honest MP!

Edited May 14, 2009 by Mr Silver
Typo.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry to post this here. My mate has just had a PPI claim won against Lloyds TSB. It was on his loan he took out in 2004. They have decided to refund all of the monthly insurance instalments he paid which is great. However there is one bit that he doesnt understand and that is the bank has said in addition to the refund of instalments that:

 

'I have calcualted and paid the difference between what the settlement balance would have been on your loan account at the date of cancellation, had the insurance not been included on your loan. I have deducted this from the actual settlement figure net of your insurance rebate. This means that had you not purchased insurance you would have reduced your settlement figure of £675.80.'

 

That is the first point of the letter and that's what he doesn't uderstand. I have never done one of these and so I don't understand either. The letter then goes on to the second point which talks about the amount paid in premium instalments which obviously we understand. So is he also going to get £675.60 refunded as well as the premium instalments he paid. They are also giving him a few hundred quid statutory interest which is quite good.

 

Any help appreciated.

 

TheyrCriminals

[Rob M]

I am astounded that in this day and age having a meeting in a small room to avoid the public knowing what dirty backhanders are going on, no one has suggested that its ok to conduct this farce where they say, however media such as microphones, webcams, or like the house of commons permanent cameras should be used to ensure justice is done and the rogue banks are not lying , cheating and sliming their nasty little way out of paying back the monies that they have stolen , often, from those who can ill afford it, creating fees to intentionally put people overdrawn so they can apply another fee.

Sorry Rant over

[InformedSearcher]

I am astounded that in this day and age having a meeting in a small room to avoid the public knowing what dirty backhanders are going on, no one has suggested that its ok to conduct this farce where they say, however media such as microphones, webcams, or like the house of commons permanent cameras should be used to ensure justice is done and the rogue banks are not lying , cheating and sliming their nasty little way out of paying back the monies that they have stolen , often, from those who can ill afford it, creating fees to intentionally put people overdrawn so they can apply another fee.

Sorry Rant over

 

I could not have made the comments any better - Compliments to you!

You see 'transparancy' is not something that happens either in government or judicial processes. The motto, 'What they don't know can't harm them' unfortunately springs to mind.

Michael

[Rob M]

Thanks informed searcher, glad it made sense as i was on my soap box and going off on one a bit.

What does strike me as strange is that press and public are free to go in if there is space meaning its an open and public enquiry, not a closed session as such, there is also no information or content that is deemed 'secret' , so why is the session not recorded or broadcast.

Or are we all jumping about and shouting about something that no one has thought to simply just ask for???

[InformedSearcher]

Personally I believe the 'media' has been warned off this subject. There's little in the public domain about it at all. In fact one would think that it'd be breaking news and involve pressure like the MP dibacle, but no, very little. Makes one wonder about how the general public are viewed by all the 'entities' involved.

Let's see, Newspapers - media - sometimes controlled.

TV/Radio - Unbiased reporting BUT has to be 'equal' reporting so really a 'no go system'.

Financial Institutions - Try to be friends whilst extracting funds from you - just look at all the Head Offices - Palacial to say the least.

House of Lords - Secret society with drinking and smoking rooms where deals are made behind closed doors.

I rest my case

Michael

[ncf355]

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry to post this here. My mate has just had a PPI claim won against Lloyds TSB. It was on his loan he took out in 2004. They have decided to refund all of the monthly insurance instalments he paid which is great. However there is one bit that he doesnt understand and that is the bank has said in addition to the refund of instalments that:

 

'I have calcualted and paid the difference between what the settlement balance would have been on your loan account at the date of cancellation, had the insurance not been included on your loan. I have deducted this from the actual settlement figure net of your insurance rebate. This means that had you not purchased insurance you would have reduced your settlement figure of £675.80.'

 

That is the first point of the letter and that's what he doesn't uderstand. I have never done one of these and so I don't understand either. The letter then goes on to the second point which talks about the amount paid in premium instalments which obviously we understand. So is he also going to get £675.60 refunded as well as the premium instalments he paid. They are also giving him a few hundred quid statutory interest which is quite good.

 

Any help appreciated.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

 

 

Hi TRC

 

Please repost this here:

 

Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) - The Consumer Forums

 

 

(click the new thread button on the left near the top)

 

You'll get a better response as this thread relates to bank charges

 

[Thailand]

House of Lords - Secret society with drinking and smoking rooms where deals are made behind closed doors.

I rest my case

Michael

 

That conjurs up a question. I have heard of many decisions made by Europe, that essentially have farted on the HoL, and they don't like it, shock, horror.

 

So if hypothetically it gets to Europe, well in all likeliness, and the Banks won, can we appeal to Europe, or is that the last time it's heard?...finito?. Assuming the OFT would do so etc....

 

Just curious about that scenario.

[The Phantom]

I can't see the OFT appeal. I think so far we were 'lucky' it always went for the OFT, as I just couldn't see them having appealed their way through the system the same way the banks have.

What has the OFT to loose ? It is not their money. They can just say "oh well, we tried", but the banks have a lot of money at stake (our money)

The moment it goes against the OFT it will be the end for us

[yourbank]

Thanks informed searcher, glad it made sense as i was on my soap box and going off on one a bit.

What does strike me as strange is that press and public are free to go in if there is space meaning its an open and public enquiry, not a closed session as such, there is also no information or content that is deemed 'secret' , so why is the session not recorded or broadcast.

Unfortunately, it is still classed as a court of Law and therefore it cannot be broadcast. This is not for example, a legislative matter since the law is already in place ie UTCCR 1999. Not sure which law prevents TV cameras from reporting inside a Court of Law, I think PT or CAR from site team would know that answer.

Or are we all jumping about and shouting about something that no one has thought to simply just ask for???

 

Please see the bit in RED. Nothing stops members of the public going to the HoL but that bottom line is that it is a court of Law and therefore the recording of the proceedings by television cameras is prohibited.

[ukaviator]

The broadcasting of court proceedings in England and Wales is subject to a statutory ban, S41 Criminal Justice Act 1925, makes it an offence to:

 

(a) Take or attempt to take in any court any photograph or attempt to make, in any court, any portrait or sketch of any person.

 

(b) Publish any portrait, photograph or sketch. S9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it contempt of court to use or take a recorder in court. Photography has been interpreted as including filming for cinema or television.

 

Scotland has similar contempt legislation but does not have the same statutory ban as in the 1925 Act.

A practice Note in August 1992 which allowed strictly controlled broadcasting in some cases.

[TINK660]

subscribing

[Alphageek]

The broadcasting of court proceedings in England and Wales is subject to a statutory ban, S41 Criminal Justice Act 1925, makes it an offence to:

 

(a) Take or attempt to take in any court any photograph or attempt to make, in any court, any portrait or sketch of any person.

 

(b) Publish any portrait, photograph or sketch. S9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it contempt of court to use or take a recorder in court. Photography has been interpreted as including filming for cinema or television.

 

How come the News programmes sometimes have sketches of the people in Court then? I always thought they were done by an artist sitting in the public gallery

[Fred_Funk]

How come the News programmes sometimes have sketches of the people in Court then? I always thought they were done by an artist sitting in the public gallery

 

They do the sketches from memory as and when they leave the court.

[citizenB]

How come the News programmes sometimes have sketches of the people in Court then? I always thought they were done by an artist sitting in the public gallery

 

They do the sketches from memory as and when they leave the court.

 

Here is an interesting news article about a Court Artist and the way they work:D

 

About BBC News | News Update | A day in the life of a court artist

 

 

HTH

[noomill060]

YouTube - The Beatles - Maxwell's Silver Hammer

[Alphageek]

Here is an interesting news article about a Court Artist and the way they work:D

 

About BBC News | News Update | A day in the life of a court artist

 

 

HTH

 

Thanks CB.

[Bincrunched]

The broadcasting of court proceedings in England and Wales is subject to a statutory ban, S41 Criminal Justice Act 1925, makes it an offence to:

 

(a) Take or attempt to take in any court any photograph or attempt to make, in any court, any portrait or sketch of any person.

 

(b) Publish any portrait, photograph or sketch. S9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it contempt of court to use or take a recorder in court. Photography has been interpreted as including filming for cinema or television.

 

Scotland has similar contempt legislation but does not have the same statutory ban as in the 1925 Act.

 

A practice Note in August 1992 which allowed strictly controlled broadcasting in some cases.

I apologise for being stupid in advance, but I thought these proceedings were Civil not Criminal does that make a difference?

[car2403]

I apologise for being stupid in advance, but I thought these proceedings were Civil not Criminal does that make a difference?

 

The Act applies to any Court, Civil or Criminal.

[Bincrunched]

Oh ok, In proceedings such as this, who, if anyone is allowed access to transcripts or is this something else thats not allowed?

[d1cky]

roll over

[yourbank]

Oh ok, In proceedings such as this, who, if anyone is allowed access to transcripts or is this something else thats not allowed?

You can go along yourself and view the proceedings as there is room for the public as far as I am aware. Had I not been working, I would have made the trip to listen to the appeal. There will be press reports and reports on another consumer site from someone who is going to be there. I am not allowed to mention where as I would contravene site rules. The transcript I would expect would be made available but it might involve a cost. The judgement will be published on the OFT site and House of Lords site.

[Surfer01]

Subbing

[belgarion22]

Has anyone contacted the press about this