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

[Aequitas]

Any charge that cannot be justified is unfair to the consumer and if this action puts the consumer at a dissadvantage and the only course of action is to take it to court then it can only be termed as an Unfair Term

..I have to reply to banks letter saying their charges are fine, does the above make sense many thanks

 

No.

 

There are two different things:

 

1. "Unfair" within the meaning of [insert law of your choice that is applicable].

 

2. Any definition of "unfair" that does not include 1.

[popeye1]

Unfair Term,=Reg5 UTCCR maybe.

Also section 4 of the Fraud act ,i think i might add .

[means2anend]

can anybody tell me what lol stands for

 

thnks

[yourbank]

can anybody tell me what lol stands for

 

thnks

 

Laugh Out Loud

[jansus]

or apparently for the younger age group - lots of love;)

[yourbank]

or apparently for the younger age group - lots of love;)

They need a clip round the ear then

[kennyh]

You're an 'ard person YB

[hilaryfrances]

They need a clip round the ear then

 

 

yes I agree with you lol has been laugh at loud since our Adam was a lad

 

makes more sense as well when it is added to:

 

ie lmfao

[srfrench]

Interestingly, there may be a way around "amending" your POC's

 

The way is to file "Additional Information" by sending copies to the Court and the Defendant that supports your claim including any additional LAws and evidence you will be relying on in Court.

 

This is assuming that your original POC's amount claimed is unchanged and you quote that in light of the SCoJ Judgement the points of Law have now been clarified. Certainly if you claimed the Penalty and UTCCR reg 5 and / or 6 in your original POC then this should all be that needs be done and no additional costs apart from postage to the Defendant and the Court.

 

I'm sure peeps can verify or flesh this out a little more?

[means2anend]

They need a clip round the ear then

 

Hee! Hee!

 

thnks

 

m2ae

 

P.s SRFRENCH....I shall be making time this coming weekend in order to read all 3 of your above links with ABBEY

 

I try to read as many threads as possible in order to learn and contribute.I look forward to reading about your tactics deployed.

Edited January 11, 2010 by means2anend

[robnfc]

hmm , i see a number of claims companies are now using the new regs on a no win no fee basis , wonder if theyve actually had any success.

[emandcole]

Let's hope the first place we hear about any successes is on here. By the way, is anyone posting progress on amended POC's for an upcoming case or are they still all stayed? Just seems to have gone very quiet and having a few actual cases to follow 'live' would be good for us all.

[robnfc]

well im all claimed out , i havent got the energy to go back to court after the last time, I dont mind taking the bullet and losing 20% if they are successful , at least that way we will know if it is possible or not.

[car2403]

Interestingly, there may be a way around "amending" your POC's

 

The way is to file "Additional Information" by sending copies to the Court and the Defendant that supports your claim including any additional LAws and evidence you will be relying on in Court.

 

This is assuming that your original POC's amount claimed is unchanged and you quote that in light of the SCoJ Judgement the points of Law have now been clarified. Certainly if you claimed the Penalty and UTCCR reg 5 and / or 6 in your original POC then this should all be that needs be done and no additional costs apart from postage to the Defendant and the Court.

 

I'm sure peeps can verify or flesh this out a little more?

 

I would disagree strongly with this approach, personally.

 

The original POC (especially from CAG) was based, largely on the penal issues, which is no longer challengable by the masses.

 

Further, the UTCCR regs material needs some mass expanding on.

 

Also, these POC don't mention the CCA issues that have been enacted.

 

For me, at least, an amendment of POC is a complete necessity - unless you fancy having the Bank challenge your claim on the basis that it's fanciful and that you're abusing Court process by adding additional information to an existing claim, while in fact you are changing that claim completely.

[srfrench]

Whilst I sort of agree with you CAR...I actually checked with the Courts today about it. In reality, they were the ones who actually suggested it and how to do it.

 

It is however agreed that if your original claim POC's did not have the Penalty aspect or the UTCCR unfairness issue mentioned..ie: not specifically 6(2) then this additional info is used to support your case in light of the clarification of the Law by the SCoJ.

 

If your original claim was solely on the Penalty issue it could still be done but would probably agree that the POC's would be better if they were amended.

 

Remember that so long as the Defendant AND the Court have been given a copy of any "Additional Information" in support of your claim it's looked upon as an extension to your POC's. ONLY so long as the amount and argument remains unchanged. In our case Penalty aspect (historical claims) and the unfairness issue. (CCA s.140 and UTCCR 5(1)) and mis \rep Act and possible fraud and Cartel etc etc.... These new Laws and arguments are now starting to pour out of the woodwork like resin.

[Ibsys]

Have you read the lending code section 9 re hardship?

 

Re the lending code section. I must say I have heard of it but never seen it. Our own 8 issues with Lloyds is so diverse in damage and hardship I have I haven't found anyone who understands the inter-connected issues. The Ombudsman has determined one issue to the detriment of the others and the whole thing is a total mess. I really do not know what to do next.

 

It seems only bankers and ex bankers think Lloyds have done nothing wrong but normal decent people and organisations think it is a nasty situation.

[GuidoT]

Whilst I sort of agree with you CAR...I actually checked with the Courts today about it. In reality, they were the ones who actually suggested it and how to do it.

 

It is however agreed that if your original claim POC's did not have the Penalty aspect or the UTCCR unfairness issue mentioned..ie: not specifically 6(2) then this additional info is used to support your case in light of the clarification of the Law by the SCoJ.

 

If your original claim was solely on the Penalty issue it could still be done but would probably agree that the POC's would be better if they were amended.

 

Remember that so long as the Defendant AND the Court have been given a copy of any "Additional Information" in support of your claim it's looked upon as an extension to your POC's. ONLY so long as the amount and argument remains unchanged. In our case Penalty aspect (historical claims) and the unfairness issue. (CCA s.140 and UTCCR 5(1)) and mis \rep Act and possible fraud and Cartel etc etc.... These new Laws and arguments are now starting to pour out of the woodwork like resin.

 

In you mean you talked to the court staff, they frequently misinform (even though well intentioned). They should not be giving out advice like this.

[noomill060]

[srfrench]

LOL @ NOOMI

 

CAR...will be seeing my solictor this morning so will ask him what the solution is. Hopefully I can lay this issue to bed one way or the other bud 8)

[srfrench]

Well...that was an interesting meeting with my Solicitor.

 

Firstly, yes he agrees you can submit as "Adiitional Information" to support your claim. HOWEVER, he agrees also, and for safety's sake that the way forward would be to amend your POC's.

 

Glad that issue was discussed and now resolved!!

 

My Solicitor also has suggested that I give him (so he can forward onto a friend who is a QC) copies of my claim correspondence et al so that he can look it over and with the additional info (laws etc) advice me to see if it's worthwhile pursuing and in the alternate take it on on a no-win, no-fee basis. Meeting is set for Thurs afternoon, so am getting all my current docs sorted and including seperately all the additional arguments and statements in the light of post-SCoJ judgement ready to give to him to not only get his opnion but also to frame a new POC and argument using what new info we have been given so as:

 

UTCCR Reg 5(1)

CCA

Competion Act

Misrepresentation

Undue Influence (Common Law)

Penalties (Common Law)

 

It's also interesting to note that I have already sent a CPR Part 18 request asking them to disclose their T&C;s from 1996-2001 with no response and it was sent Special Delivery as well.

 

I already had a copy (ish) of their T&C's from 2001-2004 and it quite clearly states that if I BREACH these conditions of your overdraft....

 

Quite numerous mentions of BREACHING T&C's in it........

 

If anyone wants it posting up I'll hand type.....

[yourbank]

Are you talking about the Breach wording in terms of the misrepresentation arguments ? (just checking)

[srfrench]

I think I follow what you mean?

 

The "Breach" wording in the 2001-2004 BANK's T&C's mention breach of overdraft agreement yadda yadda yadda....

 

And yes under Misrepresentation as well......"The Banks misrepresented that their relevant terms were penal as opposed to contracting to provide services:

 

The Banks were aware of their customer's "mistaken belief" that their relevant terms were penal but failed to correct this, to the detriment of the Consumer but to the benefit of the Banks':

 

The Banks were aware theat the relevant terms were penal in nature but realised they could argue they were in exchange for a package of services and misrepresented to the Court accordingly.

[yourbank]

Good Good, glad to be of help

 

The parts you have quoted are OR rather than AND, just to be clear as you havent specified.

 

They EITHER ''misrepresented'' in court (noooooooooo never!) OR they have misrepresented to consumers for the past 10 odd years......

 

We know its the first one, but will they defend the first or the second, or just the key bit BEING has that misrepresentation been to the consumers detriment ?

 

oh and FUNNILY ENOUGH - ALL the banks accidentally lol misrepresented the same charges over the same period of time in the same way ?!?

Edited January 12, 2010 by yourbank

[andrew1]

Although not specifically related to bank charges, it would appear people on here have numerous issues with their banks as well as bank charges, but I managed to get a rather large document from my bank (98 pages) called their Lending Policy Document which is their holy grail in how and to whom and when they should lend money and under what criteria they should lend. It is a bit of an eye opener to those who need some in depth knowledge. Just ask for the one in force at the time of a loan or whatever. They won't want to give it to you and will only come in response to when litigation is in place, but it ain't narrf handy!

[srfrench]

Indeed YB indeed......

 

Yes I meant OR rather than AND....I wasn't clear... sorry.

 

SOOOO...misrepresented in Court OR to the Consumer eh?

 

Court (caught) coming and going...lol