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

[Docman]

I agree fully JonCris. If there is an item in the Queen's Speech announcing a new Financial Services Bill, it will take several months to get to a Bill stage. And then the banks and their cronies will start lobbying to neuter any effect on them, draging out the Parliamentary process until May 2010. What happens then? Well, we have a general election, so all Bills not actually passed into law get dropped. Bye, bye Financial Services Bill.

 

If the Tories get into power, they will have other issues to address, so hitting back at the banks will disappear of the radar. And if Labour get back in (remember politicians think porkers can fly..), then Mr B and his Darling will get amensia about the banks.

[Docman]

Which means the OFT and the Banks will be getting their copies of the judgment today. Watch out for Angela Knight of the BBA popping up on TV on any pretext - if she is smiling like a Cheshire cat, the Bnaks will have won. If she is nowhere to be seen and the Bank Fat Cats have disappeared, they will have lost. Could be an interesting weekend of speculation.

[Docman]

And there it is: The less well-off must subsidise the better-off by paying charges so that the illusion of free banking remains.

 

Your business fails, your spouse abandons you, you lose your job, you get conned, you fall on hard time for whatever reasons? Tough titty.

[/left]

 

Bookworm

 

This sums it all up.

 

There are several pages of posts now which will take me hours to read but I thinnk this is the real reason for the decision. The court opened its introduction by stating "the court did not have the task of deciding whethre or not the system of charging current account customers was fair" (Lord Walker paragraph 3). How could it then go onto Lord Philipps comments. It is totally illogical and stinks of higher intervention. The reality is that when the test case started, the banks had set aside £1 billiion in six months with estimates that the full cost of refunding charges could be £10 - 15 billion. Over the last 18 months whilst this case has rumbled on, the banks has lost billions that the taxpayer has had to fund. I think the politicians have decided that the banks couldn't afford to pay. It would be the straw that broke the bank's back.

 

Going forward, I am going to do three things

 

1. Read the full judgment over the weekend - I'm too gutted to do so right now.

2. Continue using the 'no overdraft' account I have with Halifax and then move to a European bank which don't rip customers off as soon as I can. No more UK banks for me.

3. Carry on defending the court cases on the basis of the CCA provisons. Since the banks have messd up their documentation on my credit cards, they probably have messed up the paperwork for my current account overdrafts. Two banks have added the cheque account deficits to the credit card claims. Whilst they may now be able to claim the charges, they still have to produce the paperwork. Three years ago I wouldn't have had a clue what to ask for. Due to this delay, I have had the time and the advice from CAG to now know what to ask for and boy, am I going to make them prove their claim to the full extent of the law - the laughing stock that it now is!!

[Docman]

I don't think a defendant is ever in a position to ask the courts to dismiss every case against them on mass. Claims can only be dismissed if the judge is satisfied that the claim is totally without merit, and he can only do that by looking at each claim individually.

 

Ok, if we accept the Supreme Court judges can't be bought or otherwise unduly influenced (and I admit I haven't read though the full judgment yet), what happens if defendants to the banks claims or claimants seeking refunding of charges all decide to object to the wholesale action that lloyds say they will ask for. Wouldn't that block up the court system as well?

[Docman]

Well I've had time to calm down and to look at the judgment. I've also read a number of fantastic comments among the many posts. My take on this is that the court claim was a 'put up' job from day 1 - and actually the only judge who has stood out for the consumer is Lord Philips in the Supreme Court! And I wouldn't have said that on Wednesday!

Consider the time lines.

1. From 2005/06, more and more claims against the banks for overdraft charges. Banks claim it is not economic the defend any one claim, so refund charges at last minute to avoid any case going against them.

2. On one Thursday evening in July 2007, press announcement that the OFT is to challenge the banks. Court proceedings start next morning and FSA issue waiver and FOS puts complaints on hold at same time.

3. The banks start to report six monthly financial accounts from following Monday. Within three days, accounts show that collectively banks have paid out £1 BILLION in claims. The argument that it is not economic to defend is shot to pieces.

4. The only organisation to receive the financial accounts of ALL the banks prior to publications is the FSA. They arranged the deal between the banks, the OFT and FOS, no doubt with the active encouragement of the government.

5. County courts start to stay any claims that are on going even though no official stay issued by the Maser of the Rolls.

6. Court case winds on for 2 and a half years as many predicted during which time banks can charge fees and ‘save up to refund charges’ if they loose.

7. OFT don’t even bring the ‘common law’ argument in the High Court, so it gets thrown out.

8. Court of Appeal agrees that OFT does have the right but banks appeal to HOL (Supreme Court on very narrow technicality.

9. Supreme Court judgment points out that only asked by OFT & Banks to rule on one narrow area and that the OFT had the case on the wrong regulation and should have used Regulation 5, so why didn’t everyone use that as there is no defence for the banks.

10. Banks, OFT, FSA, FOS get draft judgment early and have a week to get there spin machines up and running for Wednesday. RESULT, media and the great British public fall for it all, hook line and sinker.

My conclusion is that this was a carve up job initiated by the Treasury and orchestrated by the FSA. As we saw last year, the banks think they are above the law ad that they can get away with anything.

I’ve also just listened to the Moneybox interview with the bankers’ mouthpiece, dear Angela. And just like the ex-Tory politician and ex-Treasury minister that she is, she avoided the question about Regulation 5. The banks know they are stuffed with the Supreme Court itself hinting that Regulation 5 is the way, hence Lloyds trying to get all cases struck out when the official line from the BBA is that ‘we will work with the FSA’. It is clear that this isn’t the end, despite the banks hoping it was.

[Docman]

If the Banks had taken one case to court when the campaign started, they may have won quickly and hardly anyone else would then have claimed. Consumers would have taken the usual British action of total inertia ad accepted that they had to pay these charges. Now, the campaign has energised consumers not just against bank charges but other forms of excesss by the banks. With the power of the internet, consumers wll also have the tools to take on the banks and win.

 

The OFT decision is no surprise. All three consumer champions (OFT, FSA & FOS) have ignored their remit and arranged matters for the banks. The OFT's action of restricting their action to one narrow area was irresponsible and the Supreme Court went as far as it could in pointing them in the right direction.

 

The organisation's climb down is predicatable. Just go back to July 2007. The banks had been paying out at the door of the court, arguing that it wasn't commercially sensible to defend one action. Only when the extent of their collective pay outs (£1 BILLION) was about to become known with the publication of the banks financial statements, did action happen. The OFT, the banks and the FOS all lined up as instructed by the FSA, made the announcement of the court action on Thursday evening along with the waiver from the FSA and roll over by FOS. On Friday morning the court actio started. Over the following wk the banks announced thier individual financial results showing the amount of thir cooective largesse. Their argument that it was not commeially sensible to defend a claim was laid bare.

 

Why the FSA? Well, as well as a consumer chapion role, one of its statutory objectives is to protect the financial markets,ie the banks. It was the ONLY organisation which would have had advanced knowledge of the collective position of the banks from their financial accounts.

 

Well, what now. I for one am of the view that whole lot of them (OFT, FSA & FOS) are no longer fit for purpose and should be scrapped. Consumers can take on the banks and win. WE DO NOT NEED THE FSA, OFT & FOS!!

[Docman]

As Bill Paxman says in the film of the same name,

 

TODAY IS OUR 'INDEPENDENCE DAY'

[Docman]

I'm very much in the conspiracy camp.

 

The only organisation that legally would have seen ALL the banks financial statements before they were released to the Stock Exchange wold have been the FSA. The banks would not have known its other figures and certainly the OFT would not have known. If you recall, the court case was announced on the Thursday evening and the application lodged with the court on Friday morning. At the same time (Thursday evening) the FSA announced irs waiver and FOS announced the hold on complaints.

 

The following Monday morning HSBC announced its results followed by the othre banks during that week By the end of the week, we all new hat the banks had paid out £700 million and that any argument that it was not worth their while to defend an individual case would have been shown to be hollow.

 

I don't believe the OFT was meant itself to win either, but win it did in spite of its own failings until it got to the Supreme Court. Even there, whilst the judges had to allow the point on the very narrow area the OFT had chosen to fight on, Lord Philips pointed the way to Reg 5 as clearly as a judge could do in the circumstances.