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

[the_shadow]

Gordon Brown's Speach" The british people will not pay the banks, the banks will pay the people" hmm what did he mean by that statement

 

Hmm EU referendum anyone ;-D

 

S.

[SPROUTY]

He meant "listen to my bull****". He has also promised in the party manifesto a referendum. Haven't we heard that before somewhere?

 

He is all mouth and trousers, 99% of what he promises never ever happens.

 

Lets not forget this GB bloke is likely to be out of a job in the near future, having handed out knighthoods like sweeties around the City the last thing he would want to do is upset his future masters by saying some thing like:

 

"give them all back you bunch of sheisters an din ya forget the ... interest you've trouserd along the way, by the way!"

 

Go on Gord, I dare you.....I might even vote for you if you can show us the government health warning on your Y fronts "MAY CONTAIN NUTS"

Edited September 30, 2009 by HSBCrusher
edited language

[Conniff]

I think that as he has never in the past or any intention in the future of doing good by the British public, that he is meaning the huge petty cash tin handed to them so they didn't have to restrict the bankers bonuses.

 

In no way will he be refering to bank charges.

[InformedSearcher]

Lets not forget this GB bloke is likely to be out of a job in the near future, having handed out knighthoods like sweeties around the City the last thing he would want to do is upset his future masters by saying some thing like:

 

"give them all back you bunch of sheisters an din ya forget the ..... interest you've trouserd along the way, by the way!"

 

Go on Gord, I dare you.....I might even vote for you if you can show us the government health warning on your Y fronts "MAY CONTAIN NUTS"

 

Erm you are both right and wrong I'm afraid ...

 

Think what happened to Kinnock who by the way has just had slightly better stats against him than GB. NK is an EU bigshot which pays way more than he ever got before.

Tony Blair - Now the highest paid speaker in the word who can commpand upto £6k per minute.

 

All so sad eh?!

Michael

(thinking politics was another thing he should have thought of when young)

Edited September 30, 2009 by IdaInFife
edited because hsbc crusher edited original

[fergal71]

any dates??????

[citizenB]

Erm you are both right and wrong I'm afraid ...

 

Think what happened to Kinnock who by the way has just had slightly better stats against him than GB. NK is an EU bigshot which pays way more than he ever got before.

Tony Blair - Now the highest paid speaker in the word who can commpand upto £6k per minute.

 

All so sad eh?!

Michael

(thinking politics was another thing he should have thought of when young)

 

This is the legacy of this government isnt it.. only failure is rewarded. No one takes responsibility for their mistakes.

 

It isnt what you know, but who you know.

 

Let any ordinary human being ie the tax payer try any of the tricks those in power try and we would find ourselves in hot water quicker than it took to boil it.

[carpman]

i understand the 2 stages of the test case, what i'm not sure about is, with the waiver looking like it will stay in place. is going to court not likely to happen now, and if everything goes in our favour. the banks will have to pay back everyone automatically. or will those with cases on hold get their day in court before the final final judgement. all very confusing.

[yourbank]

i understand the 2 stages of the test case, what i'm not sure about is, with the waiver looking like it will stay in place. is going to court not likely to happen now, and if everything goes in our favour. the banks will have to pay back everyone automatically. or will those with cases on hold get their day in court before the final final judgement. all very confusing.

If the OFT wins stage 1 litigation then stage 2 litigation answers the how far back, what terms are deemed to be unfair and may even deal with what can be considered fair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

Stage 1 in the Supreme Court will clear one question and could open a massive can of worms.

[carpman]

well that's clear as mud:D what I'm asking is, is trying to reclaim your own charges out the window now, and everyone's in the same boat, as in if the banks ultimately lose, then they will have to refund everyone. and we're all just waiting for the final outcome now. or is there likely to be a point when the waiver is lifted and people can carry on with trying to reclaim their charges through the courts. all the litigation and what not goes right over my head. but would be nice to know whether in your opinion we'll likely get our charges back before all this is done and dusted.

[noomill060]

Just get your claim in as soon as you can.

[car2403]

They stays were, originally, in place until the issues in the Test Case were determined, including any final appeal.

 

Of course it doesn't refer to which part of the Test Case.

 

The orignal Judge hearing the Test Case suggested that stays should be lifted when this part of the case was heard and decided, but it's probably not up to him.

 

With the pressure the Government is under, I can't see how the second part will work, IMHO. It seems to me, even more so now, that a deal on the level of charges that won't cause attention will be done by the OFT once it's been decided they can judge the fairness of the charges applied. Similar to Credit Card charges, I can't see how claims could not be handled if that were to happen.

 

Until D-Day, we won't know, so it's wait and see, I feel...

[InformedSearcher]

LOL

Banks win = bad

OFT wins = good

OFT (if wins) decides what happens next = win/no win/partial win potential outcome.

 

Now in theory the banks should have upgraded all their software so a click of the mouse should return funds to their rightful owners - Reality is IMHO that the banks expect to win so investment in that section has not occured.

 

Enter Gordon Brown stage right to say - 'See I speeded them along and I'm a man of the people so vote for me'.

 

Michael

[car2403]

You missed MSE Martin Lewis' input, IS

[the_shadow]

You missed MSE Martin Lewis' input, IS

 

Is it just me thats finding his optimism slightly annoying...

 

apologies as I know he's done a lot of good for the publics knowledge of consumer rights.

 

S.

Edited October 3, 2009 by the_shadow
Freudian slip... honest :-)

[car2403]

Is it just me thats finding his optimism slightly annoying...

 

apologies as I know he's dont a lot of good for the publics knowledge of consumer rights.

 

S.

 

Exactly!

 

[InformedSearcher]

Ahhh ML (oh same initials as me but no connection). Well since ML has appeaed on TV I'm suspecting much of what I've seen is scripted. I mean you cannot say what you believe or think on TV (hence the 8 seconds delay even if live). TV needs to unbiased most of the time (by law) and the fact one wishes to say the banks have 'thieved from us' cannot be expressed in those words. Even 'alledged' cannot be used so it all needs to be toned down.

So in a nutshell one would say, 'The banks have themselves expressed concerns regarding their charges but believe these to be fair and honest with the understanding taking into the considerations of their loyal client base'. Translated this means political 'bu****it', but hey, if politicians can evade problems anyone can ... or can they?

 

Michael

(Financial advisor in the making hehe)

[fergal71]

any dates?????????????

[SPROUTY]

any dates?????????????

 

From LB site:16 October is probably the earliest likely date at the moment.

[Stewpot42]

ALl very well with the date of 16th October, but what actually happens when they rule against the banks?

 

Do i have to do anything with my court case that has been stayed?

Do i have to follow up on it or will the courts write to me?

[car2403]

The parties in the case need to write to the Court in my particular case.

[TheyrCriminals]

Stewpot,

 

I accept it's looking good for consumers and I am pretty confident of the right result from the Lords in the test case. However it's not in the bag yet, don't automatically assume the Law Lords will return the verdict we want to see, there is still the possibility the Lords will return a ruling in favour of the banks. The House of Lords have returned many a judgement in the past that have been challenging and unfair.

 

TheyrCriminals

[2ltr16valve]

I have had a look through the thread, although not fully as there are too many pages

 

What are we upto with the oft test case now ? I understand a decision was made in the summer and this has been appealed ?

 

I am about to file and summonds halifax over charges ( see thread in halifax section) and am just curious as to whats happening

 

Many thanks

[SPROUTY]

Stewpot,

 

I accept it's looking good for consumers and I am pretty confident of the right result from the Lords in the test case. However it's not in the bag yet, don't automatically assume the Law Lords will return the verdict we want to see, there is still the possibility the Lords will return a ruling in favour of the banks. The House of Lords have returned many a judgement in the past that have been challenging and unfair.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

You may be right but all the indicators suggest a climb down from the Banks, why else would they reduce their charges to £5 from £35, that's not the action of a confident defendant.

 

Also I note that the FSA has written to all of the banks to ensure that hey have measures in place to refund "if need be"

 

Hmmmm

 

2Ltr16valve

 

The banks lost at high court in the issue of UTCC (& OFT ruling on fair charges)

 

The Banks lost again at appeal to the High Court

 

The banks appealed to the House of Lords (HOL)

 

The House of Lords went on summer holiday

 

They are back now as the newly formed "Supreme Court of Justice" (SCoJ)

 

We are waiting for the ruling from the Lords from SCoJ

[hilaryfrances]

I bet if they loose they will go to the European court, anything rather than pay out this could go on for years

[car2403]

Ok, a brief plotted history of time of this litigation, for the masses;

 

This is in two parts; a) can the OFT judge the fairness of the charges and b) are the charges fair?

 

This is part a)

 

The Court said yes, the OFT can judge the fairness of charges. The Banks disagreed, so have appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal also said yes, so the Banks appeal to the House of Lords. The HOL have heard the appeal and are considering their judgment (replace that with building sand castles at the seaside, as they are in summer recess) and are due to give their Judgment in October.

 

It's highly likely that they will confirm the Court's/Court of Appeal's decision, in that the OFT can judge the fairness of the charges, IMHO. It's, unfortunately, possible they will agree with the Banks.

 

Once that is done and dusted, the second part of the litigation will begin.

 

Now, the Government has asked all parties to "play nicely and try to agree the fundamental issue, to save the consumer loads of hassle". (Replace that with "oh dear, this is going to blow up in our faces and we really, really need to get some votes in as there's an election soon, some time, probably, and we will lost")

 

That's the plotted history.

 

On the question of Europe, the answer to the question you've asked is no. It's no, because the Banks cannot go to a European Court to decide their cause. EU legislation states that each Member State should decide "how" EU law should be interpretated, within it's own legal system, and they should act accordingly when enforcing it. Europe can be referred to, meaning that the HOL themselves can refer the issue in question - that would be, which part of EU law needed clarifiying, to allow them, the HOL, to decide the question before them, of how to apply EU law in this case, to the Banks argument - so that they can get direction from Europe as to how to proceed. A European Court will not decide how to apply EU law in this case, they will only offer guidance on how it should be applied - how it is applied is down to the HOL as the ultimate UK Court of Appeal.

 

It's worth noting that the HOL don't have to justify how they applied EU law in their Judgment, but they have a duty to ensure their judgment complies with EU law.

 

It's quite confusing, I agree, but Europe isn't really an issue in this case, then...

 

HTH

 

Bump.

 

Latest position and covers the European aspect.