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

[Bookworm]

Oh what a surprise. Not.

 

Bookie, signing in briefly from McDonalds (that's how desperate for news I was!) as Internet has died at home. (snow caused more than likely)

 

Just to say that if you don't see me around, it's not because I have curled up in a ball of despair and given up, but because I can't bloody get on here! (and I can't keep on traipsing to McD).

 

Need to digest and regroup, that's all I can say for now before battery dies on me. Technology is great until it fails.

 

Laters.

[yourbank]

Teamwork comment was aimed at ncf's comment about a joint fighting fund.

[speedtrip]

Hi everybody.

 

My case was stayed pending resolution of the OFT decision with revised defence to be submitted within 28 days of the resolution.

 

I dropped a letter into court yesterday (receipted) before the decision was leaked/announced requesting a general stay allowing me time for the OFT and me to consider position.

 

In light of the OFT decision today I want to wait for the relevant consumer groups CAG etc to clarify their position inc guidance from Ray Cox about where we go from here.

 

Obviously, I would to submit revised POC if this is the consensus given that aboout 40% of the outstanding £7500 comprises charges and interest

 

My problem is that i am currently unemployed with a young family and savings running out and i take on the banks i am pretty they will force this down the Fastrack Route as total over £5k.

 

This could get pretty costly, although i would argue that taking into account the charges the total falls below £5K.

 

My point is there must be a lot of us now facing similar situations where they do have the financial means or the understanding and skill to present their cases in court.

 

Small Claims may now be considered inappropriate for these hearings, as the banks will claim they are complicated and they will want Fastrack to bully us into submission knowing full well we the consumer will not what the possible burden on the higher court costs.

 

Today I have seen Sky present the OFT position, voluntary discussion with the banking sectior, but this is dealing with the future not the banks, but i have heard nothing from Martin Lewis.

 

I will be watching with great interest and am fully supportive of class action.

 

I expect to receive a letter from the bank or court in the new year.

 

Regards

 

ST

[the_shadow]

Today I have seen Sky present the OFT position, voluntary discussion with the banking sectior, but this is dealing with the future not the banks, but i have heard nothing from Martin Lewis.

 

According to his facebook page he was laid up with a bad cold (manflu) yesterday and I suspect today is no different.

 

S.

[srfrench]

Hey!........it's a real disease and is incredibly debilitating

[kennyh]

I've been hearing mutterings of a section of one of the consumer acts which places the burden of proof on the banks when it comes to fairness.

Can anyone point me in the right direction please?

[means2anend]

Kennyh

 

go to Home - Statute Law Database and in the year typr in 2006 and next box type in 14 then follow your instinct or type in year 1974 and next box type in 39 and scroll down to sections 140 and keep reading all sections 140

 

rgds

 

means2anend

Edited December 22, 2009 by means2anend
it should be 39 in the number box and NOT 36

[bornrich]

I've decided that I'm going ahead with my case whatever (assuming it's not thrown out) based on Clause 5 and hardship.

 

I'll be spending January swotting up on the legal arguments ready to present to the judge whenever I get the chance.

 

I've waited two and a half years and I want my day in court.

 

Any advice from CAG will be most appreciated of course.

 

Basically, I'm not scared of the banks anymore. I treat them with utter, utter contempt and I will challenge them at every opportunity.

 

2010 will be the year when the consumer bites back!

 

Merry Christmas to you all.

 

Bornrich

[kennyh]

bornrich- be lucky!

means2anend - bless you; hoping the fightback starts here; I've currently 2 cases in court and have NO intention of picking up my marbles (those I ain't already lost!) and running.

AND a very happy Christmas and PROSPEROUS 2010

[srfrench]

Ditto KEN

[whizzkid001]

Great article here, sums it up to a tee...Bank Charges: OFT Throws in the towel - Director General should resign and the OFT shut down. - Birmingham Post - Business Blog

[car2403]

Great article here, sums it up to a tee...Bank Charges: OFT Throws in the towel - Director General should resign and the OFT shut down. - Birmingham Post - Business Blog

 

That's a harsh, but fair assessment, IMHO. I wonder if the Journo had a claim stayed?!

[Aristoc]

According to the front page of CAG, to date around seventeen and a half million pounds have been returned to consumers who have successfully taken a stand against unlawful charges.

 

A quick search reveals that well over two and half BILLION pounds of revenue is generated from bank charges per year.

 

From a purely economical short-term perspective, does it not make perfect sense for the OFT/Government/Whatever to hand the fight back over to the public and risk losing a few million over potentially HUNDREDS of millions?

 

If the OFT were to win, quick-fix legal teams would spring up all over the place advertising their services as a route for bank charge reclaims. Everybody and their dog would be doing it. Letting the consumers get away with a few million a year in goodwill gestures is the lesser of two evils.

 

Here's hoping the new POC's are strong enough. If the OFT have been scared out of action then hopefully they will be.

[Camdenite]

 

If the OFT were to win, quick-fix legal teams would spring up all over the place advertising their services as a route for bank charge reclaims. Everybody and their dog would be doing it. Letting the consumers get away with a few million a year in goodwill gestures is the lesser of two evils.

 

But wouldn't those same claims co's be springing up if WE showed them a way through via the court system? There were plenty around 3 years ago, going down exactly the same route as the general public.

[Aristoc]

I'm not so sure you know, a victory on the part of the OFT would be all over the press. I mean yes, my point about the quick-fix companies was that anybody and everybody would be doing it, but with a regulatory body sanctioning the reclaims i'm sure there would be a whole host of added claimants.

 

It's not just that people would be claiming, either, the banks would be forced to revise their charging strategy and they would lose out on hundreds of millions in future revenue.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Aristoc

[kennyh]

Here's hoping the new POC's are strong enough. If the OFT have been scared out of action then hopefully they will be.

Hear! Hear!

Were the time right then I think 'quick-fix' companies would be 'taken out' by established legal practices.

[Docman]

As Bill Paxman says in the film of the same name,

 

TODAY IS OUR 'INDEPENDENCE DAY'

[noomill060]

Channel 4 news tonight- it may be possible for indivduals to succeed on a case by case basis, where the OFT failed on a narrow point of law...

[Helford]

Great article here, sums it up to a tee...Bank Charges: OFT Throws in the towel - Director General should resign and the OFT shut down. - Birmingham Post - Business Blog

 

 

I just had to post my own comment

 

[means2anend]

kennyh

 

I do not wish to digress from the subject matter in this thread but purely for your enquiries I need to make a slight correction

 

Sorry it is not 36 it is 39 (c=chapter 39, being the 39th Act to be passed in that year 1974 it is a shortcut instead of typing the whole name in the name box.Once u recognise the chapter and year it is a form of shorthand.

 

When u go 2 statutelaw etc...type in 1974 in the year box and type in 39 in the number box and you will see link for CCA 1974 click on it and scroll down to sections 140,A,B,C and D as amended by Consumer Credit Act 2006 c14 section 19.

 

Alternatively type in 2006 in the year box and 14 in the number box and you will see link for CCA 2006 the Amending Act.Scroll down to section 19 and Unfair Relationships are in those sections.

 

Once u master the search techniques you will be independant and be able to keep apace and UPDATED on your own and gain confidence.Also cross reference that database with opsi.(Office of Public Sector Information)

 

For example in s127 subsections(3) (4) and (5) in CCA 1974 have been repealed.BUT you can see what those sections WERE when they existed and still do apply to agreements still live and regulated under the 1974 Act made before the repeals came into effect .Go to OPSI and click on Legislation at it was ENACTED and BEFORE any REVISION.Sometimes Statutelaw ONLY keeps the CURRENT REVISED LAW and LAW WAITING TO BE UPDATED ONTO the DATABASE.

 

Once you have mastered the search techniques as explained by that database you are on your way.

 

If you TRAVERSE between the 2 databases you should master the art of updating and research and also a feeling of satisfaction that you no longer have to sit in LAW LIBRARIES for hours waiting behind some snotty law student for a particular Research Resource

 

Also to get a feel as to the thinking behind that ACT and to understand PARLIAMENTS intentions in the debates and speeches in Hansard way back in 1973 by the then Sir Geoffery Howe Minister for Trade and Commerce go to the thread 'Guidelines-Requests For An Original Agreement Under The Consumer Credit Act 1974' started by Gizmo111 and you will find my link to that vital resource in post 987/988 on page 50 I think I am currently the latest post on it.If you understand the speeches and thinking behind the legislation then this makes understanding the actual legislation much easier to grasp and the purpose behind that piece of legislation/Regulation/SI/Orders/...

 

Rgds

 

Means2anend

Edited December 22, 2009 by means2anend

[andrew1]

It would have been a whole lot easier if the banks and the OFT had come to a compromise and the all charges were paid back automatically to every bank account holder who had suffered a loss through penalty charges. That way it would have been fair to everyone who had been charged, not just those who come to the forums, easier on the courts as the claims in place could have all terminated and a relief for the government who have fecked up just about everything else since they came to power.

 

Of Course, that's too easy.!

[Jamesx81x]

It is 'Regulation 5' of the UTCCR that the Supreme Court themselves in their ruling noted the question of fairness can still be looked under.

 

Its all to do with contractual terms that have not been individual negotiated which of course overdraft fees have not. They are pre-set by the banks when you join.

 

The burden is on the banks to prove their costs not the consumer.

 

Below is link to UTCCR scroll down to Reg 5 and that is the route and looks like only route of all future claims

 

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

[The Phantom]

I am worried that no matter what the POCs now state or will state , the ordinary County Court Judge will side with the Banks after the OFt fiasco.

And banks will be more confident to defend claims in court through their legal departments.

I don't want to be little Johnny Raincloud, but I can't see the banks refunding a penny now and I think the County Courts will go along with them

[elsinore]

That's a harsh, but fair assessment, IMHO. I wonder if the Journo had a claim stayed?!

 

Could be, he's a CAG member!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/member.php?u=80019

 

Els

[kennyh]

A bit sweeping Phantom. I know that legal precedents can't be made at county court but that will not stop me quoting winning instances whereever we learn of them.

Means2anend - loadsa new skills for me to hone (never thought my old computer programming career would be so useful - or,indeed, resurrected!); very many thanks......I think!