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

[photoman]

given the current financial crisis affecting banks they certainly do not want us to win & will appeal against a win for the people!

 

imagine them paying billions to the people that put them where they are today - it will kill some banks - hopefully HBOS!

 

 

Actually, I believe it would be good for the economy.

 

By paying back what they have taken from customers, this introduces fresh cash into the economy, which results in increased spending and economic growth.

Also it would create a fall in the demand for consumers to borrow, which would then result in lower interest rates.

 

Also, the amounts in question may appear enormous to us, but are actually only a tiny % of the banks assets.

By my own calculations. If the banks are made to repay the estimated £4.5 billion per annum they've taken, and are made to do so to everyone for all of the last 6 years, then at the very most this would be a combined £27billion (not accounting for the untraceable/deceased etc).

This would be less than 1% of their combined assets.

Plus, do remember, that unless every single recipient decides to cash their cheque and bung the money under their mattress, we do have to keep the money somewhere.

 

ie; a bank !! :o

 

So ultimately, it's swings and roundabouts for all of them.

Perhaps some banks will have to pay out more, and others less.

Those who've been naughtiest will suffer most, but even then it will only be a tiny % of their assets.

 

And then, ultimately it all just ends up back in one bank or anothers' coffers anyhow.

[photoman]

You dont want this to happen...if banks started to fall over the people who will be affected the most will be the small people! With banks falling over and other banks not lending money to each other then no one will be offering mortgages OR only offering mortgages to the rich, which in turn means property owners lose out (again, the most affected will be the small people), people will lose jobs...and unlike what Photoman is saying, money will be sucked out of the economy, not invested in to it!

 

Banks falling over, no matter how satisfying personally this may be...would be a very bad thing for the economy.

 

Mailman

 

Mailmnz

 

You misunderstood me, and have predicted the other extreme.

 

The banks paying a reasonable chunk of money out to consumers, and thus back into the economy I still maintain would be a good thing.

The other extreme, of banks paying out so much that they themselves start to crumble, or it causes mass economic uncertainty, is I agree, a bad thing.

 

With the way things are at the moment, the vast reserves that the banks have are held by a small minority of corporations or individuals, who either have it in offshore investments, or just sat idle. On top of this the banks are also syphoning off large sums to their foreign owners and investors (eg HBSC, Santander etc).

Thus money is being withheld or removed from the economy.

Money put back into the hands of the consumers would put cash into the economy, and would generate spending and growth.

Of course, above a certain level, there is a danger of it then transforming from growth and into inflation, and spiralling out of control, which would be unwanted, and is why it needs to be a moderate amount.

We all know, that really there is enough legislation and case law etc to make it obvious what the just, lawful and proper outcome should really be.

That by rights, if the law is allowed to follow it's proper just course, to the letter of the law, then all money ever taken from everyone ever, should be refunded without question and also without the need to ask.

We know this, the Banks know this, the OFT know this, and the government know this, but the overriding economic implications, would prompt the government to step in and prevent this from just happening.

However such intervention cannot be seen to be overtly obvious or it would completely dissolve peoples faith in the law. So they really are between a rock and a hard place.

[photoman]

A bit off topic here.... but as this thread is probably being eagerly watched by many waiting to start claims, probably a good place to mention it.

 

I just wanted to say that I've just clicked on and taken a look at the Interest Tutorial document in Steven4064' s signature, and was very impressed (great work Steven)

 

For anyone who is confused or needs help with all the various aspects of interest; ie. figuring out what is meant by and how to calculate interest debited due to charges, statutory interest, contractual interest, APR, EAR, simple and compound interest etc, and so therefore what interest you can claim back, how to calculate it, and then what you yourself can charge etc then I encourage you to click on it and take a look.

It's a good easy to understand guide, and will save you lots of time searching, posting and also save you from getting frustrated or confused by receiving conflicting or confusing advise from other (well meaning) CAG members (or no replies at all).

 

It'll also save mods and site helpers etc from posting up the same answers repeatedly.

 

So to anyone seeking enlightenment, and who just thought that peoples signatures were just pretty flashy adornments, think again, and do click.

[photoman]

On one of the press sites regards this imminent announcement, it was once more cited that if matters eventually go against the Banks, it could perhaps lead to the end of "free" banking for customers in credit.

 

It is sickening to think that everything that has happened over the last few years could possibly herald in what the Banks have secretly wanted for years. And worst still, if so, they will then distort the truth, and try to justify it to its' customers by placing all the blame with those who stood up against them.

 

We're all used to paying for most services we use in life; say posting a letter or making a phone call, but such companies do not also benefit from receiving ALL our annual income, to simply do with as they please (often at great risk, which has been highlighted all too often), and to also demand a period of notice before they hand it back. They then have it at their pleasure to loan out to others at high rates of interest, to speculate with on currencies and markets, or to use to buy up other companies, all to vastly increase their own profits.

 

In return we receive nothing, or at best a very tiny proportion of all this.

 

So, if the Banks do eventually introduce fees, then:

Firstly, it should be on an itemised basis, and reflect the true spread out cost of each service. Not some arbitary blanket monthly rate. After all, I don't pay the post office each month on the off chance that I may or may not decide to post some letters that month.

And, secondly, those depositors whose accounts are in credit should simultaneously be treated as what they truly are, which is in effect investors, and receive proper rates of interest more reflective of the profits their entrusted investments have realised.

19% - 29% to borrow from them (on every single penny, calculated daily), but 0% - 6.5% to lend them OUR money (provided we give them at least say £1000 a month, don't withdraw over a certain amount of it, are often expected to commit to leave it in for a year or receive a penalty, and even then any % is capped and sharply falls at a certain level). An income to cost ratio, and terms unparalleled in any other business.

 

So, the whole current banking crisis and need for a £50billion bail out has come about because Banks are unwilling to lend to each other ?

 

Hell, I don't blame them, I'd prefer not to lend to them either !!

[photoman]

the Judge has agreed that the charges do come under UCTRR, but they are not penalties. Business claims do not come under UCTRR.

 

Crusher,

 

Yes I too was a bit surprised at the following statement:

 

"As for the position at common law, I accept the Banks’ submission that none of the terms which I have considered (the terms now generally used by the Banks for personal current accounts other than basic accounts and also certain of the terms used until recently by Clydesdale and RBSG) could be unenforceable on the grounds that they are penal (paragraph 323 above)."

 

However, I do not see this as being the end for Business claims at Common law (or indeed those with personal accounts set up pre UTCR99):

 

Firstly, this is only the judges opinion, and I do not believe it sets any precedent. I think such issues would still need to be decided separately.

Secondly, this view only refers to "personal" accounts, and does not cite anything regards other type of (such as Business) accounts.

Thirdly apart from some Clydesdale and RBSG terms, this view is only taken with regards current terms (and even then only personal account terms), and ignores historical terms.

Lastly, it is also somewhat curios that during the period of the stays many Business claimants had stays lifted, due to their contention that their claims were not subject to the outcome of this case, and were instead based upon common law. In most circumstances they then quite quickly received offers and full refunds (often for very large sums).

This would all indicate that the Banks are really not very confident about winning a case brought upon the grounds of common law, particularly one with regards historical terms.

This is why they they all so swiftly changed their T&C's prior to having them subjected to the scrutiny of this case.

 

PM

[photoman]

Was this test case purely focused on personal accounts ?

 

Tumble

 

Yes, but even then at this stage it was only concerned with whether or not the terms could be liable to be subjected to scrutiny under the UTCCR99.

 

I think I agree with jonchris here, in that so far this has been a monumental waste of time and money.

 

Before the case even began It was blatently obvious that the terms should be subject to the UTCCR (err... duh......they're terms in a consumer contract, that's the whole point of the UTCCR). Any decision otherwise would have simply been to say that the very reason for existence of the UTTCR was pointless.

 

It's all a bit like saying " before we decide what colour this piece of paper is, lets first decide if it is a colour"

[photoman]

OK, thanks but if thats the case why have business accounts been stayed ?

 

Tumble

 

 

Business claims (which were not reliant upon the UTCCR) should never have been stayed, as they evidently will not be influenced by the case, and so should not have been subject to the waiver.

However some Business cases were mistakenly stayed.

In such circumstances many business claimants then appealed against this, and successfully got the stays lifted (and often claims settled).

If you are a business claimant and have had a stay imposed, then there are some template letters and advise on the thread in my signature which hopefully should help in achieving this.

[photoman]

See this and surrounding post:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1339567.html

[photoman]

Question:

 

Now the case has been won and some people like myself have been threatened to close my account if I claim again. Can the banks now do this! close an account if I claim again for more charges?

 

Regards and a great win indeed.

 

Shame I didnt claim from Abbey National whom from 1999 owe me £14,000 in charged.

 

1/ The case has not yet been won. This ruling just paves the way to give the OFT the power to investigate matters and take further actions.

2/ Yes, they probably will try to close your account. But you could either try to take a further action or doing so, based upon the contention that their actions are retaliatory. But in all honesty, why bother, why stick with a bank that treats you in such a way? look into opening another account elsewhere.

3/ What's stopping you claiming against Abbey for the £14k ? Get you claim in now, so that it's in the system. If your concerned about it being prior to 6 years, then many claimants have already successfully claimed much further back (I myself got over 13 years worth). Do a site search for threads and info on the Statute of Limitations and especially section 32.

[photoman]

see my earlier post for my own opinion on this:

 

On one of the press sites regards this imminent announcement, it was once more cited that if matters eventually go against the Banks, it could perhaps lead to the end of "free" banking for customers in credit.

 

It is sickening to think that everything that has happened over the last few years could possibly herald in what the Banks have secretly wanted for years. And worst still, if so, they will then distort the truth, and try to justify it to its' customers by placing all the blame with those who stood up against them.

 

We're all used to paying for most services we use in life; say posting a letter or making a phone call, but such companies do not also benefit from receiving ALL our annual income, to simply do with as they please (often at great risk, which has been highlighted all too often), and to also demand a period of notice before they hand it back. They then have it at their pleasure to loan out to others at high rates of interest, to speculate with on currencies and markets, or to use to buy up other companies, all to vastly increase their own profits.

 

In return we receive nothing, or at best a very tiny proportion of all this.

 

So, if the Banks do eventually introduce fees, then:

Firstly, it should be on an itemised basis, and reflect the true spread out cost of each service. Not some arbitary blanket monthly rate. After all, I don't pay the post office each month on the off chance that I may or may not decide to post some letters that month.

And, secondly, those depositors whose accounts are in credit should simultaneously be treated as what they truly are, which is in effect investors, and receive proper rates of interest more reflective of the profits their entrusted investments have realised.

19% - 29% to borrow from them (on every single penny, calculated daily), but 0% - 6.5% to lend them OUR money (provided we give them at least say £1000 a month, don't withdraw over a certain amount of it, are often expected to commit to leave it in for a year or receive a penalty, and even then any % is capped and sharply falls at a certain level). An income to cost ratio, and terms unparalleled in any other business.

 

So, the whole current banking crisis and need for a £50billion bail out has come about because Banks are unwilling to lend to each other ?

 

Hell, I don't blame them, I'd prefer not to lend to them either !!

[photoman]

Remember until very recently even the banks referred to these charges as penalties & if the court allows them to escape this simply because they have changed the wording to hide this then the courts will be brought into disrepute.

 

 

Totally agree Jon

 

And also, if there can be shown to be any suspicion that the T&C's were changed in response to events or in preparation for an investigation, then they area also guilty concealment.

Which (certainly in the case of some banks) we also have other strong evidence of anyway.

They should be afforded no protection, leeway or pardoning from the law, whatever the age of the challenge.

[photoman]

All eyes on the OFT site. They have stated that the judgement is lengthy, and their lawyers are analysing it prior to issuing a statement.

 

Obviously, before any appeal date (22nd May) no decision will be given, however, the general consensus is that the banks will do themselves more harm by appealing.

 

Tide

 

From The Times:

 

Banks told to stop stalling and pay up after verdict on charges - Times Online

 

 

Quote from article:

 

The British Bankers’ Association said that it was too early to give a response to the judgment, but an industry insider said that there was likely to be an appeal “against some level of the judgment”.

 

 

Let's hope they see sense, and realise the extra harm (to an industry already struggling with it's image) that doing so at such an early stage would create.

[photoman]

I think Mr. Justice Smith has a great deal of common sense in him. Of course he has also written out his (very important) judgement with extreme care and thoroughness, which makes it more difficult to read by a layman.

 

The take-away message from it is threefold:

 

- The OFT may go ahead with it's fairness assessment under the UTCCRs.

 

- The *present* T&Cs used by the banks do not use the breach-of-contract mechanism to levy the charges, and therefore the question of whether they are penalty charges under common-law is moot.

 

- The *historical* T&Cs which were in use a couple of years ago are significantly different in this precise area. These older T&Cs were not examined for this judgement, but *I* personally believe that if they had been, they would have been determined to use the breach-of-contract mechanism. This would have made them suitable for application of the common-law rules (as they are in any case).

 

Agree,

Plus, if it can be shown that the T&C's were changed in response to events or in preparation for an investigation, then they are also guilty concealment.

[photoman]

I'm sorry & I may be alone here, & I stand to be corrected, but the more I study this Judgment the more I become of the opinion that it's full of holes particularly with regard to the T's & C's

 

No, Your not alone !

[photoman]

Its like ringing up the Police confessing to a crime.

 

Then when they arrive, cleaning up the scene of any evidence in front of their very eyes.

Then asking them to investigate, but to ignore anything they may possibly have seen before you cleaned up.

 

..... and they agree !!

[photoman]

Very funny,

 

I actually spotted a charge on one of my accounts today;

 

No advance letter, no phone call, and actually I only spotted it because I chose to look at one of my accounts online.

 

It was Abbey.

They had applied a charge upon an account I keep just for paying household bills by DD.

The charge related to a returned DD (an incident which had actually occurred about a month ago and had been dealt with at the time), the mandate had then also been cancelled, so the reference was in relation to a DD mandate that didn't even exist anymore !

(Maybe they were just trying it on, and decided to reverse an earlier decision, who knows )?

 

Anyway, I rang up and decided that rather than get irate, I would be pleasant and ask what this related to. I then explained what had happened, and before my very eyes the money was refunded online with no trouble.

 

Two funny things about this:

Firstly next to the charge it was now being described as:

"Informal overdraft request" ...... WTF

(a first for me, and it also did not relate to any changes of description or T&C's that I had actually been informed of) !

 

Secondly, the person I spoke to then confided that he too was really frustrated about current events, and was himself awaiting progress regards a stayed claim of his own he had against another bank !

[photoman]

I've never been subject to a leech, but I did once get attached to by a tic.

Nasty little buggers that feed on you, and swell up to quite a size.

 

It was after being in a field whilst abroad. The person I was with told me to thoroughly check myself over afterwards for tics.

 

I did so, and thought I was all clear.

 

Then, after a long flight, upon arriving home I then found one still on me.

 

 

....... lets just say.... I thought I had grown a third one !!!!

[photoman]

Yes, everything is being worked on as we speak, but it's lots of docs and few people, so bear with us! ;-)

 

Bookie,

 

If I could be of assistance in any way, happy to help.

Just PM me if needed ?

[photoman]

I have a business account and NatWest charge me 37p to pay a DD. How on earth can it cost them more than that NOT to pay a DD

 

Perhaps it went through the same process 100 times more ??

[photoman]

Ok, you lot seem to be pretty clued up on all this with the judgement and stuff at the moment, so here's a little poser for you to think about.

 

I have a basic bank account, which doesn't have the facility for any form of authorised overdraft. But when a direct debit got refused due to lack of funds the letter I got stated the charge was for an "Instant Overdraft Request Fee".

 

Now, since there can be no consideration for an instant overdraft on this type of account does that mean that the charge is illegal as it has been made contrary to the terms of the account?

 

Okay, I've been having a think about this, and had a read of the judgement.

 

 

The case quite specifically discounted any consideration of the terms and conditions of "basic" accounts. Thus it has made no specific declaration as to whether such charges upon such accounts could be deemed as having arisen due to a breach of contract.

However, given that basic accounts do not allow for any overdraft facility, and quite specifically stipulate in their terms that the accounts must always be operated in credit, then making it overdrawn must be a contractual breach.

 

 

From the judgement:

 

The OFT, however, identifies some provisions in the Banks’ current and historical terms which, it is submitted, might give rise to customers being in breach of contract in these circumstances. For reasons that I have explained, in this judgment I consider provisions in current terms other than those governing basic accounts, specifically provisions in the terms of Abbey, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and Nationwide, and I also consider some historical terms used until recently by Clydesdale and by RBSG. It is necessary to examine separately each of the provisions identified by the OFT as arguably penal in order to determine (i) whether it is truly of contractual effect (and not, for example, merely exhortatory or advisory); (ii) if it is of contractual effect, whether it imposes an obligation or prohibition upon the customer (rather than, for example, simply states a condition precedent before an obligation on the Bank arises); and (iii) if it does impose a contractual obligation or prohibition upon the customer, whether the Relevant Charge is payable upon breach of it. Leaving aside basic accounts, I consider that the OFT has identified all the arguably penal provisions in the terms now used by the Banks for their personal current accounts and in the historical terms of Clydesdale and RSBG to which I have referred. It has rightly not suggested that there is any penal provision in the terms now used by Clydesdale, HBOS, HSBC, and RBSG.

 

299. The Banks emphasise that a Relevant Charge cannot be penal unless it is payable upon a breach by the customer, and illustrate this principle by referring to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Jervis v Harris, [1996] Ch 195, which concerned a provision in a lease (clause 2(10)) obliging a tenant to carry out repairs and providing that if he did not do so, the landlord might do the repairs and recover from the tenant the costs and expenses of doing so. This provision was held not to be penal, and Millett LJ said this (at p.206E-G):

“... it is well settled that the event on which the sum alleged to

be a penalty becomes payable must be a breach of some other

contractual obligation owed by the obligor to the obligee. That

is not the case here. There is only one relevant obligation on

the part of the tenant and that is to repay the landlord his costs

in carrying out repairs himself.... the event which triggers the

tenant’s liability under a clause such as clause 2(10) is the

expenditure by the landlord of money in effecting repairs, not

the anterior failure of the tenant to repair.”

 

Undoubtedly the law about penalties does not apply if the obligation is to pay for a service or upon an event other than a breach, even if the service is supplied or the event takes place against the background of or accompanied by a contractual breach, and even if the service would not have been provided or the event would not have occurred but for the breach. A customer could not necessarily invoke the law about penalties to challenge charges payable for his bank lending him money simply because his account would not be overdrawn but for his own breach. If an obligation to pay is penal, it must require payment upon the breach itself.

 

 

I find the last two paragraphs a little bit at odds with each other here ?

 

(anybody else wish to comment) ?

 

 

IMHO, the only way I can think to resolve this, is (taking the first paragraph) that if a an item is presented that would take you over any agreed limit, and the bank decide to actually honour it, thus taking you over your limit (ie: in effect lending you additional money), then even though the charge has arisen due to what could possibly be a contractual breach, it could not be considered penal in nature, as it also relates to a loan.

However (taking the second paragraph), if the payment is simply refused and returned (ie: the bank is not loaning you any additional money), then the payment is in fact penal, as it relates purely to a payment for a breach (ie; it does not relate to any additional lending).

 

 

Anyway, back to the question of whether or such charges upon a basic account are unlawful penalties.

To my mind the answer has to be yes.

The terms and conditions of a basic account stipulate that there is no overdraft facility, and that the account must operate in credit.

Thus any attempt to create an overdraft is a breach.

The item cannot be cleared and must be returned, so no lending is occurring, and so it is simply payable upon the breach itself. Thus it is a penalty.

 

 

PM

[photoman]

Aequitas.

 

1/ The recent ruling that gives rise to assumption that such charges cannot be penalties was reached whilst only considering (recently conveniently changed) current T&C's. It did not consider or rule that the same applied to historical T&C's.

 

2/ Hopefully when the judge releases his findings upon historical charges (he stated an intention to do so within a month), then he will see through the banks recent blatant attempts to "cloak" such charges. I do believe the issue of penalties arising due to a breach of contract is not completely resolved yet, and will still require a complicated analysis of each and every T&C for each Bank over quite some period.

 

3/ The judge did also actually rule that the charges cannot be considered as being fees for a service, so there is actually no right to mark them up as such.

 

4/ Highly hiked up unauthorised borrowing rates are adequate recompense to the banks for the such lending.

 

5/ There is no such thing as "free" banking, as even those with accounts in credit "pay" by only receiving miniscule (or no) credit interest, despite effectively lending the bank their money.

[photoman]

Josh IOU,

Nobody is ignoring you, I just think people are currently a bit unsure as to what acts, laws and statutes they can and can't use.

 

Here is my take on UCTA77

 

Section 4 says:

 

4. Unreasonable indemnity clauses. —

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

 

(2) This section applies whether the liability in question—

(a)is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

(b)is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.

 

 

In short, it deals with forbidding any attempts to recuperate costs from a consumer (us) that were incurred by the other (in this case the bank) by making reference to a term in the contract and claiming that such costs were incurred were due to a breach of such a contractual term (or some negligence has occurred).

 

So, this depends upon how the charges were presented at the time to the claimant.

 

In the past, some Banks in such circumstances would present the charges as pertaining to service charges or fees (which they are all now attempting to do, but have just had dismissed as untrue)

However, others did actually present them as relating to a recuperation of costs incurred dealing with such events.

Lloyds (and a few others) certainly did the latter.

 

If the former case (presented as service charges or fees), then claiming sec4 of UCTA would do no good anyway, so instead, one needs to argue and question just what service was actually provided (which is in fact currently none, as proven by the recent OFT judgement, and will soon also be deemed as applicable historically).

 

If the latter, and they were claimed to be a recuperation of costs, and arose due to a returned item ie. your attempt at going over your limit, ie. a failure to adhere to an agreed limit, then this could plainly be deemed as arising due to a breach of contract (an agreed limit is after all a contractual obligation).... so I personally think section 4 could definitely be invoked.

 

So, for those banks that presented them as relating to a recovery of costs (which we lay claim as also being due to a breach of contract), then under the terms of UCTA77 they had no contractual rights to claim such sums, and the pursuit of such "costs" should have really been pursued through the courts (rather than just calculating, massively marking up and then enforcing themselves, without any accountability as to the true cost).

 

If this had been the case, then they would have had to go through the same processes as ourselves; i.e. prelim and LBA to demand the true costs to be paid under threat of court action (which at just a few pence we would all just pay). If they then persisted in presenting them at massively marked up rates, and it went to the court, they would have lost, and would also have massive costs to bear.

 

That's my tuppence worth anyhow.

I think it's a fair assessment, but I would be interested to hear others views.

 

PM

[photoman]

have a look at

 

The “reasonableness” test

 

downwards

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

 

You've actually linked to the section that deals with the amendments for Scotland.

 

Here is the link to the area regards the reasonableness test for England

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

 

 

Notably:

 

SCHEDULE 2

“Guidelines” for Application of Reasonableness Test

 

The matters to which regard is to be had in particular for the purposes of sections 6(3), 7(3) and (4), 20 and 21 are any of the following which appear to be relevant—

(a)the strength of the bargaining positions of the parties relative to each other, taking into account (among other things) alternative means by which the customer’s requirements could have been met;

The massive imbalance of power of the parties to the contract, plus our total inability to change or alter the terms, plus the fact that there were no alternative providers offering more favorable terms

(b)whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term, or in accepting it had an opportunity of entering into a similar contract with other persons, but without having a similar term;A promise of "free" banking as inducement, the insistence in some circumstances that loans or mortgages would only be provided if the account was opened, no better alternative terms with other providers

©whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and the estent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);The customer did not have knowledge at the time the contract was agreed upon; that the other parties response to the customers breaking or other failure to adhere to the term were in fact potentially unlawful (regardless of whether or not the customer had already experienced such actions in prior dealings with the OP, or that indeed it was common practice in that trade), nor did they know the full estent and implications of the term, including how any response could be be for ever made increasingly detrimental, and also that such terms could also just be unilaterally changed by the other party.

(d)where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some conditionwas not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable;N/A

(e)whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer.N/A

 

PM

Edited May 15, 2008 by photoman
potentially libelous word removed

[photoman]

.... and also it's déjà vu

[photoman]

See Bookie's earlier post.

 

 

That's not a new article (edit: the BBC one, I meant, I was typing at the same time as everyone else), it's the same one that they published after the result of the case, they just have tweaked it to say "thursday" instead of "May 22nd". Sloppy journalism, that.

 

I have a feeling the banks may not appeal, you know. At the moment, they are sitting on a judgment which means that they come under the umbrella of the OFT, but that their charges are not penalties. An appeal could leave them wide open to have that second part challenged, and they stand to lose a lot more should the appeal court find against them on the latter than leaving it at the current status quo.

 

On the other hand, the temptation to drag their feet for a good few more months by appealing must be incredible...