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

[InformedSearcher]

Aaaaannnnndddddddddd!!!........why the reason to be so negative?

 

I have noticed a fair few posters on this forum, whilst keeping their feet on solid earth, are not hopeful the HoL/SCoJ will hand down a favourable judgement.

 

Can someone explain why please?

 

Personally I think it's how the banks have changed their descriptions on various letters. What was 'unauthorised' is now called 'default', but why? There again I also believe that whatever anyone says the banks consider they can still ride roughshod over whoever they like to (and they do!). Banks treat people, pure and simple for what they can get out of them - when they start to have problems (for whatever reason whatsoever!) the same 'friendly' banks turn on them and make their lives (including mine) a living hell.

I've watched the NW ads on TV - Erms, does anyone have the experience the actor(ess) portrayed does? If you are exceptionally well heeled then it'll be a yes. Otherwise you are left there stading wishing/hoping someone will even speak to you never mind chatting about holidays and the family.

Grrrr, sorry, the thoughts of pure attentive ads portray the wrong reality to many. You get the message when you miss payment/s!

 

Michael

(soap box collapsing with him jumping up and down in anger on it)

[Bookworm]

*Bookie falls on her backside after the soapbox on which she and IS were standing collapses*

[car2403]

Sorry, there's no funding set aside for any new soapboxes.

 

I'll buy you a new 'un when we win, though.

[InformedSearcher]

Well, (cynical mode on!) - 'car2403' I can say at least you have an optimistic view! Why do I feel whatever happens that we will feel we have all been cheated considering the time lapse alone? Well we'll see what real British justice is after to decision.

Michael

[pompeyfaith]

British Justice lol whats that :lol::lol:

 

PF

[InformedSearcher]

British Justice - Refer Joanna Lumley for a good example....

 

Asylum seekers - Mother and 5 kids from Afghanistan (zero association to the UK) - Ealing (West London), a 2/3 years ago. Son says that if offered a potential palace would you refuse it. Cost to local and general taxpayer year 1 = £172,000 (£144,000 rent and balance benefits)!

 

Me - Unemployed - 40 years NI contributions - JSA = £1573 for 6 months then zero (£258 to pay back because I was paid £350 over 4 weeks and even was honest and declared it in taped under caution interview)!

 

I rest my case!

 

Michael

[hsbcfiddled]

Good news- RBS staff to get massive bonus - Well they deserve it!

 

Snub to taxpayer as RBS plans to give out millions in bonuses | This is Money

 

God theyve got a nerve!!!!

 

To think that all you sceptics thought there would be no money left to pay us back our charges - Should we win (very difficult to type with crossed fingers) the next round at SCOJ.

[Bookworm]

It makes me laugh (hollowly), the "we have to as it's part of their terms of employment" we have been hearing... My sister-in-law's company is cutting their wages by 10% and they have no choice in the matter (as well as massive redundancies, so they all know what would happen if they refused to take the pay cut), my brother's job has had all overtime cut when it was part of his terms. Times change, and sometimes one has to adapt. I don't see why they can't be told "sorry old chap, that was when we were privately owned and making money, times have changed".

[InformedSearcher]

Funny 'Bookworm' ....

A few years ago (well like 15) I received a bonus of over £10k. My boss arrived to tell me that they were considering a 'bonus cap' as the directors considered my 'earned' bonus too high. I stood there dumbfounded thinking that it was unbelievable. Whilst the capping did not happen I look often in pure amazement that things over the years have not changed a bit.

The few in control get huge payments and the others should understand their priviledged status as lowly serfs, lucky to be paid at all. When you watch series like 'Upstairs, Downstairs' and even 'Poirot' you start to wonder really how much further anyone progressed.

 

Michael

[Bookworm]

Oh indeed, and look at our MPs, all "I'm sorry I got caught, I won't do it again, honest guv" a few months ago now howling with indignation at the mention they might have to repay some of it... My dear, the SHAME of it! (that they are being asked to repay it, not that they scammed it in the first place, of course... )

[srfrench]

The pathetic response to MP's complaining complaining that the paybacks should not be retrospective makes me shake my head at the new depths MP's are willing to sink to in the trust stakes!

 

After all........didn't Labour "retrospectively" apply road tax to cars bought a few years before the new road tax banding was implemented.

 

I'm still fuming at that one. Consider this:

 

One buys a "Green" house to comply with the green revolution concerning carbon emissions and efficiency. It costs a fair bit more than a "normal" house. Then without warning the Government then charge you a new tax a few years later based on your new house. Suddenly it makes your house dip in value and/or makes your house less desirable to live in.

 

You end up out of pocket two ways if you keep or sell your house.

 

Is that fair?

 

So my message to the MP's and Banks.........start playing fair and start acting responsibly. No-one begrdges taxes or bonuses, so long as they are fair and gained through honest, responsible, lawful hard work!

[bodgerella]

I might be imagining it but I had an odd letter today-I'm claiming for NatW. They'd already previously sent me their standard bog off letter and becuase I'd mentioned hardship, a statement of earnings form. This was few weeks ago and I didn't bother because the judgement was so close but also they kind of threatened all manner of nasty thibgs would happen to my bank account/loan etc. I decided to wait but I've had another letter today almost asking me please to to put in a harship cliam and saying even if I don't my complaint will be dealt with ASAP after the judgement-I could be imagining it but isn't htis unusual for a bank to remind you that you have a claim in and reminding you to persue it? Personally I think they are running scared and are possibly trying to get some cliams paid off so as to show they have been sympathetic to some of the compliants-I could be wrong of course.......

[gillypam]

hi bodgerella.we put in a claim for hardship back in 2008 and got rejected because we did,nt have any defaults etc but in fact we did and the bank was natwest we were claiming from.we are just waiting like alot of other people to se what happens with the test case.

[determindator]

Just recently Nat West reduced their return charge fee to £5 previously iro £28. What they are doing, so i'm reliably informed, is preferring to pay the item which was to be returned for which they charge £15 plus £20 one month fee for the overdraft. Why can't they charge £5 to pay it?

 

As we get the banks joining in, it is an admittance to previous fees being unfair and I believe extortionate. Making money out of misery. I believe we will see significant moves in the right direction very shortly as the Banks prepare themselves for the morally right decision to be made on the outcome of this case.

[Bookworm]

Awww, bless you Termi, you just gave me a laugh.

 

Did you actually use "banks" and "morally right" in the same sentence? With a straight face?

[determindator]

I hope i'm right Booky the Justice system will do what is morally right, we know the Banks won't do it on their own.

[InformedSearcher]

I think it should always be remembered that courts as everything else works on targets and budgets. The court system was simply not able to process the claims that were starting to run into 1000's. In fact some courts were processing multiple cases putting all claims into a single decision.

Then things went a bit hazy. The OFT appeared and then we started this long winded procedure to at yet no conclusion. The HoL (no matter yet another court) have to consider how their decision will impact on the general court system. There might or might not be pure British justice (as we all expect it) but in the end a dceision must be made to minimise pressure on lower courts.

Sadly this will probably mean that whatever happens 99% of cases will be solved in this conclusion. They will of course have to consider the impact on the financial institutions who in fact, fat cat salaries and bonuses aside control and stabilise the countries economy. That will mean we all wait with baited breath still unsure of if we are going to be happy or sad.

 

Michael

[Bigmac versus]

Well I fully expect the supreme court to uphold the earlier ruling and then for the charges to be deemed unfair. The problem comes deciding what is a fair amount, its at this stage I suspect a deal to be done. Since the waiver has been introduced and until the test case is resolved the Limitation Act is in effect frozen, could there be the same regarding judicial interest WHEN its finally over. I could see claims getting interest up till the test case started only, this could be buying the banks time to pay back whats owed.

[pompeyfaith]

Surely if they lose they would have to pay the judicial interest just like anyone else would in a court of law if they lost.

 

If not its a good point to argue as s69 interest is written down in statute

 

PF

[Bookworm]

Only if you had filed your case at court, PF, otherwise s69 doesn't apply.

[pompeyfaith]

Yes Booky as i thought

 

PF

[Camdenite]

Only if you had filed your case at court, PF, otherwise s69 doesn't apply.

 

 

And for those of us who included Contractual interest? Would we be allowed to pursue the case via the courts or will it be a "one size fits all" ruling that would define how interest will be calculated?

[Bigmac versus]

Quite probable, however what gets me is that everyone seems to expect that a victory for the banks is extremely unlikely yet those banks seem hell bent on dragging this on and on even after losing twice.

 

It does seem to most to be a one way road, that the banks will lose but we dont know when. Surely it would make more sense for the banks to have paid up before now than paying all that judicial interest when they run out of options.

 

It is that which stumps me, WHY continue? UNLESS they were to benefit from the case taking so long to reach a conclusion. I agree it may be way off the mark but I cant see any other reason to continue, lets not say they expect to win please. Every single day this goes on the interest they will have to pay back is growing. Are the banks legal costs covered by their insurance?

[Bookworm]

But Mac, you are thinking in terms of REASONABLE! When has that ever applied to them? Before the test case, we told them in our thousands that it would be cheaper for them to pay up staright away, and they still made us drag them through the court system, in many cases settling at the door (and in one of mine, actually going through the doors!). When the test case started, they spent more in stay applications and lawyers fees that a lot of the cases were worth. (Barclays sent a barrister for mine and my case was only for £120!) They have now spent no doubt hundreds of thousands on this test case which would have quietly settled an awful lot of cases. So where is the logic, where is the reasonable? You're looking the wrong way, buddy.

 

I don't know, I really don't. I suspect that the game plan is "resist to the bitter end" and not much more. I suspect that they think that if they cave, it will open the floodgates when word spreads that it's easy to reclaim whereas just their show of resistance will have put off a lot of people (which we know it has). And of course for people who are waiting for the end of the test case to get started, the 6 years clock is still ticking, although if we win, that should be very arguable under s32...

 

I think that maybe we are giving them too much credit (pun intended ): It may simply be that these starched, rigid pompous institutions are unable to adapt, still think they rule us and haven't woken up to the fact that people will take an awful lot before rising, but once they're up, it's virtually impossible to settle them back down.

 

I have no real answer. But I HAVE to hope that the justice system will not fail us.

[Bookworm]

And for those of us who included Contractual interest? Would we be allowed to pursue the case via the courts or will it be a "one size fits all" ruling that would define how interest will be calculated?

Your guess is as good as mine.