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

[kennyh]

Only for a renewed onslaught for bank charges - if I can; else I might have to 'cobble together' some less than perfect ones to get things moving. So far as DCAs, Cr Cards and ppi are concerned, the existing resources seem to work a treat.

Be lucky mate.

And, don't forget to start your own thread on the subject.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kennyh
forgot last line

[Dougal16T]

So (as mentioned in #4606 above) it's looking increasingly like a dual-pronged attack using UTCCR1999 Reg 5 coupled with, where-ever possible, Section 140 a-d of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974?

So far as the Natwest anomoly is concerned, again whereever possible, do we formulate a fresh claim for the period in question (with, presumeably, good odds of success if the t&cs for the limited period were found wanting by justice)

I would still wish to await any revised information but times is 'agettin' tight.

 

Evening all

 

It is the CCA 2006 you need.

 

Hope this helps

 

Best wishes everyone

 

Dougal

[JGJ]

Dougal 16T,

 

Compliments of the season, keep watching and listening.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[srfrench]

s.140A

[srfrench]

Correct in stating that it's the 2006 act now but the main act was in 1974 and the 2006 one is merely an amendment to the original 1974 one.

 

There have been many amendments over the years, but the act remains on the whole (esp our argument) the same!

 

[kennyh]

Dougle & srf - many thanks

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

Whilst I agree that the 2006 Act is based on the 1974 Act, the 2006 Act introduced the legislative method of dealing with the unfair lender and the practices by such lenders - with Sec 140. This, is at present largely untested, but I think (in my humble opinion) that in the course of time it will eradicate a large number of sub-prime lenders - hopefully!

 

This Section of the Act has firmly placed the onus on the lender to prove that their methods were not unfair AND has removed that burden from the borrower!

 

I wonder if a new phrase of 'caveat curo' might be in the pipeline? !!

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[kennyh]

HSBC- claim now £8858.27 'SHOCK NEWS 14TH OCT 2009 - HSBC BREACH COURT ORDER - ACTION PENDING JAN 2010.

 

This I gotta see!

[Dougal16T]

Thanks for the thought,

 

My advice is don't hold your breath....this is going to drag along for some time!

 

Basically I have an Order of a Circuit Judge specifically banning the bank from chasing me in any manner for any debt with the bank, until my case is heard following the SCJ.

 

However, as the Bank breached that Order prior to the SCJ, so it is now a case that there has been a breach of an Order of the Court, and that breach resulted in distress, depression and much difficulty for me, so damages for the breach will be sought.

 

I cannot provide much more information at present, but let me just say that a leading QC was instructed to examine the case and a very prominent barrister is currently dealing with this!

 

Regards to all

 

Dougal

Edited January 21, 2010 by Dougal16T
Poor grammar again.........!!!

[kennyh]

Blimey!

[the_shadow]

Thanks for the thought,

 

My advice is don't hold your breath....this is going to drag along for some time!

 

Basically I have an Order of a Circuit Judge specifically banning the bank from chasing me in any manner for any debt with the bank, until my case is heard following the SCJ.

 

However, as the Bank breached that Order prior to the SCJ, so it is now a case that there has been a breach of an Order of the Court, and that breach resulted in distress, depression and much difficulty for me, so damages for the breach will be sought.

 

I cannot provide much more information at present, but let me just say that a leading QC was instructed to examine the case and a very prominent barrister is currently dealing with this!

 

Regards to all

 

Dougal

 

I just spent 30 mins reading your thread... you certainly dont take any prisoners.. much respect!

 

Good luck with your case.

 

S.

[srfrench]

WOW!......good luck Dougie.....make sure you leave them with no nuts!!

[means2anend]

Here here Dougal!!!

 

 

 

M2ae

[means2anend]

Correct in stating that it's the 2006 act now but the main act was in 1974 and the 2006 one is merely an amendment to the original 1974 one.

 

There have been many amendments over the years, but the act remains on the whole (esp our argument) the same!

 

 

Correct!!!

 

The main regulating Act for Agreements made before 2006 and and subject to those agreements still 'having a sum that is or will or may become payable' before,during and still continuing to be the case after 2006, will be positively affected by s.19 CCA 2006 OR S140A as incorporated into the !(1974 ACT).

 

S.140 CCA 1974 dealt with 'extortionate bargains' and was used to interpreted s.137-139 which have been repealed.

 

It was thought that this test was too high a threshold for the consumer to overcome and is now replaced by the unfair relationship test which has a lower threshold and in addition REVERSES THE BURDEN OF PROOF

 

New agreements made after 2006 will rarely fall foul of this test as Creditors Draftsmen shall have taken into account the newer provisions and made sure that the agreements are fairer.

 

It is the older agreements that will be more contentious.But this is more within the context of Consumer Credit Agreements and apart from the use of s140A which may be of relevance to Bank Charges and The New Argument

[IainHL]

Well, by my reckoning today is 8 weeks since the Supreme Court handed down its judgement, and the FSA lifted the waiver. I guess by now most (all?) of will have received our nar-nar we won, you're not getting your money back letters from the banks.

 

Someone, somewhere put up this link to the Govan Law Centre article: Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges: free help to amend existing complaint letters. Personally I think this is a very good letter, and unless anyone can give me good reasons why they think it is a _very_bad_idea_ I intend to send an edited version of it to each of the six claims my partner and I have against three different banks. (The edits will be to head it as a Letter Before Action, to include an indictment about the banks' interpretation of the SC judgement, and a suitable personal section as indicated, and to give them 14 days to pay up.)

 

The MSE newletter this week indicated that the new templates had been delayed (again!), but should be available in a couple of weeks. Therefore, hopefully by the time the 14 days are up the appropriate new templates will be available.

[IainHL]

Further to my post above, can someone tell me if there are rules about which County Court I must use for my claims? I ask since I can reasonably easily access at least four different courts near where I live, and had thought of filing the claims in different courts, firstly so they would take differing streams through the court system, so they can't end up being lumped together, and to maximise my chances in the judge lottery.

 

I should have added to my post above that I would hope lots of people follow this course of action. I am hoping (this time) to be near the front of a tidal wave of action that the banks have difficulty in dealing with and getting my payout before another stitch-up comes along.

[yourbank]

Well, by my reckoning today is 8 weeks since the Supreme Court handed down its judgement, and the FSA lifted the waiver. I guess by now most (all?) of will have received our nar-nar we won, you're not getting your money back letters from the banks.

 

Someone, somewhere put up this link to the Govan Law Centre article: Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges: free help to amend existing complaint letters. Personally I think this is a very good letter, and unless anyone can give me good reasons why they think it is a _very_bad_idea_ I intend to send an edited version of it to each of the six claims my partner and I have against three different banks. (The edits will be to head it as a Letter Before Action, to include an indictment about the banks' interpretation of the SC judgement, and a suitable personal section as indicated, and to give them 14 days to pay up.)

 

The MSE newletter this week indicated that the new templates had been delayed (again!), but should be available in a couple of weeks. Therefore, hopefully by the time the 14 days are up the appropriate new templates will be available.

 

I would say as well that Martin Lewis has already stated that whilst he has seen the Govan Law Centre templates, that they are applicable to Scotland only.

[Camdenite]

Well, by my reckoning today is 8 weeks since the Supreme Court handed down its judgement, and the FSA lifted the waiver. I guess by now most (all?) of will have received our nar-nar we won, you're not getting your money back letters from the banks.

 

No, not a peep out of Abbey. They're probably too busy sitting in focus groups discussing how the name change has gone

 

Has anyone else heard from them? Two months is up tomorrow (isn't it?) and like many I could really do with being shown the way forward.

 

I saw on the penaltycharges site that there was a template up to argue against a strike out, but nothing else yet. I can't see that template on CAG. and wondered if all the consumer groups are still acting together on this?

[rdm2006]

I would like to ask peoples veiws on this.

 

Long story i will not go into detail with but bank failed to pay out on a Mortgage Payment Protection for 12 months amounting to over £5,000 (now sorted) during this time they made charges to the tune of £1,270 (now refunded).

They offered £100 compensation which was refused. I basically sent a letter saying that if it was worth £1,270 when they thought it was my "indescretion" then why is it not worth that amount when it was found to be theirs. Had letter confirming £100 only, which was refused. A complaint was made to FOS who sided with the bank (Surprise).

 

The bank are in the process of repossession and i expressed in court my concerns regarding unlawful charges had made a conribution to this predicamant and the level of amount owed due to remortgaging.

 

As far as i know nothing is being done about this - should i ask the court to assess these charges for fairness under EC directive 93/13.

 

Would the fact that i had requested the same level of recompense that the bank had charged and been refused imply that these charges cause an imbalance between bank and consumer ?

 

Veiws please (good or bad)

[IainHL]

I would say as well that Martin Lewis has already stated that whilst he has seen the Govan Law Centre templates, that they are applicable to Scotland only.

yourbank, I don't see why the letter on the GLC site should only be applicable in Scotland, can you elaborate please? It makes reference to UTCCR1999 and CCA1974 (as amended), and both those statutes are applicable across the UK (certainly in England and Wales).

 

Also, if their letter was only applicable in Scotland why would they have links to finding legal resources throughout the UK?

Use the following links to locate free help from a local advice agency in the following locations: glasgow; scotland; england & wales; northern ireland; ireland

 

[yourbank]

I think the England versions will use additional arguments not available in Scotland but no otherwise I can't see why it shouldnt be ok for England, I was only stating what Martin said himself. I'd hope CAG will step up and advise people at some point anyway.

 

Mike Dailly from Govan Law is the instructing solicitor for MSE / Raymond Cox QC

Edited January 22, 2010 by yourbank

[royboy68]

From the GLC

(b) at no time did my bank ever inform or adequately explain to me, that I would be paying bank charges in order to cross-subsidise the costs of providing the vast bulk of their customers with ‘free if in credit banking’

 

Surely this could be worded even further to point out that The banks deliberately evaded this point by stating on charges letters and other documents that the charges were to cover the costs of completing the transactions plus the numerous other excuses that they used, both to the parliament select committee and the various parts of the test case. It was only in the final stages that the cross subsidy issue became so prominent.

[speedtrip]

Hi everybody.

 

This is all starting to get a little complicated and i to get on top of things now as "the bank" have written to me.

 

Quote:

 

"These legal proceedings came to a conclusion on 25/11/09 when the supreme court decided that as long as they are clearly set out the level of unplanned overdradft charges cannot be assessed for fairness under consumer fairness legislation known as UTCC."

 

"We understand your complaint is that the charges we made are penalties and/or unfair because you believe they are too high. The outcome of the legal proceedings means that the bank charges youve complained about are not penalties and the SC has also decided that the consumer fairness legislation means that the level of charge is not a reason for finding them to be unfair"

 

Complaint not upheld go to FOS etc

 

Now my case was stayed pending OFT case and i applied for open extension b4 xmas to give me time to take in the outcome from OFT and varous pressure group but nothing from court yet (i have receipt).

 

I will probably complain to the FOS to buy myself some more time and to also express my dissapointment in the so called Consumer Protection Champions.

 

My position is my o/s o/d contains 30/40% of bank charges plus interest from date of stay until now and as currently unemployed no means to negotiate.

 

I am going to try and put something together "in preparation" for later but if anyboys already got an argument already outlined that be very helpful.

 

Regards

 

ST

[kennyh]

Hi Speedtrip,

If you haven't already, I would strongly suggest you start your own thread.

Other than that patience is the name of the game and don't be overly hard on "Consumer Protection Champions" since the SCOJ decision was a body blow to them also (and, being human - like so many of us- they too have 'fish to fry')and the recovery is taking a little longer than anyone, outside the banks, would wish.

If your transcription of your bank letter is accurate

level of unplanned overdradft charges cannot be assessed for fairness under consumer fairness legislation known as UTCC."

then I should compliment them on their accuracy (lol) and proceed to p*** on their chips by perhaps (if you become that time critical) embarking on a rejoinder spiced by GLC - see earlier posts. Edited January 22, 2010 by kennyh
missed a bit

[The Phantom]

Are the amended POCs available yet ?

Have received new directions from my local court today regarding my stayed claim. I have been given permission to lift the stay without paying the subscribed fee, but need to provide amended POCs by the 04.02. with a skeleton argument why the claim should now proceed, bank has got until 18.02 to respond and they have set a hearing date for 29.03.10 !!

 

My thread can be found here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/238578-phantom-hsbc-after-judgement-new-post.html

 

 

Help .... (whimper)