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

[photoman]

Okay, if the banks drag things on, even whilst knowing that there is a good likelihood that once this business is all sorted they will just simply have to pay back all the charges taken......

 

...... then on the face of it, to a lot of claimants this may not seem to make much sense?

 

But actually, as far as the banks are concerned, when they do have to give back what they took, they will still have profited from the benefit of the money (investing it, lending it out etc) in the intervening period.

 

 

My suggestion is that everyone now revise their claims to include interest at commercial compounded rates as a matter of course.

 

After all the in-depth discussion on CAG and elsewhere about this subject, I do now personally think that there is a way to do this, and that there is enough basis in law. (I shall not post it here, firstly because if someone is serious about doing it, then they must search it out and understand it, and secondly, because I don't want to take this thread off topic).

 

All I shall say is that I know of several business claimants who did indeed get pre-trial settlements paying out interest at such rates (and received some very sizeable sums, with the interest portion often being several times the size of the actual charges received back).

This confirms my belief that not only are such rates chargeable, but that also the banks themselves believe that this could very well eventually turn out to be the case.

 

By claiming using the argument that the money was conceded whilst acting under a mistaken presumption such money was due to the bank, we can also claim that this created an unjust enrichment on behalf of the banks (and it most certainly has) !

 

So If more and more claims are seen to be calling for a total restitution of all the benefit gained from the money, then the Banks may see less benefit in dragging things on ?

 

 

Just an idea ?

 

PM

[photoman]

Hi Guys,

 

I have searched but I can not find the grounds on which the banks have been granted leave to appeal. As we all know a party can not appeal a court judgement because they simply don't like it, they have to have grounds for an appeal. Does anyone know what grounds the banks submitted an appeal for? Procedural irregularity? New evidence? Judge error?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

They're appealing because they're the Banks... !!

 

They're the ones who really run the country.

 

Unlike a Government they're not answerable to strict process, the voters or the Queen.

 

They have longevity, so they do not just have a short 5 year term in which to create and implement policy, or be dammed at the polls.

 

They have autonomy over interest rates,

They loan the government vast sums of money, who by return bail them out with taxpayers money when they make a mess.

They can make or break a government and so influence it's policy, which means they're the ones who really run the economy, so vis a vis the country...... and how dare their downtrodden subjects question them !!

 

 

That is the Dragon we all face......

 

 

....... Where's Saint George when we need him !!

[photoman]

Regarding the waiver

 

In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse'

 

Many banks have changed their terms and conditions and terms such as fees are now being used instead of charges since the waiver was put in place isnt this a breach of the waiver?

Also another condition of that waiver was that they would keep customers informed of the test case, has anyone had any update from banks concerning this?

 

I wrote to the FSA and asked the following

 

How can I register my concerns that the FSA waiver has been breached by my bank as they have changed my terms and conditions amongst other things which have affected me. For the waiver to remain in place conditions were clear and concise for those firms that for the waiver to remain in place they have to abide by these conditions. This is a breach of those conditions in my opinion and should be investigated.

 

Their answer

A. In the course of our review the FSA found that a number of firms had changed their terms and conditions in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges. In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that t applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse'. The FSA will be closely monitoring how any changes made by a firm will affect customers in practice and whether this amounts to a breach of the waiver. In view of this, we welcome information from consumers which would highlight wider concerns of a firm's use of the FSA waiver. If you would like to provide us with further detailed information, I can assure you that concerns will be carefully considered in light of our regulatory responsibilities.

 

Regards materially adverse changes to the charging structure, I came across this on the Telegraphs website (as originally published on moneyfacts):

 

 

 

Taking what the FSA ruled as terms to allow the waivers to stay in place, and have further re-iterated by response to Bigmacs questions ie:

 

"In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse".

 

.... I would say looking at the new charges, rates and fees structures, that the rates have evidently risen, the charges have increased, and the ways that the charges are now applied have ALL changed on all of these fronts ....... thus, this could definitely be considered as customer abuse, and so should be deemed that the terms governing the waiver have certainly been abused !

 

 

For the sake of clarity, it would be interesting if someone could perhaps post up a similar list (or link to similar list), showing what the charges were just prior to the waiver being granted.

 

 

PM

[photoman]

Okay,

How can the following NOT be considered as being an adverse change in the billing structure ?

 

These are my calculations with regards how Lloyds "new & improved" charging regime could now effectively work out in practice.

 

If one month, you were to say inadvertently go over your overdraft limit by just £26, for just a 10 day period, then you would incur the following:

 

1/ A £15 one off "unplanned overdraft fee"

2/ A daily fee of £15 each of the 10 days.

 

TOTAL that month: £165 !!

 

For just inadvertently over borrowing by £26,

 

Then, on top of that, you would also incur interest at unauthorised rates (probably around 29-30% APR) on the whole sum (ie; the £26 + the £165 in charges).

 

This would then also mean, that the following month, you would be left around £200 short..... so if unable to pay this (which is actually quite a lot to find for some people), you would then incur another:

 

1/ A one off £15 monthly charge,

2/ Plus another 10 days of charges, but this time at £20 per day.

 

So another £225 in charges,

 

(again PLUS interest at the unauthorised rates of 29-30% APR).

 

 

By my reckoning, if this debt trap carries on for 12 months, this would potentially accumulate a whopping total of around ........ £2640 :o just in charges

(not accounting for the Unauth. interest) !!

 

..... just for borrowing £26 over your limit.

 

If my maths is correct , then this would be equivalent to about 10,153.85 % interest on borrowing the original £26 !!!!!

 

....and even then, this does not account for the compounded monthly interest at around 29-30 APR %.

 

So in actual fact, it would effectively be much higher !!

 

 

Remember, that before this "daily charging" business, if you had a similar situation (ie: an item that was allowed to clear and then took you over your limit) you would pay a one off unauthorised overdraft fee.

This was £38

Total that month = max £38.

 

(Still gross, but an easier debt to dig your way out of than the newly imposed £165 debt.)

 

If as above it was allowed to snowball, it would then incur another £38 on any subsequent month you were unable to rectify the overlimit situation.

But that would be it (apart from the interest).

 

So, if left or 12 months, as in the example above, this would have incurred around £456 in charges before the interest.

 

Still shocking and gross, but when compared to the new regime, it shows there has now been what amounts to nearly a 6 fold increase in the potential charges for the same occurrence.

 

Now, tell me this is not an obvious adverse change.

[photoman]

In the papers today the Unions want to know if the £50billion loan from the Bank of England has been used to pay these obscene city Bankers bonuses

 

Can you tell us which papers, and/or if there is a link online.

[photoman]

Heres a very useful link and tutorial created by Steven4064.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/145027-interest-tutorial.html

[photoman]

Barclays to cut penalty charges: BBC 29/05/08

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Barclays to cut penalty charges

 

 

Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group,

 

"It vindicates our stance that the charges have been wildly excessive," he said. "It shows that for years they have been milking their customers for nearly £30 more than they needed."

 

I also like the quote by a Barclays spokeswoman:

 

"If customers continue to run their accounts as they are now, we will earn less money than before from overdraft charges," said a Barclays spokeswoman.

[photoman]

Okay,

 

At the moment if an item is presented to Barclays that will take your account over its limit, and they allow the payment.

They charge a "Paid referral fee" of £30

 

Total cost = £30.

 

Under the new structure, you undertake an agreement that should an item be presented that would take you over your limit, then the bank would automatically give you a "buffer" facility of £250 for 5 days at a cost of £22. This facility (and thus charge) would I presume would be triggered by the presentation of said item. You would then also pay an £8 fee for the clearance of the item that triggered the buffer.

 

Total cost = £30

 

 

anyone spot the difference ?

[photoman]

We all bestow upon banks and similar institutions they mantle of trust, much as we do to real official bodies, such as governments or councils.

After all, they handle all of our money, so they must be trustworthy ?

 

The fundamental flaw in this reasoning, is that they are not actually official bodies, nor accountable (to anyone but themselves) or reasonable (despite how they my represent themselves sometimes) and certainly not our friends.

 

They are not out to to help you, but instead they are just out to make profit.

 

They may appear to be helping you by offering you consolidation loans, or helping out with mortgages etc, but actually it is all just one big contrived plan to figure out and maximise all long term income from yourself.

 

Their trust is undeserved, diminished, and was actually unwarranted in the first place.

 

We all need to start looking at and questioning the small print, and asking whether we really want such megalomaniacal unelected corporations running our country and our lives.

[photoman]

If you take a look at some of the comparison sites you can get a listing of business accounts that offer free banking (ie; no monthly charges) and also no transaction fees.

 

I've just done a quick look myself, and there actually seems to be quite a few.

 

PM

[photoman]

Wow what a surprise ,

 

What the judge has has said is if you want an account you have to abide by these onerous terms and we will(the bank) take every opportunity to rip you off . A charter for thieving Banks .

 

as a taxpayer I think the government on my behalf has just lent £50,000,000,000 to these banks ( might have got my 0's mixed up but 50billion is a big number).

 

just an added thought who pays the judge !!!!!!!!!! the taxpayer

 

a double shafting.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Actually.....

 

The total amount of the bailout is £500 billion...... NOT £50billion !!

 

See my earlier post here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-finance-industry/163239-its-not-50bn-its.html

 

The Government are firstly bailing out the banks by buying £50billion pounds worth of shares in them (the bit that's being lauded as the part nationalisation).

 

Then, they are ALSO underwriting a further £250billion of medium term debts.

ie: acting as a guarantor for the medium term loans the banks have or will take from other banks or foreign investors in the mid term. This bit is to encourage UK banks (or foreign investors) to still lend to other UK banks.

 

On top of this, the Bank of England is also providing a further £200billion by way of upping its special liquidity scheme from the previous level of £100billion, and this will take the form of exchanging risky mortgages for Treasury bonds.

ie: Any banks that have given out mortgage to those who are in danger of defaulting, can exchange such mortgages for a BoE bond. Then if the lender defaults, the bank still gets its' money. This bit is to try to rejuvenate the mortgage market.

 

The total bailout plan is £500billion not £50billion !!

 

Or to put it another way>

 

The potential liability of £500 billion amounts to more than a third of the annual value of the British economy and is approaching the almost £600 billion of total government spending.

 

 

PM

[photoman]

The banks will apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision.

The banks will work with the OFT to ensure the next stages in the test case process are progressed as quickly as possible.""

 

 

 

errr..... don't the last 2 sentences sort of contradict each other ??

[photoman]

I agree yourbank but read the bankers website particularly sec 7 & it would appear that even if the courts decide the OFT can decide their charges are unfair they will still argue that the OFT cannot set the amount.

 

It would appear that as they say that only court can decide that then it'll be back off to the court for all claimants.............. if I'm correct then it's been a round robin exercise all along

 

... Sort of makes you wonder why we even have an OFT at all ?

 

Perhaps they should be renamed: Office of Fairy Tales perhaps ??

[photoman]

If you search the BBA site for the biog of Angela Knight here:

 

BBA – British Bankers' Association - Chief Executive - Angela Knight CBE

 

You will get the following information:

 

Chief Executive, British Bankers' Association

 

After leaving Bristol University with an honours degree in chemistry, Angela worked for the American industrial gas company Air Products Ltd.

She was the product development manager for the application and sales of nitrogen as an inert carrier during the treatment of ferrous metal components.

 

 

.... this basically means that her specialist subject is ... "HOT AIR"...

 

 

... so not much changed there then !!

 

 

Incidentally, the page also allows you to download a jpg image of the lovely lady.....

 

..... soon appearing on a dart-board near pretty most everyone !!

 

 

PM

[photoman]

"3. The Banks’ appeal to the Court of Appeal has now failed and we have now refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal."

 

The high court judges wrote the above. There was not a No chance, or a Don't bother whatsoever.

The banks exercised their right to appeal.

 

 

So, in short:

 

They have been refused permission to take an appeal to the House of lords to appeal against the current judgement.

 

However.... they are entitled to appeal to the House of Lords, for a reversal of the decision not to be allowed to appeal to the House of Lords.

 

If the House of Lords then reverse the judges directions that they are not to be allowed to appeal to the HOL

 

.... then they will then be allowed to take to the HOL an appeal against the current judgement.

 

 

...... this is getting more and more like a Monty Python sketch everyday !!

[photoman]

I'd like to ask a valid question. I know, I know we don't expect it BUT what happens if the financial institutions win in the end? Personally that would equate to circa £5k. I mean that they are not giving in without a fight are they? Each level higher costs considerably more (and it's our cash they are spending by either bail outs or charges). If they really expect to lose then why or why are they going on? It's not as if in the last year they have changed their attitude in any shape or form to charging these 'silly' rates. I have to say I notice HSBC have changed what they call charges, e.g. Authorised Overdraft (at £25 a month!) and so on.

I guess these outlets can all end up with taxpayers money (to bail them out) then it's a bit of a hollow victory either way?

Michael

 

They are carrying on, because commercially it still makes sense.

 

Even if deep down they know or feel that they would ultimately lose, the longer they can stall making the pay-outs the more they can continue to make in interest etc the meantime.

 

Even if forced to pay back everything to everyone, and have to pay statutory 8% interest on all claims, they still have the benefit of such funds in the meantime.

This they can continue to lend back out at commercial rates, ranging from anything from say 12/15% on loans right up to 29%+ on unauthorised overdrafts. Plus remember that such interest gains would be compounded, whereas statutory interest pay-outs would not be, and so this effectively increases such gains in real terms even further .

 

Plus, there is also the fact that the longer it all goes on, then more and more people will drop out, lose interest, convert their existing debts with them into profitable loans, or simply pop their clogs.

 

On the plus side for claimants; is the fact that the longer it goes on, the more and more you will earn in statutory interest (which is much much better than any pathetic savings account at the moment), plus the fact that having the matter judged by the highest courts and appeals possible will leave no doubt as to a claimants position once the issues are resolved.

 

PM

[photoman]

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

 

 

"If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.”

Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940

[photoman]

POSTED BY YOURBANK:

 

"Vos also admitted his previous (april 08 comments about foregon interest not being part of the price and said it was irrelevant anyway - so feck knows why they bought it up yesterday"

 

 

Could somebody please post up what this refers to?

 

ie: is it regards to interest that the consumer has had debited or foregone as a result of these charges ?

 

Pretty please... ??

 

PM

[photoman]

THANKS YB,

 

But still doesn't quite answer my question ?

 

YB (or anyone else):

 

What were Vos' original comments on foregone interest ?

 

(precis, or a link will do)

 

Thanks

Edited June 25, 2009 by Rooster-UK
Quote removed

[photoman]

Its on the link PM

 

I don't understand much of it but these are extracts.

 

 

this part from original hearings

 

lead QC for Nationwide, Geoffrey Vos, stated on the subject of the cost of personal current accounts ''And what is the price? Well, my Lord, the price is broadly free for the credit customer, except of course we retain the difference between the interest rate that we give the credit customer and whatever commercial interest rate we are able to achieve on the money deposited, and that can be regarded as part of the price.''

 

 

soo....

 

Originally Vos was making out that "free banking" was actually being financed by the interest foregone by those in credit (in an obvious attempt to deflect any accusations that "free banking" was actually being financed by such charges).

 

Now... he is denying this ??

 

So, HOW is he now proposing that "free banking" is actually being financed?

 

If he is now asserting that its' not being financed by interest foregone by the minority with credit balances, and they also still maintain that its' not being financed by these charges...

 

...then how ??

 

 

.... fairy dust perhaps ??

 

.. or are they just so generous that they are picking up the tab themselves ?

 

IMHO, he has now opened himself back up to the possibility of the original accusation, and/or have to explain why those good enough to actually keep their accounts in credit are receiving such poor rates.

 

 

 

I hope some of the lords pick up on this, and ask for an explanation as to how "free banking" really is actually financed !!

[photoman]

If you own a Public house, and just prior to the smoking ban coming into effect, had drafted and signed agreements with all your customers allowing them to smoke in your pub, does this then allow them to continue smoking after the ban came into effect?

 

No.

 

The effect of a statute is absolute and comprehensive.

It covers not only new contracts drafted after the date of its' effect, but also requires that all existing contracts also comply.

They must either be adapted or new contracts issued.

Otherwise, any terms that do not comply with the statute are remiss, and can be challenged.

[photoman]

Do you think the bank has the right to charge for returning a standing order or Direct debit?

 

Yes, IMHO they should be able to charge.

 

But that is not the true issue.

 

It is whether they should be entitled to vastly profit from such circumstance.

 

They should be only allowed to recoup any extra cost arising from such an event. Otherwise, if allowed to profit, it distorts the decision making process.

 

If allowed to profit from such an event, then they will be more predisposed to take the profit option, rather than simply the more justifiable recuperation of costs option.

 

Imagine an analogy:

 

The postman tries to deliver a letter to you, but the amount of postage paid is inadequate.

He has two options:

1/ He can knock on your door, and ask you for the difference.

2/ He can instead fill in a card informing you that he attempted to deliver a letter, but as postage was insufficient, the item has been returned to their depot, and to release it you will have to pay not only the difference, but also an extra unexplained fee. He then posts the card instead of the letter.

 

The postman had still only made the same trip, still only been put to the same amount of effort, and still only delivered a single item

 

Would it be justified if the post office had a policy of encouraging the postmen to favour the second option above the first, because it made them more money?

 

Would you feel as if you had received good service, and one worth paying extra for ?

[photoman]

The initial question of whether the banks have a right to charge for returning an S/O or D/D is also intertwined with the question of whether they have a also right to charge if they do clear them?

 

If the clearing of such is done at no cost to the consumer, and the two go through much the same process (i.e. the same resources and infrastructure), then the refusal should be without charge too.

 

On the other hand, if you agree that there is a right to charge for refusing, (even just at cost), then the argument then raises the issue of whether the clearing of such should also be charged.

 

You see where I'm going here?

 

There should be a parity of cost for two.

If you feel that there is a right to charge for one, then the same applies to the other.

Likewise if you feel one should be free, then the other should be too.

 

Agree that there is a right to charge for refusing one, with no clearly demonstrable additional cost over the other, only leads to the question of whether the other should be charged for too ?

 

Thus raises the ogre and threat of an end to "free" banking.

[photoman]

Lets face it, the Government are probably damned either way upon the final outcome of this;

 

If the HOL find in favour of the Banks, then the voting public will be outraged that the Banks have received so much taxpayer money, and be allowed to continue to rip the public off. The government will be blamed for this, and it will also be taken as a sign of political weakness. Not good in the run up to a General Election.

 

If on the other hand, the HOL find against the Banks, then the banks will have to find masses of money to pay people back, weakening them further and perhaps even require they turn to the government/taxpayer for even more handouts .

This will not bode well for the economy, or for Government relationships with the Banks, and (if more fiscal support required for banks) also voters happiness with the way banks have been bailed out yet again, with yet more taxpayers money, in order to pay them back their own money. Again, not good in the run up to a General Election.

 

So, I imagine the Government are hoping resolution of this issue will come after the next General Election, so that either:

If another party wins, then the next government will get have to deal with the implications of the ruling.

or

If they do get back into office, the ruling will arrive at the beginning of a new term, rather than near the end of one, and so near to a General Election.

[photoman]

So what you're saying is all our claims got put on hold so that we could see if the OFT could assess for fairness.

The courts say no, the OFT can't assess for fairness.

But it doesn't mean the charges are fair.

Which takes us back to the OFT's statement on credit card when they said only the courts could decide what constitutes a fair charge.

So we have to go back individually to the courts for each individual judge to decide on fairness.

So, the last 2+ years have been a giant waste of time??? :-? :-? :-?

 

 

 

 

CONSUMER LEGISLATION ISN'T WORTH THE PAPER IT'S WRITTEN ON !!

 

 

 

IF IT CANNOT BE ENFORCED, IT IS POINTLESS.

 

 

 

THE OFT IS REDUNDANT

 

 

 

PARLIAMENT IS POWERLESS AND REDUNDANT.

 

 

 

 

 

THE BANKS ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY !!!

 

 

 

 

WELCOME TO THE ORWELIAN FUTURE.

 

 

 

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry: