Jump to content


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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4996 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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....

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:rolleyes:

 

Els

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :mad:

Btw I am no expert just give notes based on what I have read on here and other forums/sites, plus my own experiences and investigations.

 

All ccj's now dropped off file, 2 yrs to go to clear file.

All old debts either settled or made unenforcable.

 

RBS MPP-Full offer at 8 wks from first complaint

RBS Overdraft loanguard-full offer at 8 wks from complaint

Citicard ppi-with FOS finally paid 8 months after offer through FOS!

Capital one x2- with FOS

Monument ppi-with FOS

aqua x2 ppi-partialled settled still pushing for the rest

Black horse ppi-offers made and accepted except for one early loan they say no info held-still pushing for payment

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...