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

[barry_2008]

British democracy should be for the people and by the people always has been.

 

The whole point in a European Union Is to empower the people by the democratic way of life.

 

In this country decisions the real ones any way are made by a bunch of ponsy loony's wearing wigs. Mean while The banks rake in money by the billions.

 

Are we in Europe or not?

[barry_2008]

The supremacy of law, means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.

 

Rule of law is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application. This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance

 

Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and we enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.

 

law should govern, and those in power should be "servants of the laws.

 

The Democratic way in this case is to take our case to the European Courts of Law. In a European Superstate the Supreme Court dose not have the last say.

[barry_2008]

Article 3 - torture

 

Main article: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 3 prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.

The Court have emphasised the fundamental nature of Article 3 in holding that the prohibition is made in "absolute terms ... irrespective of a victim's conduct."

 

This is in my view inhumane treatment as there are many folk suffering financial difficulties regarding the length of the case. Also in view of the fact it is a pointless endeavour as we can still go back after the FSA waiver is lifted.

[barry_2008]

Bank Service charges are a inhumane highly lubricative profit making regime designed to pay back tax payers money when the state mucks up and it is a degrading punishment for going overdrawn. The only adequate settlement under law is the total refund of the charge.

 

It is about time the powers to be do the job they are elected for and protect our fundamental values and our right to life. In this day in age a good quality of life can not be achieved on government benefits when you have super banks Like Lloyds and Santander screwing and squeezing you for every single penny you have.

 

Judges Oath

 

"I... do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of..., and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God."

 

Seems they have the duty to vote in our favour already being a liberal and democratic nation.

[barry_2008]

Jeez Barry - this IS England; were anyone in a position of power to try to adhere to this I'd just have to walk on water!

 

I take it you did not read what I have just posted.

 

The judges have the power to refund bank service charges.

 

Lets not play school boy politics and start using the power of law to get our money back.

[barry_2008]

Here is a good lecture on maxims of law and the the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/mor-atkin-lecture-nov2009.

 

I quote a passage from primeinister Winston Churchill who famously quoted in the House of Commons.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs — Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

Edited November 22, 2009 by barry_2008
just showing off

[barry_2008]

In the mean time cases are on hold up and down the country.

Clogging court systems and putting pressure on judges and court staff.

(its not that I mind so much like)

 

We should not be treated this unfairly when there is law to support our case.

[barry_2008]

Which specific law currently supports your case?

 

UTCCR 1999 is being decided upon on Wednesday so is there any other case law you are relying on with regards to bank charges specifically?

 

As I have suggested above Article 3 of the Convention of European Human Rights.

 

Enshrined into UK law by the UK constitution.

[barry_2008]

"Those who fight monsters should look to it that they too do not become a monster" Lord Atkin

[barry_2008]

Again.. The supreme court has been discussing weather or not the banks TOC'S/contracts can be tested for fairness under the UTCCR's Act.

 

The Common Law argument on Penalty Charges were removed.

In my view it was not correctly argued if you read the lecture I have just posted.

[barry_2008]

What do you mean it was not correctly argued?

 

I believe the argument should have been the charge was totally and fully unlawful. Not just part of it.

 

If under contract a party levies service fees from one party to another the

party that has suffered the distress should be entitled to claim compensation.

 

Thus due to the levels of the charges that are applied in my opinion they are unfair and the charge is in effect inhumane according to Article 3.

 

Further The term that allows the levying party to levy charges would therefore become unenforceable as the term would be unlawful.

Edited November 22, 2009 by barry_2008

[barry_2008]

Please read my post before responding.

 

There is no reference to Article 3 of the European Convention in this judgement.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/appealjudgment.pdf

[barry_2008]

The court are interpreting a different directive it even says so in the judgement.

They are saying the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 (“the 1994 Regulations”), were introduced to comply with article 10 of the Directive,

 

But not to decide if the charge is in breach of our basic European Human Rights.

In my opinion under natural and common law after reading the above lecture and other materials, the definitions in bank contracts can be in breach of our Human Rights and be interpreted as Torture and inhuman treatment.

 

Unlike others on this forum and my self in the past that believe it could possibly be interpreted as theft as the banks are able to alter the charges at will. With unfair consent from the customer.

[barry_2008]

In England, amidst the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.

[barry_2008]

The charges are the consequence of an action not the catalyst to that action. If the OFT wins their case, then terms that cause charges to occur can be considered for fairness under UTCCR 1999.

I personally am in favour of what the US have recently brought out with regards to "overdraft services" in that if you do not opt in then every transaction that takes you over your limit is declined and no charges are made as a result.

 

I have no concerns over the way the UTCCR's are being dealt with. I believe it is currently being dealt with in the correct and popper way.

 

But the Common Law argument was taken out.

 

A good basis for understanding common law is to look at each country's constitution or rule of law and work out a mutual and lawful balance.

 

If a service charge is levied and the charge has not been pre negotiated it could be unfair. Especially if this charge is applied to a persons account that is on benefits. This can cause all sorts of Mental health Problems. Stress being one of the. Under Common Law because it enhances our liberties then it could be suggested that this was a penalty as the other is at mass applying the charges to our account which we have no control over the amount of charge within contract.

[barry_2008]

Again.

 

I have already addressed these points.

 

If you read the posts I have posted.

[barry_2008]

The H.O.L are sadly not a democratically elected body and should not have the last say.

 

I bet the outcome will be like the credit card case if the banks loose the appeal. I agree with the leaders of this site. I assume there will be a compromise and the banks will be able to levy a charge from us and the OFT will do dandy all if we complain about these charges using the argument the OFT used.

[barry_2008]

Where are you getting you're information from?

[barry_2008]

The OFT agreed they would not chase credit card charges under £12

 

I said the H.O.L not judges.

[barry_2008]

The HOL I had assumed you meant the Law Lords since that is the topic of the conversation or are we moving back to Policitians again?

 

I think the issue of OFT is in their report(for reference OFT842).

 

"13 The OFT, like other enforcers of the UTCCRs, has a discretion as to how best to allocate its resources to discharge its general duties. For us to take action against charges that are set at a low level (solely on the basis that the costs incurred by the bank in collecting them appear to be even lower than would justify the charge) would be to misuse resources better directed at cases involving more serious economic detriment"

(footnote on page 28 of OFT 842)

 

They still have to use the court system to make the ruling law.

[barry_2008]

Mean while the cases are on hold.

For how long who really knows.

[barry_2008]

Wednesdays are PM Question Time day

 

Good post though JC

[barry_2008]

"Res ipsa loquitur". If the banks are found guilty dose this mean they in fact have breached trust in the contract?

[barry_2008]

Tomorrow is a landmark day in history of banking.

 

Already we have the Daily Express reporting banks may charge unfair fees on withdrawing our own money from cash machines and they could be forced to pay up to 22 billion back. (wish it was gazillion the thieving trolls)

[barry_2008]

I already have my laptop in my online basket.