Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I received a NIP for traveling 39mph in a 30 zone (mobile speed camera) in December 2020. As it is my offence, the police sent a letter requesting to know who was driving with three possible outcomes: speed awareness course, 3 points of contest at court. I provided my details and sent the form off.    The police sent me a letter this week asking for confirmation of my insurance... I realised that in October 2020 I removed a private number plate off the vehicle and notified the DVLA and the V5 form but I didn't norify my insurers.    I called the insurance company today and updated my number plate and they said technically I was insured and the vehicle was insured and it depends on how linient the police will be.    I am just concerned as the recent letter states possible prosecution for driving with out insurance with a possible fine and 6 to 8 points.    If they add that to the original 3 I might be given that would be 11 for a first offence.    Has anyone got any experience on this or any advice as I am pretty worried!    Thanks 
    • Tend to agree Hammy, but I think if you have a number of DD's going through every month and the reference/descriptions does not clearly identify what it is for, then many people would not have queried it.   How many people still go through their Bank statements regularly to check every item. ?  I have mobile Banking now and keep an eye on the payments going through, but when I had printed statements sent, i only checked them every few months.   Normally for Insurance refunds in these situation, the Insurers should consider refunds of up to 6 years, if it can be evidenced that the Insurance was of no value.  e.g. the Insurance was for a specific risk which is no longer owned.   The DD was set up over the phone as a variable DD amount and the Insurers should have issued communications about increases to the email or postal address provided for this purpose.  When the DD was set up originally D&G would have had to send confirmation of the DD terms and rights of cancellation etc.  You can try to ask Natwest for a refund under DD scheme, but you may struggle with this.    Ask D&G to look at your refund request again as a complaint and advise that if not settled, you will ask the FOS to review.  D&G would be charged a fee by the FOS if you went that far, so they may try to offer you a refund amount, to avoid this.
    • The state-backed savings giant has been accused of abandoning older customers in its drive to axe prize warrants to save money and paper by only consulting customers with an email about the change. View the full article
    • Savers who put £10,000 in the average tax-free cash Isa ten years ago would now have £9,772, new research shows. This is because inflation has outstripped the interest earned on savings. View the full article
    • I did 3 times and havent received any terms and conditions, im just trying to back up my arguement should it get to court and they produce one, then I can tell well, they 1. Didnt manage to show 1 3 times I asked. 2. they cant even get their dates right on the paperwork so why should this be nay different to this paperwork.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3839 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

HOT NEWS JUST IN FROM LLOYDS

Summary of Supreme Court Judgment

On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court said that the level of unarranged overdraft charges is not assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This means the banks have won their appeal and the test case has concluded.

This is a final judgment from the Supreme Court as they have decided it is not necessary and/or not in the public interest to make any reference to the European Court of Justice.

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

Q: What happens next?

While the Supreme Court judgment was a win for the banks, we acknowledge the concerns some of our customers have with these charges. We will work with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to ensure the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion. We will also continue to work with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to agree a positive way forward.

Q: What does this mean for customers who have complaints about unarranged overdrafts on hold?

During the test case, we agreed with the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that customer complaints relating to unarranged overdraft charges would remain on hold.

As the judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that these complaints should no longer remain on hold.

This means that for those customers who currently have an outstanding complaint about unarranged overdrafts, we’ll be writing to them shortly to let them know what today’s judgment means for them.

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

Q: What will happen to new customer complaints about unarranged overdraft charges?

As this judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that the waiver on bank charges complaint handling should be lifted. This means we will handle complaints through our standard process. We will continue to treat customers sympathetically who are vulnerable and in financial hardship.

Q: Can I complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about my unarranged overdraft charges?

Yes. Where a customer’s complaint is not accepted by a bank, the customer has the right to take their complaint to the FOS.

Q: How can customers avoid unarranged overdraft charges?

We continue to provide our customers with the products and services to help them avoid unarranged overdraft charges. Find out more in Managing your overdrafts.

Where can I find more information?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Low income consumers are often unable to oppose disproportionate charges on their bank accounts. Regulators should step in to protect them from being punished by their banks. Are they?

---Aut viam inveniam aut faciam---

 

***All advice given should be taken as guidance... Professional advice should always be taken before any course of action is pursued***

 

- I do not reply directly to any PMs, but you are more than welcome to enclose a link, in a PM, to your post. Thank you -

Make a contribution to this site... Help the CAG keeping on helping you for FREE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ill now starting small claims proceedings for a further two claims that i had in the banks system but not the courts..

 

i agree with a lot of the posts here... pre test case business as usual , i like many others here won cases before and we will again... watch the court system come to agrinding halt now :eek:.

 

up an at em!!:D

:D Actions in progress

Natw West on hold pending test case

LLoyds claim 3 on hold pending test case,

 

:lol:Claims Settled

LLOYDS TSB x 2 WON,

MBNA WON,

A&L WON,

GE Money x 2 WON , c

o-op visa WON, capital one visa WON,

Halifax (o/h) WON,

capquest, WON

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had another thought. When this action started the government had not bailed the banks out. Not that the state is the majority shareholder pressure might have been applied find in favour of the banks

 

I am often as cynical about these things as everyone else, however I think in this case any allegations of unfairness in the court process really are unfounded. Supreme court judges are pretty much untouchable by the government and it would be extremely difficult for pressure of this sort to have been applied.

On top of that, I've read the judgement. It's soundly and comprehensively argued in my opinion and is entirely unambiguous as to why all the judges, in their unanimous decision, upheld the appeal.

Finally there's no point in this line of attack. The decision has been made so we simply have to find a way forward via other means.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :mad:

[/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!!

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

They might ask BUT is it a given?

Similarly, if we go to court in future and request DoD at AQ time and we note which judges accept them, should we not seek to channel all applications through those courts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
HOT NEWS JUST IN FROM LLOYDS

Summary of Supreme Court Judgment

On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court said that the level of unarranged overdraft charges is not assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This means the banks have won their appeal and the test case has concluded.

This is a final judgment from the Supreme Court as they have decided it is not necessary and/or not in the public interest to make any reference to the European Court of Justice.

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

Q: What happens next?

While the Supreme Court judgment was a win for the banks, we acknowledge the concerns some of our customers have with these charges. We will work with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to ensure the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion. We will also continue to work with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to agree a positive way forward.

Q: What does this mean for customers who have complaints about unarranged overdrafts on hold?

During the test case, we agreed with the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that customer complaints relating to unarranged overdraft charges would remain on hold.

As the judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that these complaints should no longer remain on hold.

This means that for those customers who currently have an outstanding complaint about unarranged overdrafts, we’ll be writing to them shortly to let them know what today’s judgment means for them.

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

Q: What will happen to new customer complaints about unarranged overdraft charges?

As this judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that the waiver on bank charges complaint handling should be lifted. This means we will handle complaints through our standard process. We will continue to treat customers sympathetically who are vulnerable and in financial hardship.

Q: Can I complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about my unarranged overdraft charges?

Yes. Where a customer’s complaint is not accepted by a bank, the customer has the right to take their complaint to the FOS.

Q: How can customers avoid unarranged overdraft charges?

We continue to provide our customers with the products and services to help them avoid unarranged overdraft charges. Find out more in Managing your overdrafts.

Where can I find more information?

Try Disneyworld!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
They might ask BUT is it a given?

Similarly, if we go to court in future and request DoD at AQ time and we note which judges accept them, should we not seek to channel all applications through those courts?

 

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.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the ruling has ignited my interest in the subject of bank charges again, I am just one person of many thousands. I can be a royal pain in the a*se when I think there is injustice and this goes for whether I have outstanding claims or not.

 

bring it on :D

 

Barclaycard Student credit card £400 partial refund received, S.A.R -

Open & Direct Finance- extortionate, cca to Rockwell debt collection they ran away, now with Bryan Carter, no cca 17/03/08 sent back to Open

Pugsley v Littlwoods, have not received the signed credit agreement only quoting reg of 1983

Pugsley v Fashion World JD williams, 17/03 2008 Debt Managers returning file to JD williams as they could not supply the credit agreement

Capital one MCOL Settled in full

Smile lba settled in full

advice is given informally and without liability and without prejudice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

im still stunned.....cannot believe it......taxpayers bail banks out and then the disgrace of todays outcome, i think we should all move our cash out of UK banks asap, if anyones got suggestions do let me know!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
HOT NEWS JUST IN FROM LLOYDS

 

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

 

 

Can they do this and do we have no say in the matter?

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

so many questions but we have no clear anwsers, maybe an amendement to the POCs is what is needed we really need some clarification on this

Lloyds TSB (SARS) request sent 9th June 2006

£2191 Moneyclaim Issued 11/08/2006, Acknowleded 17th August Defence 14 Sep, AQ returned 5/10/2006.SETTLED IN FULL £2,670 26/11/2006/ Lloyds Credit Card SETTLED IN FULL £267

MBNA SETTLED IN FULL 15/09/2006 £829

Citicard (SARS) request sent 22nd June 2006 Moneyclaim issued 19th Sep, Defence and AQ received 5/10/2006, AQ returned 5/10/2006, part refund received 10/10/2006

GE MONEY SETTLLED IN FULL £400

Barclaycard Me and Mrs SARS sent 19/10/2006 settled £350

Welcome Finance PPI 2 accounts one settled £1018 waiting on other

GE Money PPI 1 account settled 8/5/2008 £560 2nd account SETTLED IN FULL £3,599.78p 15thAugust 2008

Lloyds TSB PPI CC complaint sent 10/04/2008

Black Horse PPI with FOS 20/05/2008

HFC PPI complaint sent 22/05/2008

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a suggestion.

 

The government provides a basic bank account that doesn't rip people off and has cascading tarifs based on your tax code. The branches would be, wait for it, your local Post Office Counter (if it's still there).

 

I absolutely flabbergasted over the ruling today. I've already written to 10 downing street and will see what happens next. I'm worried that the banks will now try and hoodwink everyone into thinking the case to reclaim is over when only unfair overdraft charges have been resolved.

 

The first couple of County Court cases need to be fully supported otherwise the banks' PR engines will further capitalise on the situation with headlines such as "Another case thrown out" etc.

 

We need a couple of positive PR stories, like the ones that got CAG to be such a success it has and will continue to be. I'm pledging to go all the way now, like a true terrier, once I've seen injustice I won't ever let it go, there's too much at stake here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am often as cynical about these things as everyone else, however I think in this case any allegations of unfairness in the court process really are unfounded. Supreme court judges are pretty much untouchable by the government and it would be extremely difficult for pressure of this sort to have been applied.

On top of that, I've read the judgement. It's soundly and comprehensively argued in my opinion and is entirely unambiguous as to why all the judges, in their unanimous decision, upheld the appeal.

Finally there's no point in this line of attack. The decision has been made so we simply have to find a way forward via other means.

 

Well I bet it was not unanimous but we'll never know. If you have a 'delve' you might spot why there is 'us and them' and how different worlds we seem to live in. It's not a case of who can get at who but to do with background, upbringing, education, connections and oh, money! I think the other thing is rather the time it took and the let down to many who feel both cheated and at the bottom of the ladder we are more of a hindrance rather that humans with a say and level of dignity.

 

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

 

Where does it say that?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

 

Where does it say that?

.

 

thats the banks putting there spin on it .. but dont worrie it can be hit from anouther part

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Halifax Website:

 

 

Overdraft bank charges court case update

Customer Q&A waiver lifted

Summary of Supreme Court Judgment

On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court said that the level of unarranged overdraft charges is not assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This means the banks have won their appeal and the test case has concluded.

This is a final judgment from the Supreme Court as they have decided it is not necessary and/or not in the public interest to make any reference to the European Court of Justice.

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

Q: What happens next?

While the Supreme Court judgment was a win for the banks, we acknowledge the concerns some of our customers have with these charges. We will work with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to ensure the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion. We will also continue to work with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to agree a positive way forward.

Q: What does this mean for customers who have complaints about unarranged overdrafts on hold?

During the test case, we agreed with the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that customer complaints relating to unarranged overdraft charges would remain on hold.

As the judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that these complaints should no longer remain on hold.

This means that for those customers who currently have an outstanding complaint about unarranged overdrafts, we’ll be writing to them shortly to let them know what today’s judgment means for them.

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

Q: What will happen to new customer complaints about unarranged overdraft charges?

As this judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that the waiver on bank charges complaint handling should be lifted. This means we will handle complaints through our standard process. We will continue to treat customers sympathetically who are vulnerable and in financial hardship.

 

Q: Can I complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about my unarranged overdraft charges?

Yes. Where a customer’s complaint is not accepted by a bank, the customer has the right to take their complaint to the FOS.

Q: How can customers avoid unarranged overdraft charges?

We continue to provide our customers with the products and services to help them avoid unarranged overdraft charges. For more information on these products and services, please click here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: The Lloyds Statement

 

Para 2.

 

i) The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged O/D charge is A KEY FINANCIAL PART of a current account.

 

I don't see that under key financial requirements in my application/agreement!

 

ii) This means that where the CHARGES ARE EXPLAINED IN CLEAR LANGUAGE, under consumer finance legislation, the level of an unarranged O/D charge can't be challenged to see if its fair or not.

 

I believe they are not and never have been explained IN CLEAR LANGUAGE.

 

V

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they will all just be struck out en-mass such as they did when they stayed them all

Lloyds TSB (SARS) request sent 9th June 2006

£2191 Moneyclaim Issued 11/08/2006, Acknowleded 17th August Defence 14 Sep, AQ returned 5/10/2006.SETTLED IN FULL £2,670 26/11/2006/ Lloyds Credit Card SETTLED IN FULL £267

MBNA SETTLED IN FULL 15/09/2006 £829

Citicard (SARS) request sent 22nd June 2006 Moneyclaim issued 19th Sep, Defence and AQ received 5/10/2006, AQ returned 5/10/2006, part refund received 10/10/2006

GE MONEY SETTLLED IN FULL £400

Barclaycard Me and Mrs SARS sent 19/10/2006 settled £350

Welcome Finance PPI 2 accounts one settled £1018 waiting on other

GE Money PPI 1 account settled 8/5/2008 £560 2nd account SETTLED IN FULL £3,599.78p 15thAugust 2008

Lloyds TSB PPI CC complaint sent 10/04/2008

Black Horse PPI with FOS 20/05/2008

HFC PPI complaint sent 22/05/2008

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...