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

[patrickq1]

to cover our costs

this is already in their seperate investigations hence no need at this time to bring up this subject / i think

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

through political persuasion is about the only way the banks could win imho

but again this will go to the law lords as it would be too simple for the judge to make a right decision

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

this wont happen for the simple fact is the goverment have already made a decision to remove the FOI ACT concerning NORTHERN ROCK and its data as being sensitive information,this will also effect the banks ALL BANKS from revealing sensitive information and since the GOVERMENT DECIDED TO CHANGE THE LAW this will set a precedent concerning the bank providing data in how they arrive at the charges,this has happened right under our noses and without so much as a whimper from joe public

 

imho

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

i wrote this to the oft before they began their actios still have not had a reply i wonder why

patrickq1

its probably a bit mixed up but i meant well lol

peabrain me as usual my rant to goverment bodies

absolutely scandalous i have now written to my MP and i am demanding an investigation into your department,your reply and threat of cost if a judicial enquiry is now open to questions you have verifiably made false statements on material matters you are being asked by more than 200,000 people and every one of them shall now be demanding a very serious enquiry into your departments conduct..it is like .you have not yet , not once told the banks to stop all unlawfull charges whilst the debts are in dispute...i beleive your department is full of ex finance directors and ex bank staff ex directors of banking departments .this being the case is also open to serious questions with regards to your loyalties is your thinking either lawful and truthfull or what ! this is open to question,

it is a scandal and threatening to say that all cost will be sought if a judicial enquiry is asked for,i for one shall be paying monies into a fighting fund for this reason alone,your department has already been found wanting and a case of mal administration will be instigated against you dept,i am so angry that you could not even be totally honest you have made Statements of interpretation of facts , what happened to TRANSPARENCEY with this case against the banks/finance,,this has also come from the PRIME MINISTER OFFICE ,even the THE RIGHT HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER BELEIVES THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR TRANSPARENCEY,you seem to have forgotten what this word means let alone it exists ,and as for your comment that you have been investigating the banks since may 2006 ,which banks was it a PIGGY BANK ,and why on earth have you not already hired a professional company to calculate the way bank charges are made,when considering a 18 year old university student came onto the consumer action group and worked out as best he could how the banks equate figures and you as a proffesional body have nt even done this and you are thinking of going to court..you are negligent in this also..your spin and ambigious remarks leave everyone to conclude that your department have and are negligent with the truth,your Directors and staff should all resign in the interest of JUSTICE .i am also writing to the UE COMMISSION and are going to demand that they make enquiries into your behaviour along with our suspicions with regards to your actions to date

[patrickq1]

GOVERMENT DECIDED TO CHANGE THE LAW

yes jon without legislation,well looks like the select committee are again coming back to this and also the transparancey they will from what i can gather be looking at more data from NORTHERN ROCK and just what was involved and the letters that the fsa knew about a crisis long before it hit the fan as did BoE and MR BROWN ,so he may have to face the select committee to explain this ,if it does happen it will be unprecedented,so i await the select commottee report on this ,as for banks i beleive they get the deciscion today as being the advance notice prommised so by this eve we may get to hear rumors but as we all know not to be beleived until we see it all in print and again their will be an appeal proccess so it aint over till the fat mamma sings

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

i hope so,then some un elected bod can get it stuffed up his a** NORTHERN ROCK should have been left to go bust ,and if one thing is for sure it would bring down this goverment and possibly cause a landslide throughout the banking industry as most of them are relying on the secret deals for finance from the BoE and they would have to come clean as it is no one has been transparent to date concerning figures all of this happened through creative accounting if you go back 5 years barclays have made in exces of 65bil yet they have no cash HALIFAX cannot even lend money on small loans upto 5 thou so it looks like halifax are sailing close to wind how many more,,,,,,

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

One of Britain's richest is 'suing' Prime Minister over EU Treaty - Telegraph

[patrickq1]

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks lose overdraft charges case

[patrickq1]

i do not think the banks will contest the decision,although they have been handed a lifeline as in the judge did nt think the charges were unfair,meaning the banks will do a deal to keep the 12 £ mark as their fair and balanced charges like the credit card..but as we all know they can be contested and the banks really do not favour court actions

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

But if the amount of the charge exceeds the liquidated ascertained damage it surely then becomes a penalty, but then again there's no contractual breach. Confused.PW..

also means then that if they would like to show TRANSPARENCEY AS TO COSTS ? seems this part of the OFT case was missing in the judgment or not clarified in the truest sense so what happened to this part

[patrickq1]

£12 is of course much too high, but thats the level thats now become the norm with credit card a/c's, and any level ultimatelly set for personal bank a/c's is very unlikely to be higher that this, IMO.

as i see it even the 12 pounds is a change in the origional contract and was never agreed nor nor offered the chance to negotiate this sum,this was a figure that was initially pulled out of the hat and was admited at the time even this is admited relatively high

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

is not the judgement flawed as the judge has not answered some of the charges put forward to him ,unless he is thinking of entering politics cause his judgement is like a politician answer to any questions asked

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

What happens now?

The OFT and the banks will need to review the judgment and decide if they want to appeal. Also, the court has so far only looked at the preliminary legal issues. It has not begun to consider more substantive issues around whether the charges are actually fair and/or lawful. For now, firms can continue to keep cases on hold under the terms of the FSA waiver (PDF).

[patrickq1]

a bit of serious legal help on this thread would really be apreciated desperate help required from tide and others

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/102075-un1boy-n1-issued-breach-21.html#post1500820

[patrickq1]

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE EU MANDATE ON UNFAIR PRACTICES

perhaps we should ask emm Margret Hodge or the oft no that wont help

perhaps we look in detail at the EU MANDATE and see the wording and if it has any relevance on all this especially when you consider the team that was bringing the case upon the banks cause they certainly pulled the wool over our eyes

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

sch 2. one of which is disproprtianiately high charge. So if someone has evidence that it cost them 2 pound then the oft amount will be invalidated. Because every case has to be dealt with individually surely the court will listen to each case.i seem to remember the DWP did a costings as to their data research and response to enquiries and it cost the approx .79 pence to use the automated data proccessing and 1,22 to use clerical services .....just a thought that 2.00 is an exceptionally and inacurate figure perhaps the use of the 2.00 figure is to include a fair profit margin in their eyes

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

It is not unreasonable that banks should make a reasonable profit

just to say a reasonable profit is fair and balanced,what is missing is the transparencey in how the banks arive at a 25/35 or 12 pounds figure (be that the figure that the FSA seems to think a fair min)in their eyes only, but really the FSA have had since April 2007 to come up with the true figures as promised through transparancey yet to date all this has been kept secret and we still are none the wiser ,Part of the problem here is that (in response to consumer demand it has to be remembered) routine services are provided free to those who remain in credit...i have yet to see free services ? by hook or by crook they will draw every last penny out of you given the scope to do so....i had a isa account with loydds and it came to an end mid last year now they tell me that because of losses they lost money on the isa account (bad investments) yet the same company boasted billions in profit ,luckily i got my money back and the loydds directors had a big fat bonus for doing so well,,i am still argueing with them over this but i know i wont get anywhere with it because their is no transparencey this is where things are wrong and if you think it cost more than £1.50 to auto procces a check and a letter then approx 40 % of that is profit enough would nt you not agree with that 35 and more is an ubuse and pure wanton greed and arrogance in my book and i have the most conservative veiws well i thought so until i see greed like when you watch gonden bolloks on tv i am so glad the really greedy ones dont get a penny lol

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

what is beyond doubt is the fact the judiciary is totally and uterlly independent of Government control.

this is doubtful very very doubtful when you have jack straw at the helm ,just look at dispatches /mobiles and margret hodge involvment this is something that the judiciary should pick up on and prosecute the ministers involved for manipulating price controls on a higher scale than should be allowed the EU had to warn the british goverment over this but nothing happened

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

if it does nt make the guartee could this be construed as libelous action

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

extortionate petrol is definately hitting people in the pocket

that could be controlled at the drop of a hat it is speculators who are buying vast quantities uknown faces it is a possibility opec and goverments might halt the speculation but they know india and china have a large hand in all this as well and everyone is afraid to rock their boats ? this is my opinion and it counts for nothing but who cares lol

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

perhaps we could call this breach of contract by dissemination methinks

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

The doctrine of the separation of powers is a complete farce and always had been.

 

Until the Judiciary are completely autonomous from the executive and legislature, we will see these injustices continue. That's the way it's meant to be, by the way.

 

With Lord Chief Justice "Whateverhisnameistheseda ys" calling the shots in the Judiciary, as well as taking his salary and policitical connotations from the Government, the little man in the street has no chance.

 

sad isnt it that a PRIME MINISTER WHO IS UNELLECTED BY THE PEOPLE who can put the country at risk who can endanger all of us and who has almost bankrupted us all should be allowed to make decision on our behalf without ellective rights we have all walked blindly into this situation without utterence....without voice thank god for CAG we have maybe perhaps a whimper but see what the people can do when we have good honest guidance thank you CAG and all who contribute wether finacial or written help it all counts

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

it makes theslightest difference as to how much it cost how long it takes,we are not dealing with honest bankers any more,we are dealing with b******s who take risks with other peoples money they are gamblers and not bankers city men with eyes for the big bucks ...time we had some common sense brought back into the banking industry ...

it really is upto the goverment to withdraw the deeds that they now control and brought transparency back into banking

[patrickq1]

indemnity fee issue what is that car .... i am getting close to the end of my MI and am thinkin i am some 15,000 short so i can see this being a big issue since i had no alternative but to take it not once but twice ?

i digress sorry guys

[patrickq1]

Two Labour peers face suspension

 

 

Four Labour peers met undercover reporters posing as lobbyists

 

Two Labour peers face suspension from Parliament for six months after being found guilty of misconduct. Ex-trade minister Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn were accused by the Sunday Times of being willing to change laws in exchange for cash.

The two men denied the allegations but they now face sanctions following a probe by a House of Lords Committee.

Labour's leader in the House of Lords had described the allegations against them as "very serious".

Parliamentary vote

The Lords Privileges Committee has recommended the two men be suspended from the House for up to six months after an investigation into allegations made against four Labour peers.

The final decision on their fate will rest with the House of Lords itself, which will vote on whether to exclude them - possibly as early as next week.

Two other Labour peers - the former minister Lord Moonie and Lord Snape - were cleared of wrongdoing, but invited to make apologies to the Lords for showing an "inappropriate attitude" to parliamentary rules banning paid advocacy.

The BBC's political correspondent Gillian Hargreaves said it was exceptionally rare for members of the Upper House to be suspended, the last case of its kind being in the 17th Century.

The Sunday Times alleged the two peers were prepared to change proposed legislation while it was passing through the Lords in return for money - which would have been in clear breach of parliamentary rules.

These rules state that peers should not seek to influence legislation in return for money.

The Sunday Times released details of secretly recorded conversations Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor had with their reporters in which they discussed what help they might give them and how parliamentary procedure worked.

The two men maintained they had never discussed taking money in return for tabling amendments to legislation.

Baroness Royall, Labour leader in the Lords, vowed to get to the bottom of the allegations, the latest in a series of recent scandals to have damaged the integrity of Parliament.

The police decided not to mount a criminal investigation into the case earlier this year, citing the difficulty of obtaining evidence among other factors.

 

Are you thinking what I'm thinking ?

being willing to change laws in exchange for cash. all this for EXPERIUM AND THE CHANGES TO THE DATA PROTECTION ITS A SCANDAL ISNT IT when no one has questioned the companies involved ?