Jump to content


freakyleaky

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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3404 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Guys

 

Sorry to intervene here but I've been following this thread with interest and was hoping you might be able to offer me some advice.

 

My claim was stayed pending the Supreme Court case and Cobbetts have now applied to have it struck out. Having made reference to article 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 in my Particulars of Claim, I shall be objecting to this application and looking to submit amended PoCs concentrating rather more on the UTCCR 1974 and s.140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I am, however, a little bemused by Cobbetts approach and, in particular, their suggestion that if the court isn't willing to strike out my claim it orders a further stay. I don't really understand what all this is about and, in particular, what Cobbetts' motivation could be for suggesting such a thing.

 

There are more details on my thread...

 

STAYED CLAIM: What happens next?!

 

... on which, it goes without saying, I'd be really grateful if anyone wanted to share their thoughts or, better still, offer some advice as to how, precisley, I should proceed.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk


NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previously by rdm at #5069

they changed their argument from these charges are to cover our "adminlink3.gif costs" to these charges are a "cross subsidy" to pay for free if in credit banking and therefore are a core part of the contract/business.

I know I've read this numerous times but have yet to find what their QC actually said - any guidance please since this will be part of an argument that will need to be extremely well rehearsed.

Edited by kennyh
crap spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need to read the transcripts really, particularly the high court appeal and the house of lords (SC) as that is where cross subsidy really comes into play. The original defences from the banks (available on the OFT site) don't really mention cross subsidisation as an argument and it only came up once they lost the first hearing.

 

Day 1 - House of Lords

MR SUMPTION: Indeed. In this case, you are paying for the

6 convenience of being able to do that which you would not

7 otherwise be entitled to insist on: namely, that

8 transactions go through in spite of the absence of funds

9 and that you be allowed to borrow.

10 LORD MANCE: Actually, you are not, are you? You are really

11 paying to enable banks to operate a sort of reverse

12 Robin Hood exercise. Isn't it subsidising the richer --

13 MR SUMPTION: That is, with respect, tendentious nonsense.

14 LORD MANCE: Tell me why.

15 MR SUMPTION: Looking at it in terms of the contractual

16 relationship with which this regulation is concerned,

17 what you are paying for is the right to do that. What

18 your Lordship is referring to is what the bank does with

19 its revenue stream.

20 Now, that is not simply what your Lordship calls

21 Robin Hood-ery. First of all, it is a cross-subsidy

22 between those parts of the individual customer's charges

23 which are generated at a time when he is in credit, and

24 those when he is not.

25 One should not look at this simply in terms that

37

1 there are two categories of people: people who are

2 permanently in credit and people who are permanently in

3 debit.

4 But the fundamental objection to your Lordship's

5 point is that it is confusing what the charge is levied

6 before as between the customer and the bank and what the

7 customer spends the money on. It would be just as

8 pertinent -- ie, in my submission, not pertinent at

9 all -- to say that we were charging these in order to

10 pay increased dividends to our shareholders; now, of

11 course, an indirect way of subsidising the public purse.

12 LORD MANCE: There must in fact be a lot of cross-subsidy

13 between people who remain in credit. I mean, the larger

14 the amount you have in the bank, the more interest you

15 will forgo and the more, therefore, you are subsidising

16 someone who may remain perfectly in credit but only

17 has £10 in the bank.

18 MR SUMPTION: Cross-subsidy is inherent in almost any

19 complex package of services. It is absolutely

20 fundamental and it is not objectionable.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

afu's?


Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“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.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant we use the UN?


Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“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.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“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.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, in an attempt to scare off the claimant (court costs etc) the bank requested it be heard in a higher court. The claimant, however, is entitled to legal aid, so that's two fingers to the bank. :D

 

 

In view of recent developments .i.e application to EU in Walls case.....How timely is your statement now...brilliant!!!:D:cool:

 

m2ae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Banks like higher courts as they are more likely to look at the legal and technical points rather than the unfair or moral position.

 

Look what happened with the test case, all going our way, until it got to the highest court in the land.

 

Lets now see if that is still the case

 

m2ae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Govan Law is applying to the EU to bring proceedings against the United Kingdom under article 6(1) of the ECHR, it isn't as far as I can make out, taking the bank charges issue to Europe. From the article on Govan Law ''It is hoped that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will reconsider his refusal to look at a law reform solution to prevent a class of persons, such as the pursuer, being limited in their ability to determine their civil rights before the Scottish courts.'' ( http://govanlc.blogspot.com/ )

 

Do the government's plans for the consumer redress schemes extend to Scotland ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh! well then this route is then asking for a change in the existing laws or to see that they dont in fact contravene EU LAwS that ought be im[plemented and applied properly currently....rather than hearing the case per se....

 

The means will be different...but I assume the outcomes will be the same.

 

For example Human Rights

 

Article 6

1-In the determination of his civil rights...everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independant and impartial tribunal established by law.

 

©..to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing, or if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance to be given it free when the interests of justice so require

Article 6(1) deals with the general right to a fair trial in respect to both civil and criminal cases.It should be given a broad and purposive interpretation see Moreiva de Azvedo v Portugal (1990) 13 EHRR 721.

 

It encompassess the principle of ''equality of arms'' which is based on the accused to procedural equality with the prosecution.To put it another way the accused must have ''a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis to his opponent''

 

The question is does legal aid cover the other sides COSTS if one were to lose..?

 

m2ae

Edited by means2anend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a precedent in that the McLibel 2 even though they lost against McDonalds they won damages against the UK & one of the main concerns of the EU court was that legal aid was not available to them. Therefore the trail was not fair & a clear breach of Article 6

 

They also criticised the law in that there was little protection for those who spoke out against corporations which affected the everyday lives of citizens & the environment. They thought our libel laws too erroneous. Of course in this regard they are wrong its the Judgments that have been too erroneous

Edited by JonCris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a precedent in that the McLibel 2 even though they lost against McDonalds they won damages against the UK & one of the main concerns of the EU court was that legal aid was not available to them. Therefore the trail was not fair & a clear breach of Article 6

 

They also criticised the law in that there was little protection for those who spoke out against corporations which affected the everyday lives of citizens & the environment. They thought our libel laws to erroneous. Of course in this regard they are wrong its the Judgments that have been erroneous

 

Is there a link to this McLibel case anywhere - I have searched for it and can't find it.

 

Thank you


My CCA skeleton argument to use in court -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/115280-useful-information.html

 

Useful Letters (CCA request is letter N)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html

 

CAG A-Z list of useful places in CAG -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/69359-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

Introduction to Consumer Litigation -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html

CABOT THREADS -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131321-cabot-threads.html

 

ALWAYS SEEK A PROFESSIONAL OPINION FROM QUALIFIED ADVISORS - any advice offered is from my own experience and knowledge - I am NOT qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My CCA skeleton argument to use in court -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/115280-useful-information.html

 

Useful Letters (CCA request is letter N)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html

 

CAG A-Z list of useful places in CAG -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/69359-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

Introduction to Consumer Litigation -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html

CABOT THREADS -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131321-cabot-threads.html

 

ALWAYS SEEK A PROFESSIONAL OPINION FROM QUALIFIED ADVISORS - any advice offered is from my own experience and knowledge - I am NOT qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did MDs do wrong in the 1980s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the litigants MD in buying Argentinian Beef were helping to destroy the Amazon Rain Forests.

 

Its understood that MD since the trial now purchase their beef local to each operation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean it's actual beef in those things? Well, you learn something new every day. :shock:

 

 

Second thought, completely OT to th test case subject, but since someone started on the McLibel thing: There are no Amazon rainforests in Argentina, so how could the cattle rearing there affect the rainforests elsewhere? (feel free to answer on a BG thread, lol) I'm curious. :-?

Edited by Bookworm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean it's actual beef in those things? Well, you learn something new every day. :shock:

 

 

Second thought, completely OT to th test case subject, but since someone started on the McLibel thing: There are no Amazon rainforests in Argentina, so how could the cattle rearing there affect the rainforests elsewhere? (feel free to answer on a BG thread, lol) I'm curious. :-?

 

I should have said it was Argentinian Cattle Barons producing beef in Brazil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PLEASE NOTE... I AM MOST SORRY BUT I HAVE VERY LIMITED AVAILABILITY AT THE MOMENT DUE TO EXTREME PRESSURE OF WORK - IF YOU REQUIRE URGENT HELP ON YOUR THREAD AND ARE GETTING NO RESPONSE PLEASE HIT THE TRIANGLE FOR SITE TEAM ASSISTANCE. ELSA XXX

 

Please check out my BLOG for the quick guide to debt threats - it has all the info & letter template links you need to get started on your journey of TAKING CONTROL. :roll:

 

All opinions are my own based on research. I am not legally qualified, if in doubt please consult a legal expert.

Hope this has helped or made you smile. Keep your chin up, you're among friends now! Elsa xxx

Please click the *star* of any CAG member who has helped you .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS" Mike Dailly,

 

I am still living in hope, my stay in place until Late November (Amendment of POC) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

300 caggers 2000 visitors says it all.... this site is losing its power!!!

 

what do we do????


Only direct action by the masses will work....

 

Look at all successes they have never come from negotiation!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defamation and libel laws are currently undergoing a costs review in the Select Committees...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...