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

[robnfc]

jumping the gun , but hey why not go in for the kill

 

has anyone thought of a draft letter we can send to the banks i.e

 

Clause 5

Fairness agrument

And the fact that we basically back to same stage we were at before the test case started.

[emmasot]

why are we the only ones that can see that the bank charges are not fair? i really dont know where to go from here! can i claim them back any other way?

[adamski]

sorry I think the class action FSA Bill would be for future complaints not old ones sorry my error!

[fergal71]

fsa ends waiver contact court and ask for court date if you have claim pending in court.... if you havent start one as soon as you feel you have all the info needed to progress which I am sure will be in the next few days.........

[InformedSearcher]

.... and people thought I was being incorrect of my views on fair and just legal system. As they knew the answer earlier I bet AK from the BBA is now sipping champagne.

The comments, "The banks are mindful of their customers, they know the concerns of those who have paid the unauthorised overdraft fees and those who have not," leave much to be desired. In my eyes the ruling is simply wrong and done to appease not the people who matter but the ones who do not.

 

Michael

[robnfc]

just carry on as you would have done , the stay has to be lifted now , so theres nothing to stop you claiming as there is still no judgement on the fairness

[Seminole]

why are we the only ones that can see that the bank charges are not fair? i really dont know where to go from here! can i claim them back any other way?

 

Just to be clear, no binding decision has been made on whether the charges are fair or not. The two decisions that have been made are a) they are not penalties (but this was decided in a lower court) and b) the OFT can't regulate charges on the basis of fairness. That isn't the same as saying that the charges are fair.

[sparks199]

25 November 2009

In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment today in the bank charges test case the Financial Services Authority (FSA) can confirm that its waiver has now lapsed.

The waiver was granted during the test case so that firms did not have to deal with complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges in the eight-week-period required under FSA rules while the outcome of the court case remained unclear.

Firms can now resume processing consumers’ complaints in accordance with the FSA’s complaint handling rules.

[scared001]

im defly up for a group campaign, they need to start listening....how can they rule in banks favour when us, the taxpayer, have flipping well just bailed them out...aaaghhhh makes me sooooooooo angry.

[hsbcfiddled]

thanks adam, errr no i dont believe i did negotiate any charges with any of the thieving **************.....this has just got people riled and if anything the courts are going to be inundated with complaints.....

 

I understand your anger but you need to edit as I have. Thank you

[robnfc]

also just been thinking , if i was a banker i would out now because with the million or so cases that got stayed and the case simply still with the banks , there will be millions of claims going though the courts , at £75 plus expenses this will add up to alot more that the bank have to pay.

[whizzkid001]

Just to be clear, no binding decision has been made on whether the charges are fair or not. The two decisions that have been made are a) they are not penalties (but this was decided in a lower court) and b) the OFT can't regulate charges on the basis of fairness. That isn't the same as saying that the charges are fair.

But didn't the judgment make reference to the fact that they accepted that charges don't reflect the true cost to the bank, and that we are effectively paying for the whole range of banking services - how does that work in an argument at court?

[car2403]

I've just spent my entire lunch hour catching up with this thread

 

This Judgment doesn't mean the charges are not subject to a test of fairness, it just means that the OFT cannot assess them for fairness!

 

This means to us that the Courts will have to decide.

 

Thank you OFT Test Case, now move to one side and let me get in amongst them (which I was doing on the day you stayed my claims...)

 

**Car pushes to the front of the queue at his local County Court to submit an Application to lift the stays on his claims, which is where he has been since day 1 of the stay!**

 

[robnfc]

charges reflectve or not are still not fair for the service provided

[noomill060]

But didn't the judgment make reference to the fact that they accepted that charges don't reflect the true cost to the bank, and that we are effectively paying for the whole range of banking services - how does that work in an argument at court?

 

Precisely.

 

The Supreme Court's judgement would appear to over rule the High Court's assesment that these charges cannot be penalties, and clearly implies that they are.

[emmasot]

i still dont see how this can go our way! look who we are dealing with here this could go on for god knows how many more years and still we will get nothing but shafted.

[sparks199]

Precisely.

 

The Supreme Court's judgement would appear to over rule the High Court's assesment that these charges cannot be penalties, and clearly implies that they are.

 

that only adds to what a mess the OFT have made . and i guess the H.O.L are saying that in short

[sparks199]

when you read into it ..the H.O.L are saying that they understand the Argerment.

 

its just that the OFT havnt made a good case for it ,

[Livto]

A devastating ruling & yet another kick in the teeth for the UK consumer.

[reallymadwoman]

charges reflectve or not are still not fair for the service provided

 

My (lengthy) views on the subject :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/234732-where-next-bank-charge.html#post2600852

[fergal71]

bbc news is totally untrue watch now

[GuidoT]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/234725-have-we-lost-all.html

[robnfc]

However, using regulation 5 is still subject to the clauses about core terms and price so I think that to use it we would have to find a way of arguing that charges are not part of the price for the services, and how could they be if most people do not have to pay them? The package of services is provided for a charge. Let the banks justify that charge being so much higher for a relatively small proportion of their customers. Debate on this one, please, hopefully leading to amended particulars of claim.

nice one , ask them to justify them in court

[Bigredbus]

Could one of the mods draft an e-mail for the PM?

 

'L'union fait la force'

[sparks199]

(FSA) can confirm that its waiver has now lapsed.