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

[means2anend]

will this be it ? M2A

 

http://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/static/documents/PPL_v_The_British_Hospitality_Association_Judgement_2008.pdf

 

 

 

Thanks Rdm2006...it is

 

 

 

rgds

 

 

m2ae:)

[srfrench]

By jove the boys got it!

[sallysas]

Are we all still waiting for revised POC then? Any developments expected before Easter?

[Camdenite]

Are we all still waiting for revised POC then? Any developments expected before Easter?

 

Hoping, rather than waiting, I would say.

[sallysas]

Yeah, done some reading since my last posting. Rather glad I hadn't got round to paying my fee - claim is currently £20000.00 with compound interest and back to the early '90s. Better forget it then as I can't afford their costs should I lose.

 

Don't forget to sigh the No 10 petition.

[fergal71]

what next ???? no new poc's what are we waiting for consumer no action group

[hilaryfrances]

what next ???? no new poc's what are we waiting for consumer no action group

 

 

Its no good getting bitter if a legal challenge is not available then one cannot be whipped up out of nowhere, I am sure that the legal peeps are doing their best

[kennyh]

Advice that mass template input is unlikely to yield results has already been given. If you know better Fergal, best you share with us.

[Rhia]

My understanding is that there can be no one template fits all and any claims made under s5 of the UTCCR in conjunction with 140 of the CCA have to be personalised. You have to provide evidence of how these charges put you in an unfair posiition/relationship.

 

It's very tricky and I know various forums are working behind the scenes not perhaps so much on a template but a strategy. However it is clear that any actions will need to be carefully presented.

[fergal71]

I am extremely bitter at the amount of time wasted discussing this conspiracy.... direct action is needed I feel not further discussion.... they lost 2 cases, supreme overruled then supreme say will not solve all cases and another legal route should be taken... the oft stop and millions are lft in limbo... try and convince me this is not a conspiracy.... we are being taken for a ride and only concerted direct action will do anything to change the MP position on this disgrace...

[jdes26]

here here fergal..................... ur right mate. we need a new angle to this disgracefull situation

[emandcole]

Share the frustrations on here but we must remember that the repurcussions for either side (banks v us lot) are vast and amount to billions. As such there is no way a new legal strategy can be created in a relatively short amount of time and if it was just 'knocked up' quickly it would be little short of reckless.

 

The fact that any successful argument for P of C's also has to be centred around the individual and how the banking relationship has resulted in an imbalance also has to be factored in and that makes any mass template kind of redundant to some extent.

 

It is not as simple as having a moan about the situation and expecting a well structured and fully considered generic argument to drop into our laps, as I'm sure we'd all understand. Patience is therefore essential and I am sure from my own research and understanding, garnished by the thoughts and opinions of others I've read that there is indeed a way forward.

 

In essence, good things come to those who wait.

[rdm2006]

In essence, good things come to those who wait.

 

Other than that

 

Patience is a virtue

[georgieboy]

Hear hear - waited this long, the wheels of justice turn ever so slowly (at least they do here in the UK). ..............

[kennyh]

I've been searching (without success) for the reference made, shortly after the OFT fiasco, to the opposition QC who offered ( and I'm no doubt quoting wildly) 'NO! existing bank charges are NOT fair'.

Any navigational assistance would be greatly appreciated.

[kennyh]

I've to submit my revised N1 wording by next Thursday and have, in common with the rest of you, looked at the GLC suggestion on the subject and very helpful it appears. However, despite references to 'cross subsidies' I have not seen any reference to UTCCR 1999 sect 5-

(1) 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.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

C'mon folks what am I missing here?

[emandcole]

Simplistically I don't believe any of us are missing anything! Those terms are perfectly clear and concise and I don't see how the bank can argue otherwise.

 

1) The significant imbalance would represent the charges which interestingly supports point 2 detailing how this imbalance/charge also has not been individually negotiated. They tie up very nicely. Importantly the words 'to the detriment of the consumer' are perhaps critical and place the onus of proof on the bank to dispel your 'accusation' that the relationship is indeed unfair or inbalanced in some way. The level of inbalance is perhaps open to interpretation, is a percentage for example an ample test?

 

2) As supported and referenced by point 1 the fact that these costs are drafted before any relationship is created denies you any opportunity to negotiate and/or influence that term.

 

It all appears to be pretty straight forward.

 

However, I think more needs to be made of the vital and critical fact that it is practically impossible for any individual to live a productive and inclusive life in everyday society without having the use and access to a banking account, even one offering the most basic of functions. This is a system imposed and engineered by the banking corporations and to my mind is a monopoly of resources and access to those resources.

 

Indeed, without being privy to a club that is becoming ever more exclusive due to vetting by capital generating private credit reference agencies and the reliance of every commercial venture you are ever likely to need a consumer has little choice but to enter into an agreement with the providers who quite simply hold the key to the most basic of everyday necessity.

 

If this doesn't pass as an inbalance in the strictest of terms I fail to see what does. When you add in the commonly acknowledged fact that the poor subsidise the banking of the more able, which the banks perpetuate as 'free banking' for those same customers the picture to my mind is complete.

 

At least with Microsoft you didn't need a copy of a Windows Operating System in order to access your wages or get hold of your money on pay day. We all know what happened to Microsoft but somehow the banks are different?

 

As ever, comments welcomed .

[fergal71]

patience may be a virtue but as the stay is lifted , millions of pounds are falling off the 6 year rule.... each month the banks save millions ...

[rdm2006]

patience may be a virtue but as the stay is lifted , millions of pounds are falling off the 6 year rule.... each month the banks save millions ...

 

Everyone should SAR the banks to get the info now then this will not happen.

 

In the original arguments before the test case it was said that you could argue against the 6 year rule as you were deceived into believing that these charges were lawful if i remember correctly the 6 year rule does not apply to acts of deception.

 

So SAR your banks NOW for statements that way you can go as far back as you have statements for. :D

 

 

I am sure someone will correct me if that is wrong or no longer an argument

Edited February 18, 2010 by rdm2006

[kennyh]

the 6 year rule does not apply to acts of deception

or 'concealment'

[Rhia]

Or a mistake which is where most of our claims come in we were mistaken in believing we had to pay for them.

[Undercover-Elsa]

A chink of light in this long tunnel?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html

[rdm2006]

Yes ............ fighting back again you will like this one fergal

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html

[fergal71]

I really do like this one I have already sent govan letters and had same replies as previously stated.... I will be watching very closely indeed....

I really hope it works and charges are refunded without challenge back to when accounts were actually open and all future charges become unlawful.....

But call me a pessimist what are the chances bearing everything that has already happened,,,,, I will be happy to eat my hat if they prove to be successful......

[rdm2006]

I really do like this one I have already sent govan letters and had same replies as previously stated.... I will be watching very closely indeed....

I really hope it works and charges are refunded without challenge back to when accounts were actually open and all future charges become unlawful.....

But call me a pessimist what are the chances bearing everything that has already happened,,,,, I will be happy to eat my hat if they prove to be successful......

 

 

Get the salt and pepper ready I have a good feeling on this one