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

[yourbank]

hi all.what a load crap the hardship cases are we had our hardship rejected by natwest they said if we did not have any defaults then it dose,nt get class has hardship but we have got defaults dew to natwest not paying our direct debits even when our wages goes in every week so to claim for hardship is a wast of time.

I think site team need to move your post to the hardship forum.

Do you have any priority debt arrears(mortgage/rent, council tax, utilities)?

I spoke with the FOS last week so I kinda have an understanding how the hardship cases work, more or less.

I'll start with the basics and see whether or not NatWest are or are not dealing with your case as hardship and see if we might change their minds,.

[callumsgran]

 

My Fault callum, I will work out what I have done wrong and return..

 

ThanksStill no good for me hun, must be me lol

Says i dont have permission to access page

Never mind :-|

[citizenB]

hi all.what a load crap the hardship cases are we had our hardship rejected by natwest they said if we did not have any defaults then it dose,nt get class has hardship but we have got defaults dew to natwest not paying our direct debits even when our wages goes in every week so to claim for hardship is a wast of time.

 

Hi gillypam, the link is not for making Hardship Claims, we are looking for people who would be happy to speak to the media about this issue on a personal basis.

 

There is a Hardship claim forum in the following link if you would like to start your own thread

 

Hardship applications - The Consumer Forums

[yourbank]

It's me as well. CG we are both in the same club so to speak.

[HSBCrusher]

thats strange cillit

 

copied and pasted here just for you

 

 

We have been contacted by several media companies who need your help:

 

 

 

They are look for members who would be willing to talk on radio or TV about your bank charges claim. Of special interest are claims that are stuck in the system due to the stay, or if there is hardship issues - but this is not essential.

 

We are especially looking for people in, or near London - but also countrywide.

 

Please contact: admin@consumeractiongroup .co.uk if you can help, giving a brief outline of your claim.

 

The companies involved will generally pay expenses, or arrange transport if necessary.

 

Thanks very much.

Edited June 23, 2009 by HSBCrusher

[callumsgran]

It's me as well. CG we are both in the same club so to speak.

OOOO eerrr missus lol

 

thats strange cillit

 

copied and pasted here just for you

Thank you kind sir

[yourbank]

The afternoon bit wasn't covered in the BBC report and regards foregon interest.

 

Law Lord specifically asked Sumption ''Is foregon interest part of the price (of a current account)'' and Sumption answered ''no''.

 

When asked the same question by Justice Smith in the original hearing. Geoffrey Vos - QC for nationwide - said yes.

 

During his submission to Justice Smith in the OFT v Banks test case hearing, lead QC for Nationwide, Geoffrey Vos, stated on the subject of the cost of personal current accounts ''And what is the price? Well, my Lord, the price is broadly free for the credit customer, except of course we retain the difference between the interest rate that we give the credit customer and whatever commercial interest rate we are able to achieve on the money deposited, and that can be regarded as part of the price.''

 

 

 

 

 

[gillypam]

Hi gillypam, the link is not for making Hardship Claims, we are looking for people who would be happy to speak to the media about this issue on a personal basis.

 

There is a Hardship claim forum in the following link if you would like to start your own thread

 

Hardship applications - The Consumer Forums

Hi citizenB tried to send but keeps coming up with error

[InformedSearcher]

A little 'true' cynical humour follows...

 

Yes I've been told of the days when only those with 'steady' bank balances meant quill pens and 1000's of lowly bank employess writing up ledgers. Then these 'banks' decided that was not enough with their oak and mahogny counters. They wanted the equivelent of what Spain let itself become - open to the masses and not just the 'jet set' of the early 1960's. Out went 'banks' and in came melemine counters (for the commoners) and initially it was considered that those with wealth would still be treated to the wooden panelled walls of Managers' offices and invites to lunch etc. Working in a bank meant a lowly life with the 'common' society and with promotion the chance to mix with 'real' bank clients, those with hefty balances and mortgages to suit. Those with considered permanent incomes and status. I could go on with the cynical realism but I'll stop here.

Reality - Time caught up with the high street thieves porporting to be upstanding banks and building societies. Those rabble were now educated and realised that when they fell on 'any' hard time they'd be penalised as much as the so bankers wanted. They fought back and also got a reality check in seeing ex bank senior managers and Directors leaving with golden farewells and pensions to die for and most aged under 55! They watched TV and the media to see people who smiled even though they effectively were overpaid to begin with. Something akin to many politicians with their smug looks of defiance at effectively being overpaid and well looked after at all the commoners expense!

Totally shameful that the QC the banks have employed even gives that impression as seen above. Mind you at probably 50k+ a day for his team he can have that attitude.

Phew better stop as I'm eyeing up my saved whisky bottle contents! LOL

Michael

Edited June 23, 2009 by InformedSearcher

[Aequitas]

He said that bank overdraft fees were required to be clear but were not necessarily required to be fair.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal have both previously upheld the right of the OFT to scrutinise the fairness of bank charges under the 1999 Consumer Contract Regulations.

Mr Sumption said both of the lower courts had been wrong, and had both over-refined and overcomplicated the interpretation of the regulations.

He pointed out that the regulations were not designed as a mechanism of price control and were not aimed at regulating what services were offered or the price charged.

They did not, he argued, apply to the main subject matter of a contract or the price being charged for it - only to ancillary or contingent charges.

"The overdraft charges are too fundamental to the bargain to be declared unfair," he said.

 

Whilst I do so reluctantly, since if it is right it produces a result opposite to what I would like, I cannot help feeling that the above argument is right. Indeed it is what I have always believed.

 

Can anyone persuade me (using legal and not emotional arguments) that it is wrong?

[noomill060]

Has any of the bewigged and stocking wearing fraternity ever judged default charges to be the "main subject matter of a contract"?

[paulwlton]

He said that bank overdraft fees were required to be clear but were not necessarily required to be fair.

 

Isn't this hearing in relation to fairness?

[noomill060]

If so, it would have been a simple matter to refer HHJ Andrew Smith to the relevant case law in the first place.

 

If not, default charges for breaches of contract can only be considered ancilliary to the meat and veg of the matter.

 

They attempted to press home their assertion that these were fees for a service, which Smith didnt agree with, but he didnt say what he thought they did represent, just that they weren't penalties, despite the fact that they are clearly intended to hold the customer in terrorium of breaching the contract.

Edited June 23, 2009 by noomill060

[noomill060]

Can the Law Lords reverse Smith's judgement re: not capable of being penalties?

[InformedSearcher]

Personally I do not believe the fees are for a service. That are classed as 'penalty charges' so that immediately references to a 'fine' or another term for it. However under law this is contractual evidence rather than defined commercial law. Companies always include T&C's because they are guides to what the agreement you make is. Whilst there is a staturory duty to define these they are the making of a company and open to 'challenge' and 'interpretation' albeit made by legal professionals.

The simple facts are that time moves on and attitudes and beliefs change. A good example is the making of a will. Professional legal teams produce what could be considered 'watertight and non negotiable' wills but they dependant on content and often open to further legal argument. These T&C's that financial institutions made were suitable for purpose of 'initiation' but open to 'contest' at any time. How many of us have heard 'customer service' [sic] drones tell us to look at our Terms and Conditions?

The perfect example of this is before the (considered unfair) 'stay' financial institutions paid out every time - why was that? It was simply because they wished 'not' to have their (to common a phrase) 'their dirty washing shown in public' and also because they knew their challenges were always ousted by County Courts.

IMHO the OFT made a mistake by doing what they did and if they fail their case it'll be their road to demise. I believe they fell to pressure from the court system and not the interests of consumers. They have yet to deny that is their case and probably by this not putting all the effort they can into what should be undiniable success.

Michael

Edited June 24, 2009 by InformedSearcher

[Ibsys]

Can I through something in the pot. The Fractional Reserve Banking system. ????????? you might say. this is radical but taught in some London Financial Institutions. Bank debt only exists when the debt is created by the bank and the account is opened with the customers name on the account and a promise to pay the debt. Go to www.youtube.com and watch "Money as Debt", in 5 parts. when you get to part 5 at the end, it goes on to explain how economists in banking and accountancy learn this.

 

Here is a question: How much actual cash exists? and how much is on the balance sheet as loans and mortgages?

 

There is a thought!

[Shuff]

I read the bbc report and can't understand how they can say bank charges are fair when the people who are going overdrawn are funding the current accounts of people in the black. Surely a fair system would be everyone paying for banking services and the banks recovering there costs when people go overdrawn. It seems like all the banks lawyers have been doing is contradicting themselves.

[Dipply75]

Maybe I am missing something but if te banks are so determined that the charges are fair and resonable blah blah, why exactly have they paid out so much money already (or anything at all)?

 

If they truly believed thy had a case they wouldn't have parted with a penny.

 

Has anyone asked them that direct question throughout this case?

[HONESTKNOB]

Probably because all payments to date have been 'gestures of goodwill'. And the banks know they really cant win this, they're just earning money on our money every day they drag this out.

[the_shadow]

Maybe I am missing something but if te banks are so determined that the charges are fair and resonable blah blah, why exactly have they paid out so much money already (or anything at all)?

 

If they truly believed thy had a case they wouldn't have parted with a penny.

 

Has anyone asked them that direct question throughout this case?

 

They calls these payments of "gestures of goodwill" basically means a non-liability payment.

 

We all know different but hey ho

 

S.

[Prangers]

so if the payments or part payments are simply gestures of goodwill. if and when we eventually win this case will we be able to claim in full again and not take into account the gesture of goodwill free money the bank has already paid people. as it has never been stated that the gesture was for the refund of charges???

 

just a thought

[Camdenite]

so if the payments or part payments are simply gestures of goodwill. if and when we eventually win this case will we be able to claim in full again and not take into account the gesture of goodwill free money the bank has already paid people. as it has never been stated that the gesture was for the refund of charges???

 

just a thought

 

very good, and would be fun trying.

 

Anyone with any updates from today? I see the media at large has picked up on the case again judging by today's papers.

[yourbank]

Amethyst gave her permission to post her posts from seagulls (if the mods on here have an issue with that they are quite welcome to remove this post). EXC and Budgie who attended have written the events of the morning too but I don't yet have their permission to post. jonathon crow (OFT) has begun his part and will continue this afternoon. It ends at 4pm so there will be more information at that time.

This mornings occurring

 

Vos said if the charges were found to be unfair it would apply back to when regulations began in 1995 - limitations issue not touched upon tho as yet

 

Jonathon Crow doing really well - he spent most of the time answering Sumptions arguments from yesterday. A big part has been about how competition issues and consumer protection issues are interlinked and how the UTCCR are meant to promote competition.

 

One of the Judges said the charges are considered extortionate. Lord Phillips asked Vos why they don’t just call the charges Penalties.

Lord Phillips if these are penalties they should simply say they are penalties and should be able to justify the figures

Vos said the judgement had already deemed the terms not penal and that wasn’t being appeal

 

Fair bit about price and how a typical consumer would be aware of charges and that they likely to incur one over the lifetime of their account and thus that made them a core term and part of the price.

 

Crow is quoting big chunks from the Cruikshank report, PCA reports, NI competition commission report

 

Vos also admitted his previous (april 08) comments about foregon interest not being part of the price and said it was irrelevant anyway - so feck knows why they bought it up yesterday

[kennyh]

Hi Camdenite,

very good, and would be fun trying.

Just to be a 'tad' optimistic -

"and WILL be fun trying"!

[InformedSearcher]

Yeah, I can imagine all financial institutions filing for Charity status! ROTFL

 

Actually they might have shot themselves in the foot - one never knows?

Michael