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

[kennyh]

jdes26,

for the most part this is England and if it takes more effort than a Facebook campaign then it probably ain't gonna happen

[emandcole]

jdes26,

for the most part this is England and if it takes more effort than a Facebook campaign then it probably ain't gonna happen

 

Gotta love this country eh?

[Undercover-Elsa]

Facebook it is then, especially considering that the page:

"Can this sausage roll get more fans than Cheryl Cole" has 977,786 fans

[kennyh]

I have studiously avoided Facebook and the like but if needs must....point me in the right direction

[Surfer01]

I have just requested for my Facebook account to be deleted as it decided it was a waste of time with all the drivel posted by "friends" on there. I use the term friends loosely. Also saw pictures that a friend posted on another forum regarding a young lady who posted a little bit too much info about herself. The pictures were taken in a morgue!

Edited February 12, 2010 by Surfer01

[mcuth]

Here's a question...

 

In the High Court, the NatWest 2001-2003 Ts&Cs were found to possibly include penalty charges (BBC NEWS | Business | New NatWest bank charges ruling), and this was never appealed, right?

 

So, I'm helping a mate with a NatWest claim which dates back to then, but I haven't seen a right lot about continuing with the penalty aspect of those historic Ts&Cs. Anyone got any info on that?

 

Obviously he's now received the standard "We won" letter from NatWest (the court claim is still stayed), so am just trying to compose an appropriate reply....

 

Well, 2 weeks later and nothing about the NatWest possibilities. I wonder if this particular argument's been lost in the general "noise" of the judgement fallout since November. Anyway, maybe I can sort that one on my own (BTW, did the Judge go back before 2001-2003 on those Ts&Cs?).

 

However, my mate just got a letter on Tuesday from HSBC's solicitors along with an order from the Court. This claim was stayed in 2007 with a 3 month timeline post-judgement to apply for further directions. Apparently the solicitors wrote (NOT applied) to the Court about the SC judgement, etc... and advised the Court that the claim would fail. The Court have then struck the claim out without a hearing ("The claim is struck out as disclosing no subsisting cause of action").

 

Debating whether to fight it, but just wanted folks to beware of these backhanded methods....

 

Cheers

Michael

[emandcole]

Well, 2 weeks later and nothing about the NatWest possibilities. I wonder if this particular argument's been lost in the general "noise" of the judgement fallout since November. Anyway, maybe I can sort that one on my own (BTW, did the Judge go back before 2001-2003 on those Ts&Cs?).

 

However, my mate just got a letter on Tuesday from HSBC's solicitors along with an order from the Court. This claim was stayed in 2007 with a 3 month timeline post-judgement to apply for further directions. Apparently the solicitors wrote (NOT applied) to the Court about the SC judgement, etc... and advised the Court that the claim would fail. The Court have then struck the claim out without a hearing ("The claim is struck out as disclosing no subsisting cause of action").

 

Debating whether to fight it, but just wanted folks to beware of these backhanded methods....

 

Cheers

Michael

 

Wasn't aware you can send a post it note to the court advising cases will fail and the judge will just roll over and wait for a biscuit. Whatever happened to formal process?

 

Can you imagine what would happen if a Litigant In Person did the same?

 

They'd need mighty good biscuits I suspect. Chocolate Hobnobs or Cadbury Animals ought to do it .

[landy_alert]

Hi landy/kenny, I had that letter landy had and just a week later got the sod off letter... 4 different banks , not all for myself but thay all said pretty much identical stuff..... These letters have been prepared in anticipation of the govan letters I can assure you... They are to similar not to be pre organised....

There is no hope of getting money back they have the bat needed to smash claims back... supreme court ruling.... we are all losing sight of right and wrong.... read an earlier post I copied from bob bankbuster... sets it all out very clearly... this is a set up and we are able to do nothing there are 1800 daily guests on here and just 300 caggers they now what everybodys next move is and have already prepared response.... I would suggest a little more direct action be discussed..... ie stop paying unsecured debt, clear out savings and cause a run on a bank and a mass protest at how we are having teh wool pulled over our eyes.... supreme court stated decision would not solve myriad of cases, however it clearly has.... you will see when you get response letter in a week or two????

 

Hi Fergal et al,

 

Today I received a further letter from LTSB saying they have passed my GLC letter to their Bank and Card Charges legal team 'as they are the best people to help you. They will contact you soon'.

 

Landy x

[elsinore]

 

However, my mate just got a letter on Tuesday from HSBC's solicitors along with an order from the Court. This claim was stayed in 2007 with a 3 month timeline post-judgement to apply for further directions. Apparently the solicitors wrote (NOT applied) to the Court about the SC judgement, etc... and advised the Court that the claim would fail. The Court have then struck the claim out without a hearing ("The claim is struck out as disclosing no subsisting cause of action").

 

 

That's an abuse of process Michael and both the court and the sols should be told so. Your mate should have been given the opportunity to

1. agree, or

2. request a further stay, or

3. submit revised pocs.

 

A strongly worded letter to the court, methinks, with a copy to the sods (whoops, sorry, sols).

 

Els

[means2anend]

That's an abuse of process Michael and both the court and the sols should be told so. Your mate should have been given the opportunity to

1. agree, or

2. request a further stay, or

3. submit revised pocs.

 

A strongly worded letter to the court, methinks, with a copy to the sods (whoops, sorry, sols).

 

Els

 

DO NOT be fooled into thinking there are no 'BANKING Moles' on this sight...

 

Do not be discouraged.!!!

 

m2ae:)

[elsinore]

DO NOT be fooled into thinking there are no 'BANKING Moles' on this sight...

 

Do not be discouraged.!!!

 

m2ae:)

 

[means2anend]

Sorry Elsinore it was not directed towards u .

 

What I meant was that the chances are this site is probably known amongst the banking fraternity that they may sometimes 'pop in' just to see whats afoot

 

m2ae

[elsinore]

Cheers m2ae, no problem. Just checking!

 

And you're right, this place is crawling with 'interested parties' for much of the time.

 

Els

[emandcole]

Cheers m2ae, no problem. Just checking!

 

And you're right, this place is crawling with 'interested parties' for much of the time.

 

Els

 

From what we've all learned and the absolute a*#e the banking geniuses have made of the global economy I strongly suspect checking in on cag is equivalent to them completing the sort of professional practice needed by people who have proper jobs.

 

The kind of jobs that don't bankrupt entire countries due to incompetence, greed and an inflated degree of self worth to rival any premiership football player. If Quintin, Tarquin and Rubella from the city climbed down from their lofty penthouses paid for by the poor of the world they might actually learn how to do their jobs correctly. For example, how to compose a default notice. How hard can that be?!

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

My friend has just had a very interesting letter from DG Solicitors regarding his HSBC claim. HSBC are applying for a strikeout of his bank charges claim. There is one paragraph in the letter that is quite worrying it says:

 

On the 25th November 2009 the Supreme Court ruled that it was not permissible to challenge the fairness of bank charges under Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR's on the basis that they are too high because that form of challenge is precluded by Regulation 6(2)(b). Regulation 6(2)(b) provides that the assessment (under Regulation 5(1)) of the fairness of a term in a contract "shall not relate...to the adequacey of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange". In other words the 'value for money' equation is excluded. The banks argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the informal overdraft charges are part of the price for personal current account services and that, therefore, the Regulation 6(2)(b) exception applies with the consequence that the charges cannot be found to be unfair on the basis that they are too high.

 

I thought that the Supreme Court had only ruled on S.6 UTCCR's and actually went further by directing consumers to S.5 of the UTCCR's as a possible test for fairness of the charges. However what DG Solicitors seem to be saying is that the Supreme Court also ruled that the charges can not be challenged under S.5. Does anybody know if this is correct or is this an error or deliberate strategy to fend off these claims? What should he do?

 

TheyrCriminals

[JGJ]

TheyrCriminals,

 

Without even trying to be "facetious" please try to answer this question.

 

How do you know when a *anker/solicitor is being economical with the truth??

 

1) When there lips are moving.

 

2) When they put pen to paper, ( CAG friends excepted)

 

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[srfrench]

HAs anyone heard the interesting news on the Music Licenses issue that the pubs were being forced to pay. The Court found them unfair contractually and in practice.

 

This has strong parallels to the issue of S.5 guys!!!!!!!

[JGJ]

srfrench,

 

Dare I ask how and why?

As I have a financial interest in the Licesing trade.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[rdm2006]

Hi Guys,

 

I thought that the Supreme Court had only ruled on S.6 UTCCR's and actually went further by directing consumers to S.5 of the UTCCR's as a possible test for fairness of the charges. However what DG Solicitors seem to be saying is that the Supreme Court also ruled that the charges can not be challenged under S.5. Does anybody know if this is correct or is this an error or deliberate strategy to fend off these claims? What should he do?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

You cannot challenge the LEVEL of the charge (the amount at which it is set) under this rule but you can challenge the charge (as a whole if you like) as being unfair (but not that it is a penalty).

 

Confusing isn't it

 

For example you can not say

 

The charge is disproportionate or

The charge is punitive

 

However, you could say It is unfair that they can charge me for my indiscretions but I cannot charge them for theirs or

 

It is unfair that I (as a person on a low income) have to pay these charges in order for a millionaire to have free banking.

 

I am not suggesting that this is your argument this is just an example to help people understand.

 

That is my understanding of it...

Edited February 14, 2010 by rdm2006

[popeye1]

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

The act of the banks allowing o/d for x amount knowing they will charge you xx amount seems unfair,but putting it in legal wording is not clear,

[srfrench]

For JGJ

 

BBC News - Pubs win court battle over recorded music charges

 

hope the link explains it bud?

[mcuth]

Wasn't aware you can send a post it note to the court advising cases will fail and the judge will just roll over and wait for a biscuit. Whatever happened to formal process?

 

Can you imagine what would happen if a Litigant In Person did the same?

 

They'd need mighty good biscuits I suspect. Chocolate Hobnobs or Cadbury Animals ought to do it .

 

LOL - we're doing just the same back to the court (although not with biscuits )

 

That's an abuse of process Michael and both the court and the sols should be told so. Your mate should have been given the opportunity to

1. agree, or

2. request a further stay, or

3. submit revised pocs.

 

A strongly worded letter to the court, methinks, with a copy to the sods (whoops, sorry, sols).

 

Thanks (as always) Els - we're going back with one of my better letters (if I do say so myself ). Just trying to draft a NatWest one now!

 

Cheers

Michael

[means2anend]

For JGJ

 

BBC News - Pubs win court battle over recorded music charges

 

hope the link explains it bud?

 

 

Thanks for that

 

I have also read it But do you or anyone know the name of the case...I would like to know the thinking process by the Judges that led to that decision and the reasoning behind it.Unfortunately the brief is brief.

[srfrench]

No idea, but you can either contact the BBC news dept and they will give you the reporters name and number and/or contact the Pub Landlords association or the maybe the breweries themselves as they seem to own nearly all the pubs in the UK now.

 

Sorry I couldn't be of any further help, but I'm sure a little bit of informed search work will yield the results you're looking for bud.

[rdm2006]

will this be it ? M2A

 

http://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/static/documents/PPL_v_The_British_Hospitality_Association_Judgement_2008.pdf