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

[welshwizard]

If all these charges are 'fees' to help pay for current accounts, could we, as accoutn holders, charge banks a 'fee' when we have to trek all the way to a cash machine to draw out cash as we have to incur excess costs in making these trips, petrol, wear and tear on the car, shoe leather....?

[Alphageek]

The BBC's take on today's session: BBC NEWS | Business | Banks 'face deluge of litigation'

 

Poor banks, shouldn't have been ripping off everyone you could for the past 20 years then should you?

[elsinore]

Jonathan Sumption QC, for the banks, said if the previous ruling in favour of the OFT was upheld, the banks would face a deluge of litigation with claims going back many years.

 

 

"That prospect is appalling," he said.

 

In the words of Battery Sergeant Major Williams - "Oh Dear. What a shame. How sad"

 

Els

[callumsgran]

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

Mmmmmmmmmmmm i like your thinking.......................if only eh?

[photoman]

POSTED BY YOURBANK:

 

"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"

 

 

Could somebody please post up what this refers to?

 

ie: is it regards to interest that the consumer has had debited or foregone as a result of these charges ?

 

Pretty please... ??

 

PM

[kennyh]

Page 101 won't come up - 'elp!!!

[jowalshy]

I think it is a dummy page kennyh

[jowalshy]

There you go. Page 101 is now available.

[kennyh]

an' i wos holding me breath too!!!

[yourbank]

I think there were some posts removed early on in the thread which makes it appear longer than it actually is.

 

nice in Room 101 ?

[kennyh]

There are a few I would commit to the firey furnaces

[photoman]

THANKS YB,

 

But still doesn't quite answer my question ?

 

YB (or anyone else):

 

What were Vos' original comments on foregone interest ?

 

(precis, or a link will do)

 

Thanks

Edited June 25, 2009 by Rooster-UK
Quote removed

[gillypam]

hi yourbank.tried last night to go to the site.and citizenB tried to sed to the site and kept coming up could,nt find server:?

[yourbank]

Its on the link PM

 

I don't understand much of it but these are extracts.

 

 

[extracts removed as not allowed to name the source]

Edited June 26, 2009 by yourbank

[determindator]

There was a question on the site a short while ago concerning petitions to the Government. Here is a link which may be of interest to Cag users or maybe a joint effort, as I noticed the petitions are fragmented.

 

Number10.gov.uk click on:-

 

1.Communicate

 

2.E-Petitions

 

3.Click No 10 E-Petitions

 

4. Create petitions, go into Search petitions box and type Bank Charges

[photoman]

Its on the link PM

 

I don't understand much of it but these are extracts.

 

 

this part from original hearings

 

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.''

 

 

soo....

 

Originally Vos was making out that "free banking" was actually being financed by the interest foregone by those in credit (in an obvious attempt to deflect any accusations that "free banking" was actually being financed by such charges).

 

Now... he is denying this ??

 

So, HOW is he now proposing that "free banking" is actually being financed?

 

If he is now asserting that its' not being financed by interest foregone by the minority with credit balances, and they also still maintain that its' not being financed by these charges...

 

...then how ??

 

 

.... fairy dust perhaps ??

 

.. or are they just so generous that they are picking up the tab themselves ?

 

IMHO, he has now opened himself back up to the possibility of the original accusation, and/or have to explain why those good enough to actually keep their accounts in credit are receiving such poor rates.

 

 

 

I hope some of the lords pick up on this, and ask for an explanation as to how "free banking" really is actually financed !!

[pugsley]

Thanks for the update, not been on here much lately but have tried to keep up with this thread

 

will donate soon

 

Sandy xx

[yourbank]

 

Photoman.

 

Vos is saying it is irrelevant rather than denying it. It will be clearer when we get the Transcripts.

[extracts removed as not allowed to name the source]

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2009 by yourbank

[emmasot]

i not really sure what all this means really anyone know weather we are likely to get the bank charges back or not which way is it going.

[MARTIN3030]

The Cruikshank reports into smes was a good one to pull out of the bag.

Although there were strong assertions that the sme charges subsidised personal accounts

[InformedSearcher]

Having just read some aticle on the BBC regarding todays HoL's hearing I was surprised to see some of the comments by the OFT's QC. I think that the courts/OFT/banks together wanted to sort this all out. Well, okay probably not the banks.

One of the main problems regarding the courts was the unassailable mounting number of clims that they are neither designed to cope with or capable of doing. I read the BBC article that suggests 'lower' courts might need to deal with certain circumstances. Well, if that became reality then the whole of this OFT action would be a rather anti climax. In fact reading between the lines one could assume lots of 'secret' chat has been developing and fees would still be applicable from whenever. It would also be awful to think the HoL would consider problems for the banks when their ruling is on legal fairness.

I wait for more.

Michael

[jowalshy]

BBC NEWS | Business | 'Rewriting' claim on bank charges

[emmasot]

right so does this mean we wont get anything after all this wait?

when does this end?

[MARTIN3030]

Its very open ended.

Lets take the scenario which followed the OFT investigation into credit card charges,and resulted in the £12.00 fee being agreed all round-since it is not statute law then neither can be any agreement that may come from this one.

Thats the point thats being made here-the Courts will still be burdened with deciding on those cases that are in the system-we havent been given anything to show otherwise.

Back to square one then ?

[InformedSearcher]

right so does this mean we wont get anything after all this wait?

when does this end?

 

I think earlier in the thread it was mentioned the probably decision by the HoL will not be for a month or two once final arguments are made.

 

I still keep wondering why all the banks seem to have changed anything they class as a charge to being called 'Default Charges' both with current accounts and credit cards?! Probably they've known something long ago that we all nothing about yet?

 

Michael