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

[citizenB]

Site Team Any Further Points All Is Not Lost , Is It ?

 

I am sure we will hear from those who were at the hearing a bit later on. That way we will get the facts and not the spin.

[barry_2008]

The court ruled in favour of the banks which means the charges are not assessed by fairness.

[charley2212]

Any Ideas When The Oft Will Anounce The Next Steps

[sparks199]

this rulling is very very bad for a number of reasons

 

1 the banks can now put up there charges

 

2 other companys can now do the same

 

3 every gas bill , phone bill and so on can now charge what they like for late payment .

 

4 c/cards can now return to there old charges .

 

5 the OFT are now powerless to do anything

[noomill060]

Judgement here - http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV2.pdf

 

 

404 file not found

 

I wonder why........?

[the_shadow]

Any Ideas When The Oft Will Anounce The Next Steps

 

Yep, it would be nice to see them earn their money and announce something.... they've had the judgment at least a week.

 

S.

[hsbcfiddled]

Thats how i see it, hsbcfiddled

 

 

Does this mean the 'Stay' will be removed now?

[RGS1]

So there has actually been no ruling on fairness. Is this correct?

[sparks199]

i think we should plan a march to the h.o.l and bring london to a standstill

[Undercover-Elsa]

Here it is

uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV2.pdf

[whizzkid001]

In the judgment.... "our decision is likely to cover almost all the “historic” terms as well. We were told that the OFT and the banks have so far been able to agree that the lower courts’ decisions on the current terms should be treated as applicable to the historic terms as well."

Edited November 25, 2009 by whizzkid001

[charley2212]

I am sure we will hear from those who were at the hearing a bit later on. That way we will get the facts and not the spin.

CALM DOWN , CAG AND THE OFT HAVE FOUGHT FOR A FEW YRS , AND I AM SURE ALL IS NOT DONE AND DUSTED AS IT LOOKS ,

.

I DO NOT SEE THE =AT LADY SINGING YET , SO IT CANT BE OVER

[adamski]

a battle has been lost the war is not over

[adamski]

we will never surrender

[Bookworm]

 

Lord Phillips also noted that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able profitably to provide current account services without a fee (

Para 88). He stated that it might be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers whose accounts always remain in credit by levies on others who experienced events they did not foresee when they opened their accounts

And there it is: The less well-off must subsidise the better-off by paying charges so that the illusion of free banking remains.

 

Your business fails, your spouse abandons you, you lose your job, you get conned, you fall on hard time for whatever reasons? Tough titty.

[PGH7447]

from the ruling

 

The members of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue which

we have to decide in this appeal. But many of the general public (who are understandably

taking a close interest in the matter) are not so well aware of its limited scope. It is

therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of

deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by

United Kingdom banks is fair

 

2. Some would regard the United Kingdom system as being, in some sense at least,

obviously unfair, though Mr Sumption QC (for the banks) vigorously disputed Lord

Mance’s suggestion that his clients were engaged in a sort of “reverse Robin Hood

exercise”. That is an imponderable question which depends partly on whether one’s

perception of the average customer who incurs unauthorised overdraft charges is that he

is spendthrift and improvident, or that she is disadvantaged and finding it hard to make

ends meet. But it is not the question for the Court.

[la2006]

Does this mean the 'Stay' will be removed now?

 

 

I was thinking that also - I can't see the banks having enough legal representatives to attend small claim cases for X amount of claims that have been put on hold. Hopefully people will continue and get their money back .

[georgieboy]

Join A local CREDIT UNION much nicer people to deal with

[fernack]

And? So what do we do? Roll over and play dead? Am wracking my brains for a suitable leeter to send to my bank - they put my claim on hold for the result of this hearing - shall I just forget it? Any help welcome (obviously)

[davey77]

No surprise how it went really.. Judges being buddies, friends or ex members of the board to the banks.

 

God knows what the Banks will do to people now tho... £70 charge for being 25 pence overdrawn?....£150? They can do what ever they like now........

[emmasot]

we may as well face facts here we gonna get naff all from um no matter how long this goes on for they cheat there way out of everything they dont care about there cutomers they care about there bonus's. and while they enjoying there selfs at xmas with there nice wage packet we are left with the dept they made for us!

[Seminole]

So the ruling only has the effect of stopping the OFT from making a ruling. It doesn't say anything about fairness and doesn't strike out the Regulations (which are a statutory instrument). Personally I think it means that people can still make claims and have individual county court decisions on whether they're fair or not. If the claims are based on the Regulations rather than the penalties issue, there must still be a reasonable chance of success. Am I missing something here?

[RGS1]

Do we think small claims cases maybe thrown out because of this judgement though???

[pompeyfaith]

sparks im with u on that its time to stand up and be heard

[fergal71]

this was inevitable they are trying to stop paying back old charges which could have been £100 billion but charges going forward will be different....

 

this is not good enough this is one massive conspiracy... they are all saying same thing... this is horrendous.... something has to be done collectively