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

[kennyh]

koalaattack - where is 'down here'?

[kennyh]

They have stayed all cases for another 12 months as the courts are aware that the OFT are taking the claim higher.

Anyone else experienced this?

[speedtrip]

Kennyh, where did you find this and who are they?

 

BTW the_shadow, i agree that this is a sensible approach and if the absence of any better suggestions that is what i will be doing later this week.

 

CAR, would you willing to share your POC and approach on this one?

 

ST

Anyone else experienced this?

 

They have stayed all cases for another 12 months as the courts are aware that the OFT are taking the claim higher.

[srfrench]

Where has this been stated as "Official" please?

[robnfc]

UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS

44. Sections 19-22 repeal and replace sections 137-140 of the 1974 Act which empowered the Court to reopen an ‘extortionate credit bargain’. A bargain was ‘extortionate’, if at the time the agreement was made, it required the debtor to make payments which were grossly exorbitant or otherwise grossly contravened ordinar principles of fair dealing. In coming to its conclusions the court was required to consider evidence produced concerning specific factors relevant to prevailing interest

rates, the debtor (e.g. age, experience or degree of financial pressure) and creditor (e.g. accepted risk having regard to value of security).

 

 

this is a hell of alot stronger argument then the previously used ones.

 

let it being (again!!)

[koalaattack]

koalaattack - where is 'down here'?

Plymouth.

Kennyh, where did you find this and who are they?

That'll be from my post a few up (or maybe over the page!).

 

Essentially, I went to Plymouth County Court today as I needed to see whether I let them know I moved two years ago (I'm very current me!) and the lady behind the counter told me, after she checked with he supervisor, that the judge that they deal with (not sure on his title, sorry) had decided to stay the cases for a further 12 months pending the OFT's next move. As I mentioned, she said she thought it was "far from over".

 

I was a little surprised to be honest.

[tifo]

In a nutshell, MSE recommends no revised POC's at this stage because the, very strong, new case that their barrister has come up with is likely to be too complex for individuals to take up, and is lobbying the OFT to follow that course themselves, in a new case.

 

.... so the many members of these forums are not clever enough to digest the new methods that his barrister has come up with, or maybe because MSE are paying for him, the rest of us will have to wait in line?

 

and the OFT starting another 2.5 year case isn't going to help the general public while the banks continue to charge a service fee to those who have occasional problems and request an informal overdraft to pay for those who never do.

[Dougal16T]

.... so the many members of these forums are not clever enough to digest the new methods that his barrister has come up with, or maybe because MSE are paying for him, the rest of us will have to wait in line?

 

and the OFT starting another 2.5 year case isn't going to help the general public while the banks continue to charge a service fee to those who have occasional problems and request an informal overdraft to pay for those who never do.

 

 

Good evening all,

 

Painful though it is, I am convinced that the most practical and sensible approach, and almost certainly the most 'cost effective', is to await the OFT decision.

 

That way we will have a more 'complete' approach, and I believe working together we will be successful - what the Banks and others rely on is mis-information and disruption in our 'ranks', leading to errors of judgment by claimants, and losses (financial) which are unneccessary.

 

We MUST work as a complete team and not be disseminated by 'blind alleys', and 'golden pots at the end of the rainbow'; this matter will take time - maybe another two years, possibly more. At least then there will be a definitive result, hopefully in our favour.

 

I rest my case (and my fingers - this keyboard is killing me!!!)

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[car2403]

Good evening all,

 

Painful though it is, I am convinced that the most practical and sensible approach, and almost certainly the most 'cost effective', is to await the OFT decision.

 

That way we will have a more 'complete' approach, and I believe working together we will be successful - what the Banks and others rely on is mis-information and disruption in our 'ranks', leading to errors of judgment by claimants, and losses (financial) which are unneccessary.

 

We MUST work as a complete team and not be disseminated by 'blind alleys', and 'golden pots at the end of the rainbow'; this matter will take time - maybe another two years, possibly more. At least then there will be a definitive result, hopefully in our favour.

 

I rest my case (and my fingers - this keyboard is killing me!!!)

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

 

 

Well, if it comes to that - and I don't think it will - let's hope they get it right this time, eh?!

 

[ncf355]

I dont agree with the OFT road

 

Sorry,

 

but I think we are far better off left to our own devices

 

If we had another POC with reasonable content we can drown them in POC's and I'd lay money we'd be back to where we were with the banks capitulating and paying out left right and center

 

If the OFT thought this was the way to go, with the legal clout they had available that should have been plan B in their original case (not to mention an appeal to the original rulling against them rather than let the banks do all the appealing)

 

I'd be willing to bet quite a few £'s on a loss for the OFT in any future case

 

 

 

Any stay, if it happens ought to be on the basis the banks cannot charge for the duration

 

They have ignored all the terms regards dealing fairly with hardship cases whilst the waiver was in place with the FSA

 

 

 

Is their not an argument here for the issue of denying us access to justice?

 

 

I am absolutely furious about this

 

[yourbank]

I dont agree with the OFT road

 

Sorry,

 

but I think we are far better off left to our own devices

 

If we had another POC with reasonable content we can drown them in POC's and I'd lay money we'd be back to where we were with the banks capitulating and paying out left right and center

Which leads to yet another OFT test case to clarify the legal issues based on that approach.

If the OFT thought this was the way to go, with the legal clout they had available that should have been plan B in their original case (not to mention an appeal to the original rulling against them rather than let the banks do all the appealing)

The OFT has so far consulted with MSE, PC, and LB and I am not sure if CAG have finally arranged their conference call with the OFT since they appear unable to attend in person.

I'd be willing to bet quite a few £'s on a loss for the OFT in any future case

I wouldn't until I saw their POC, and the grounds that they were going to court on and the banks' defence.

 

 

Any stay, if it happens ought to be on the basis the banks cannot charge for the duration

But that would mean that there has to be a justification for an injunction against CURRENT terms and conditions and we are a lot further than we were before the case started. In fact, I would say that it is historic charges more than current charges that would cause an issue.

They have ignored all the terms regards dealing fairly with hardship cases whilst the waiver was in place with the FSA

They didn't, but a lot of people did not understand financial hardship, claimed for accounts that were closed, claimed financial hardship with no real grounds of success, rejected offers and a multiple of things. There were very few complainst against the actual waiver itself. It number less than 50 when the Hardship provision came in.

 

 

Is their not an argument here for the issue of denying us access to justice?

You are talking Human Rights act I think and the answer is no.

 

I am absolutely furious about this

 

 

Ditto with your last statement....

[Camdenite]

Totally off-topic and apologies if it's been posted previously:

 

[kennyh]

If we had another POC with reasonable content we can drown them in POC's and I'd lay money we'd be back to where we were with the banks capitulating and paying out left right and center

 

In an imperfect world I'll have some of that.

AND if there is a reimpostion of 'stays' will it be ditto for waivers?

[bornrich]

The reason why the banks paid out so readily was due to the fact they didn't want to disclose the actual cost of each transaction – bouncing a cheque, sending out a letter etc.

 

This time they will defend each case rigorously in court - I'm not sure if your average Joe or Josephine would be able to persuade a judge of a complex point of law especially when up against the defendant's solicitor.

 

Although another side of me would like to have a go. After 2 1/2 years I really would like my day in court.

[car2403]

The reason why the banks paid out so readily was due to the fact they didn't want to disclose the actual cost of each transaction – bouncing a cheque, sending out a letter etc.

 

This time they will defend each case rigorously in court - I'm not sure if your average Joe or Josephine would be able to persuade a judge of a complex point of law especially when up against the defendant's solicitor.

 

Although another side of me would like to have a go. After 2 1/2 years I really would like my day in court.

 

I'm not so sure. some of us have had 2.5 years to prepare

[car2403]

Latest updates

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum :

[paulwlton]

the blockbuster new approach is to challenge charges' fairness under the Consumer Credit Act.

 

Interesting.

[kennyh]

Although another side of me would like to have a go. After 2 1/2 years I really would like my day in court

Despite numerous 'wins' I've never been to court but at near 70 yrs I'm not about to run when someone says 'get out of town'.

[kennyh]

'Banky' et al have been surprisingly quiet during these developments-has CAG delegated all public utterances to ML?

Did the telephone conference take place?

Will Cindy run off with the milkman?

[yourbank]

'Banky' et al have been surprisingly quiet during these developments-has CAG delegated all public utterances to ML?

Did the telephone conference take place?

Will Cindy run off with the milkman?

 

pmsl !

[adamc6671]

'Banky' et al have been surprisingly quiet during these developments-has CAG delegated all public utterances to ML?

Did the telephone conference take place?

Will Cindy run off with the milkman?

 

Sadly, I have to agree with you, kennyh - there does seem to be very little constructive advice doing the rounds at present.

 

Whilst I do keep an eye on MSE, ML does set himself up to cover a vast ammount of ground in many and varied areas, and that inevitably leads to being a 'jack of all trades' rather than master of a few!

 

Some constructive advice from 'the powers that be' at CAG would, I am sure, be hugely appreciated by many.

 

For example, I have posted, on both my claim threads (Abbey and Lloyds) the fact that the final judgement in 'The Test Case' was issued by the Supreme Court on 17th November, and the Court in both my cases had, when staying my claims, ordered the banks to respond within 21 days of the final judgement, with a statement on how that affected the case. Neither bank has responded as ordered, and I asked for advice on how to proceed given that the banks were now in default of a court order.

 

I have recieved no advice, and I gather many are in the same situation with banks in default of a court order. I would have thought that a template letter for us to send to the courts, requesting the defence be struck out due to the default, and judgement awarded to the claimant, would have been a very constructive offering from CAG! Please, Site Team, see what you can come up with.

 

 

.

[locutus]

ML has much more media exposure, so ML positioning the situation as he's done this and he's done that, when really it is a group effort between all the sites that have banded together, is just to ad public awareness IMO. The fact that BF has been quiet is probably because he is so busy, not that he has nothing to say.

[kennyh]

I sincerely hope that is the case; certainly so far as ML is concerned I have absolutely NO doubt you are right.

[ncf355]

At the end of the announcment -

 

"The template letters and legal advice should be available within the next two weeks via www.MoneySavingExpert.com alongside the other free campaigning sites including the Consumer Action Group, Penalty Charges and Legal B eagles - who will be feeding into this process too"

 

This has me confused, because they were/are saying they are waiting to see if the OFT will take it on, but now its 2 weeks again?

 

Or is that left over from the original announcement?

 

For people that have a claim in already and are at risk of a strike out if they dont get a new POC in, this is getting dangerous

[yourbank]

That seems to be left over from the old announcement. Templates will most likely not be available within two weeks (unless the OFT say No and Counsel are confident with the arguments presented) . The OFT do not expect any announcement until near christmas or early January (source LB's meeting with them) and we should support them in that as they have to make the right decision.

 

I know LB are trying to get something from the MOJ on the overall position of the stays - the original information was it was down to each individual claimant, but without the OFTs announcement thats incredibly difficult.

 

If stay ends are coming up I would suggest a brief letter to the courts with claim reference and outline of your last stay order, and, apologies again for quoting LB, something like

 

''Following the recent judgment by the Supreme Court (25th November 2009) Case [2009] UKSC 6 (On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 116 ) it is extremely likely that further litigation will follow, either between the OFT and the defendant or otherwise to generally decide the issues. I therefore respectfully submit that it would be appropriate for the Court toapply/continue a general stay in this claim pending resolution of the issues raised.''

 

I do not consider it wise for anyone to be applying to lift any stay whilst decisions have not been made. The Banks, FSA, Government and OFT AND Courts are all in communication about the next steps, but this may not feed down to the individual judges as has been said previously, so it might be an idea to check the situation out at your individual courts, then go from there.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2009 by yourbank