Jump to content


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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4110 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hmm, "a government source" on BBC Breakfast suggests 2015 before we get a conclusion.

 

Nooooo. It's 9.45am, not 8.15pm...

 

Bleeding BBC...

 

:lol:

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there will be negotiated settlement here. My prediction;

1. OFT win this part of the test case.

2. "Fair" level of fee is fudged by the banks and OFT at £5

3. Automatic refunds issued for the original charge less £5

4. if anyone wants more than that they have to go to court (I.E. refund of interest paid on the charges)

5. banks happy as they get to keep part of their ill gotten gains

6. most consumers happy because they get a nice little windfall

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there will be negotiated settlement here. My prediction;

1. OFT win this part of the test case.

2. "Fair" level of fee is fudged by the banks and OFT at £5

3. Automatic refunds issued for the original charge less £5

4. if anyone wants more than that they have to go to court (I.E. refund of interest paid on the charges)

5. banks happy as they get to keep part of their ill gotten gains

6. most consumers happy because they get a nice little windfall

 

 

Assuming their Lordships agree with the OFT....

 

But the banks will still need to weigh up what, if any, benefit there will be in fighting on. Given their mathematical abilities I think they will see a benefit in paying councel 10's of millions to delay rather than returning 10's of billions to customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there will be negotiated settlement here. My prediction;

1. OFT win this part of the test case.

I would agree with you

2. "Fair" level of fee is fudged by the banks and OFT at £5

I'm not sure that they would

3. Automatic refunds issued for the original charge less £5

If the OFT win this part of the case this CANNOT happen.

4. if anyone wants more than that they have to go to court (I.E. refund of interest paid on the charges)

Again with your third point I disagree since the litigation agreement in July 2007 states about interest and restititution as things to be dealt with on the second part of the case.

5. banks happy as they get to keep part of their ill gotten gains

A bank does not think and I know you should never assume the bank does think otherwise we wouldn't have a test case in the first place ;)

6. most consumers happy because they get a nice little windfall

 

On point 6 I would agree with you.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i dont think the banks will just give in after the 25th thats for sure ,.

 

but one thing i would like to know is .

 

how much is this hole test case costing the bank . lets say it did run untill 2015 then they lose .. how much money would they has wasted trying to fight it .. plus you have to take into account all the interest aswell .

 

surly it would have been better for them to just pay out in the long run

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i dont think the banks will just give in after the 25th thats for sure ,.

 

but one thing i would like to know is .

 

how much is this hole test case costing the bank . lets say it did run untill 2015 then they lose .. how much money would they has wasted trying to fight it .. plus you have to take into account all the interest aswell .

 

surly it would have been better for them to just pay out in the long run

 

Sparks,

 

you forget, they are a business so they can write a lot of the legal costs against tax

 

Also, bear in mind (as pointed out previously) that not everyone knows about CAG and will be quite happy when (if) the banks offer just the charges without even s69 8%, let alone contractual interest (sadly, there are even people with the knowledge that would accept that just to get it over with)

 

I wouldnt mind betting that if we could get our hands on the full figures, the amount the banks have made by lending/investing the money people have paid in bank charges would make a significant dent in anything they end up paying out

 

I personally think that Wednesday will lead to them making offers, but these will be a percentage of the total charges made (say, 50%) and if anyone doesnt like that they will have to fight on themselves

 

(or in our case, as a collective, hopefully via a 'class action'!)

 

I've waited this long, a few more years doesnt bother me, but obviously there are a lot of people desperate for the money and the banks will take advantage of that wherever they can

 

:(

Edited by ncf355

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Wednesday lead to offers? Next week the Supreme Court are deciding if the regulations apply to bank account terms and NOT if the terms themselves are fair or unfair.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Wednesday lead to offers? Next week the Supreme Court are deciding if the regulations apply to bank account terms and NOT if the terms themselves are fair or unfair.

 

Oi! Yourbank! Leave it alone! We are thinking positive, like, so get back in your basket... :)

 

Actually, we know you're right (secretly) but let us have the ball for a little bit, will ya? ;)

 

{{Car gets his tin hat at the ready, and puts the soapbox in front of him ready to shield himself from YB's response}}

 

If anyone asks, I didn't say that...

 

You're not far wrong there with the amount of spelling mistakes on the BBC 24 hour news station.

 

I've worked closely with the BBC before and had the privilege of being in the play out rooms in Media Villiage, W1 in London, while the announcer was introducing the next programme - you know the thing, "This is BBC One, and this is Eastenders", etc, etc.

 

When I was there, the script he had to read involved this little tongue twister;

 

"Next on BBC One, a cunning stunt from..." (can't remember the rest)

 

Thing is, when he read it, he got the (now highlighted) letters the wrong way around! Sadly, I can't type what he did say, as CAGBot would punch my face in...

 

Lucky he was only rehearsing - he didn't know why I was laughing so hard, though. :)

Edited by car2403

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oi! Yourbank! Leave it alone! We are thinking positive, like, so get back in your basket... :)

 

Actually, we know you're right (secretly) but let us have the ball for a little bit, will ya? ;)

 

{{Car gets his tin hat at the ready, and puts the soapbox in front of him ready to shield himself from YB's response}}

 

If anyone asks, I didn't say that...

Ok, I'll let everyone have their Christmas present dream and fairytale ending.......................................for now ;)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think there will be negotiated settlement here. My prediction;

1. OFT win this part of the test case.

2. "Fair" level of fee is fudged by the banks and OFT at £5

3. Automatic refunds issued for the original charge less £5

 

I'm so befuddled with all this now, I loathe being dippy! Just to ask (If not already mentioned - I only skim read) If the fee was any less than £12, then the OFT would have to change the CC threshold for intervention as well (headache for OFT - that they will have thought about in advance?) :confused:

 

As the Banks are already floating around new much lower fees in various guises, they CC fee would have to follow right? What am I missing? Surely peoples 'errant ways' with current accounts etc is no different in terms of their well appreciated slap, penalty service?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thailand, the bank cannot simply lose the case on fairness then comply with the OFT on a fair charge and not refund the whole term that was unenforceable. In UTCCR 1999 there is no provision to partially refund an unfair term. The term is unenforceable in its entirety not partially unenforceable in its entirety.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yourbank - You have too much time on your hands, I'm with bookie.icon10.gif
Don't worry, he just loves getting to tell me I'm wrong, it makes him feel all smug and important (done it twice in the last couple of weeks, bless him), even if I am not wrong, simply not agreeing with what YB has decided he knows better. I take it with a pinch of salt personally. Let's face it, unless he has a crystal ball, he doesn't know any more about it than you or I do, and we're all shooting the breeze until the future reveals itself. ;-)

 

I may not go out more, but at least I am not naive enough to believe that a press release, ie positive spin, is in itself sufficient information. Let's face it, press officers will release what information they are told to release at the time, and if things don't happen in quite the same way a few months down the line, weeeell... :rolleyes: Let's see what the new T&Cs say when they finally release the product, hey? ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, he just loves getting to tell me I'm wrong, it makes him feel all smug and important (done it twice in the last couple of weeks, bless him), even if I am not wrong, simply not agreeing with what YB has decided he knows better. I take it with a pinch of salt personally. Let's face it, unless he has a crystal ball, he doesn't know any more about it than you or I do, and we're all shooting the breeze until the future reveals itself. ;-)

 

I may not go out more, but at least I am not naive enough to believe that a press release, ie positive spin, is in itself sufficient information. Let's face it, press officers will release what information they are told to release at the time, and if things don't happen in quite the same way a few months down the line, weeeell... :rolleyes: Let's see what the new T&Cs say when they finally release the product, hey? ;-)

 

I correct anyone if they clearly incorrect regardless of their name, rank or number of posts. Furthermore, the origins of the discussion on the newspaper article is the newspapers own interpretation of the press release which no one has asked Metro what they mean by that one sentence. I disagree with your interpretation bookworm of what they have written. There are many reasons for this, if it was a convert mortgage to bank account product then it would similar to The One Account which already exists. I think what the article is talking about is converting mortgage account customers into current account customers since many people may well, for good reason, not hold a mortgage, credit card, loan, current account with the same provider/bank.

You know Bookworm, I never pick on one person, it is usually everyone regardless of their position on a forum, the number of posts they make or even the place that they live. When we see that my "new improved" mystic meg crystal ball is right in that they are not converting a mortgage to a current account but offering a current account alongside the mortgage, would you be gracious enough to say I was right :D

 

I am surprised we haven't said that those people it will mostly benefit are ineligible for the product, ie those with arrears on their mortgage and furthermore those with loads of charges who will, in all likelihood, fail the credit check for the account. Pity we didn't criticise the account on this issue rather than the newspaper use of the word "convert".

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I don't pretend to foresee the future. All I know is here we were, having a slightly OT conversation about the new Abbey account whilst waiting for next week's decision, and YB jumped in decreeing who was right or who was wrong based on his interpretation of a press release. I have a different one based on the Metro article. Maybe he'll turn out to be right, maybe he won't. I at least admit that I am merely wondering about the hidden motives of the bank, not just saying to others they are wrong simply because they don't agree with my musings. ;-)

 

Is that in plain English enough for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were discussing the OFT test case cos the discussion had moved on until.......

 

Shall we continue with THAT discussion?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, back at the Supreme Court of Justice...

 

The Judge has another cuppa and a Tesco Value Bourbon Cream...

 

:lol:

 

Maybe another polite nudge will get things back on track, so...

 

BUMP...

 

;)

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if the supreme court go against the banks, then the oft are free to decide whether they think charges are fair or not, which they should give a decision on in the new year? so what exactly is it the banks will be fighting next time, the decision of the charges being unfair or the level the oft decide to be fair? way i see it, if the banks lose this final appeal then there shouldn't be any argument whether the oft's decision is right or wrong according to the banks, because the courts have decided to leave the decision in the oft's hands. or am i missing something:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is if the court ruling does favour the consumer the the OFT investigation is not that relevant to us as the OFT is not legally binding to EITHER party unless they seek an order to that effect

 

If the OFT say as they did in the case of credit cards the fee should be no more than £12 we can still challenge the banks ........... so its back to square one only some of the banks arguments will be dust

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is if the court ruling does favour the consumer the the OFT investigation is not that relevant to us as the OFT is not legally binding to EITHER party unless they seek an order to that effect

 

If the OFT say as they did in the case of credit cards the fee should be no more than £12 we can still challenge the banks ........... so its back to square one only some of the banks arguments will be dust

 

I assume this is causing major headaches within the OFT. If the monetary threshold for OFT intervention is set too high the consumer will continue to challenge through the courts and as JC states...back to square one.

 

A number of CAGers have challenged the credit card threshold with the banks capitulating.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that banks have various different types of customers so unless you have mass appeal rather than the annihilation of a bank it would be difficult to do within the UK. It would for example, Northern Rock was an example where people really did run as fast as they could but then the Government took it over entirely and other banks' circled like vultures for Northern Rock customers...it would be the same no doubt,

 

Just to mention, have you heard of "the Goldsmiths tale" on youtube. YouTube - Money As Debt (1 of 5) It is in 5 parts but the man who wrote this series can be researched and it is called the "fractional reserve system" and it is taught in the London School of Economics.

 

one hour's thought provoking watching!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...