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

[Bigredbus]

Well, when it comes to exemptions, it would only come down to s.41 - Commercial Information.

 

"It could be difficult to draw the line between the protection of legitimate commercial interests and the public’s right to know how its money is spent. However, the FOIA makes a presumption in favour of disclosure, so, in theory, if the balance is a very fine one, the Information Commissioner, the Information Tribunal and the courts should come down in favour of disclosure. Experience from other countries with FOI legislation suggests they do".

[InformedSearcher]

Actually that's a very interesting question. The government has a majority stake in three banks although they are still public limited companies. There is an argument that the FOI does apply but I suspect that they'll disagree in principle and quote commercial confidentiality even if FOI does apply.

 

 

Oh you are potentially opening up the provebial can of worms. This would mean yet another (probably hopeless) Quango operated by civil servants. Then they'd need another one for deciding if the information could be issued. Probably have a third just for sending out the replies. I could think of some names for these but it'll go against site policy.

 

Michael

[simonjohn]

As has already been mentioned recently here an AIR OF CALM Should be exercised with how to proceed with the next step of our claims.

 

I can understand the mayhem that the Supreme Courts ruling may have caused, but at this time we all need to remain calm otherwise the banks will have us in the position that they want, one of Dissarray.

 

It may seem easy for me to say stay calm, espescially when the Banks are attempting to strike out claims but we need to stay focused.

 

Allow time for the new P.O.Cs to be formullated by all of the Action groups involved, because if not, we will fall into the banks hands where they can pick off claims that dont hold up.

 

Look at it this way, the Banks have not won..... But rather Bought themselves some Breathing space.

 

 

And remember this.... HE WHO LAFFS LAST, LAFFS LOUDEST

[Seminole]

Oh you are potentially opening up the provebial can of worms. This would mean yet another (probably hopeless) Quango operated by civil servants. Then they'd need another one for deciding if the information could be issued. Probably have a third just for sending out the replies. I could think of some names for these but it'll go against site policy.

 

Michael

 

lol

 

It's a bit of a moot point anyway unless someone wants to take on the banks over the penalties argument (the OFT bottled it).

[simonjohn]

lol

 

It's a bit of a moot point anyway unless someone wants to take on the banks over the penalties argument (the OFT bottled it).

 

Out of interest, what sort of summs would be required to mount such a claim ?

 

because if my numbers come up in the euro mill lotery I would be prepared to part bankrol it.

 

"And you can quote me on that".

[Bigredbus]

Even if nothing can be argued over the adequacy of the price applied by banks, I don't think that the public opinion would be 'amused' by how charges are arrived at...

 

[Seminole]

Out of interest, what sort of summs would be required to mount such a claim ?

 

because if my numbers come up in the euro mill lotery I would be prepared to part bankrol it.

 

"And you can quote me on that".

 

I would guess low to mid 6 figures.

[InformedSearcher]

I would guess low to mid 6 figures.

 

 

I'd have a swift guess (not that we'll ever know) that the 2 year full time legal stuff probably costs the banks collectively some £10/£15 million. Probably the £15 million being closer to the point. Now in banks accounts there might be and extra section about 'legal fees' though.

 

Michael

[Aequitas]

*significant imbalance could be construed as the inequality of bargaining power which is recognised and accepted in law

 

No. The wording refers to an imbalance created by the contract.

[London000]

Various websites now give detailed ‘guidance’ on how to avoid repaying debts (regardless of the merits of

the argument) using inadequately or unclearly drafted sections of the CCA

 

 

 

 

Well my POC scared the poo out of Barclays....

 

Hi there Noomill060,

 

I wouldn't mind to copy your POC so I can scare a few more other banks...would that be possible to have a copy of thatp please??

Although I have lots of them in my store if should it go that far, I wouldn't mind if you can let me have it.

I would not like to use it but should they go as far as that....

I am dealing with HALIFAX at the moment...and later with M&S, Sainsbury, Abbey, ...you name it...

Thank you kindly,

DD

[gezwee]

Presumeably 'respectfully' of course - but doesn't all this cost in court fees?

 

Depends how you worded your initial claim and 'if' you were presented with time direction awaiting the supreme court decision. Costs nothing to request a stay as long as you file before the bank attempts to take control.

 

If there was no limitation to the original direction then you can afford to hang with the majority, if you are compelled to respond to the court within say 7 or 14 days then you need to get something filed and on record soon.

 

It'll be each to their own on this point, some will have claims in the thousands and starting the process again will be an expense they could well do without at this time of year, many others will be in the hundreds and revised filing will incur a limited fee.

[kennyh]

Originally posted by Bigredbus 'It could be difficult to draw the line between the protection of legitimate commercial interests and the public’s right to know how its money is spent. However, the FOIA makes a presumption in favour of disclosure, so, in theory......'

Would this also help negate the banks argument that the compilation of their costs is a commercial secret?

[Bigredbus]

That could indeed...

[Bigredbus]

I am in the process of requesting the Treasury to unveil how Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley charges are arrived at...

 

[barry_2008]

:)Did they no there at the top of mine?

[kennyh]

You ARE assuming there is a brain in there somewhere. Treasury officials 2 main aims were to say NO!! and try to look good when they said it.

In short........

Good luck mate - I wish you well and you should run rings around them.

[Bigredbus]

Both banks are publicly owned... Let's see what they'll come up with!

[barry_2008]

is this true?

 

PENALTY CHARGES :: FIGHTING YOUR CORNER - FOR FREE Is very pleased to confirm that we have joined forces with Money Saving expert, Legal seagulls and the Consumer Action Group.

In a joint campaign against unlawful bank charges, Money Saving Expert has paid for Ray Cox QC to draft the New Particular of Claim for all forums, which should be available for members to use within 10 days,

[Seminole]

I am in the process of requesting the Treasury to unveil how Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley charges are arrived at...

 

 

As I said before I think this is an excelent idea. However, I think two things need to be done first:

 

1) Check whether the banks are covered with the Ministry of Justice. I think the act refers to "public authorities" and I don't know whether a bank would meet the definition.

 

2) If it is covered check whether the enquiry should be sent to the Treasury or to the bank itself.

 

The more I think about this the more I think that it's unlikely you will get anywhere unfortunately. The FOI wasn't framed with banks in mind and the govt and the banks will move heaven and earth to make sure that they're not covered.

[freakyleaky]

is this true?

 

PENALTY CHARGES :: FIGHTING YOUR CORNER - FOR FREE Is very pleased to confirm that we have joined forces with Money Saving expert, Legal seagulls and the Consumer Action Group.

In a joint campaign against unlawful bank charges, Money Saving Expert has paid for Ray Cox QC to draft the New Particular of Claim for all forums, which should be available for members to use within 10 days,

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the Consumer Forums

[Bigredbus]

As I said before I think this is an excelent idea. However, I think two things need to be done first:

 

1) Check whether the banks are covered with the Ministry of Justice. I think the act refers to "public authorities" and I don't know whether a bank would meet the definition.

 

2) If it is covered check whether the enquiry should be sent to the Treasury or to the bank itself.

 

The more I think about this the more I think that it's unlikely you will get anywhere unfortunately. The FOI wasn't framed with banks in mind and the govt and the banks will move heaven and earth to make sure that they're not covered.

 

The request has been sent... will keep you informed...

[barry_2008]

 

The more I think about this the more I think that it's unlikely you will get anywhere unfortunately. The FOI wasn't framed with banks in mind and the govt and the banks will move heaven and earth to make sure that they're not covered.

 

I do not think the banks are that nicey nicey with the government these days.

We only have to look at the collapse of certain banks.

 

You no I'm not sure if we put enough pressure on these powers to be they my tip our hand.

[Bigredbus]

FoIA 2000...

 

6 Publicly-owned companies

(1) A company is a “publicly-owned company” for the purposes of section 3(1)(b) if—

(a) it is wholly owned by the Crown, or

(b) it is wholly owned by any public authority listed in Schedule 1 other than—

(i) a government department, or

(ii) any authority which is listed only in relation to particular information.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a company is wholly owned by the Crown if it has no members except—

(i) Ministers of the Crown, government departments or companies wholly owned by the Crown, or

(ii) persons acting on behalf of Ministers of the Crown, government departments or companies wholly owned by the Crown, and

(b) a company is wholly owned by a public authority other than a government department if it has no members except—

(i) that public authority or companies wholly owned by that public authority, or

(ii) persons acting on behalf of that public authority or of companies wholly owned by that public authority.

(3) In this section—

• “company” includes any body corporate;
  
• “Minister of the Crown” includes a Northern Ireland Minister.
  

Northern Rock is a PLC, therefore a corporation aggregate... so is Bradford and Bingley.

[barry_2008]

I do not think the term Public body Covers the scope of a PLC.

 

It may have the name Public company in it but I do not think it is a public authority.

[barry_2008]

nice if it did thought