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

[OLIVE.FAMILY]

Furious to say the very least. I agree with the others on here, Dont get mad get even. we obviously cannot trust the people that are supposedly fighting on our behalf so we now have to take the fight into our own hands. We should all carry this on to the courts. Each case should be looked at individually. I really cannot see the banks attending each and every case it would surely cost them an awful lot more.

 

As for others who think that CAG have just jumped onto the band wagon. CAG has saved my home, and my childrens futures I wouldnt call that jumping the band wagon . If you do not agree with all the hard work that goes on amongst the site and its members then go and crawl back into your tiny little narrow minded hole !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

olives xxx

 

p.s this is just my personal opinion

[robnfc]

Am i the only one who is seeing this as a positive thing ,

 

The stay now has to be lifted

Still no judgement as to the fairness

The banks well never explain these charges in court

 

Completely game on in my eyes , just let the local court decide what is fair and what isnt.

[noomill060]

"But it is obvious on reading the charging structure that charges cannot be directly related to the actual costs of providing any particular service triggering them."

 

In other words, the Supreme Court appears to have overuled the lower court's ruling that these are not penalties....

[robnfc]

but i thought there are two arguments , 1 penalties - 2 fairness

[srfrench]

Now that I've calmed down after this morning's ruling I agree with ROB

[adamski]

I think im with Rob too

[noomill060]

but i thought there are two arguments , 1 penalties - 2 fairness

 

 

Yes, and this ruling simply implies that its up to the Courts to decide on both. Its just that the OFT cant assess for fairness.

 

We are back to where we were pre-test case.

[elsinore]

Yes, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say about the waiver.

 

Is it the MoJ who is responsible for keeping it in place?

 

It's the Financial Services Authority, introduced at great expense and to little effect by our esteemed PM.

 

Els

[alanfromderby]

The Consumer Forums - The Fight Goes On

 

As we read further into today's judgement it has become clear that the OFT may have used the wrong part of the UTCCR. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used, and this may lead consumers to consider rewording their claims.

 

Clause 5(1) states that "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

 

Any clause allowing a bank to impose repressive charges, and increase and change those charges at its own discretion would be extremely likely to put the bank in a dominant position - and therefore the term should not be allowed to stand.

 

Obviously the judgement is still being analysed, but it would seem that the fight is most certainly not lost.

[landy_alert]

So as someone who only paid her £200 AQ fee yesterday, all is definitely not lost?

[PGH7447]

agree with Noomill060 - dust off your court cases and inundate the banks and courts, lets see how they like that

[alibobsy]

Well I have immediately sent an email to number 10 regarding this, the government need to understand how angry and betrayed people feel.

The more of us that send the message through to the polititions that this "old boys club" decision will not be taken lying down the better. It may also push the OFT into pursuing the issues-thier website now says they are looking into the judgement and will make a statement in December.

 

I agree about some kind of mass protest using one or more of the banks involved. On mass withdrawals on one day, sort of a run on one bank might scare em a bit, or the DD suggestion by a previous poster.

 

Ali x

[adamski]

Regulation 5 is the way forward

[robnfc]

wow ...agreement:) first time for everything

 

this is the way ive viewed it.

 

We have lost in the sense that these charges are now seen as a charge for service.

 

However there nothing to say whether these charges for service are fair or unfair.

[sparks199]

like iv pointed out

this ruiling was made to just stop a mass payout .

 

most of us will be getting a letter from our banks soon outlining there changes and so on ..

 

and then offering a so called goodwill gesture . which you must say get stuffed too

[scared001]

im still going for it with abbey and now have my very own personal contact who seems to be effecient, roll on financial hardship claim!!!

[Sparklez30]

I thought Regulation 5 was the one we were using anyway? I am hopelessly lost!!!!!

 

I am starting to feel completely disillusioned with all aspects of the way this country is going. I have lost all faith in the Banks and Government and thanks to this ruling now the law too! It just makes you angry

[psm]

You all need to check the wording on your stays, i am sure the onus was with us to progress the claim in a limited amount of time once a descision was finally made

[psm]

failure to do so would render the claim invalid

[sparks199]

in fact we have won ....

 

the banks have sed this door is shut .the H/O/L have sed yes its shut .

 

BUT the door at the side is wide open .. well done to the H/O/L

 

THEY have now shown us the way forward

[JonCris]

The finding DID NOT say the charges are fair & reasonable it said the OFT could not rule as such which means we are still able to challenge the banks as before Its just that a ruling in favour of the OFT would have saved us the trouble

Edited November 25, 2009 by JonCris

[DMC65]

Every ruling seems to be about unauthorised overdraughts, but what about unpaid DD's, surely we can still go to court over these as no service has been supplied and they are penalties.

[fergal71]

https://email.number10.gov.uk/Contact.aspx

 

email the prime minister now

[mcuth]

Every ruling seems to be about unauthorised overdraughts, but what about unpaid DD's, surely we can still go to court over these as no service has been supplied and they are penalties.

 

The unauthorised OD & Unpaid DD/SO charges are lumped together in this case - see paragraph 3 of today's judgment:

3. The question for the Court is much more limited, and more technical. It is whether as a matter of law the fairness of bank charges levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts (including unpaid item charges and other related charges as described below) can be challenged by the respondent the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) as excessive in relation to the services supplied to the customers.

Cheers

Michael

[robnfc]

sparks is tottally right!!!

 

this is what i was saying and i now understand the statement "we hope this clarafies the situation" , because it does 100% , there is now nothing to stop ppl from taking their banks to court.