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

[kennyh]

Thanks Shadow -yes I was a bit 'off-hand' in the earlier question; and, yes, we could write to 'them' and see what, if any, response we get.

However if, as many of us are, we are already embroiled in a claim and find it difficult changing course, mid stream, then to obtain

relevant letters from the bank from the period the account was held

if they're not already held in our possession, makes the whole process somewhat unwealdy and to extrapolate a template is, I would suggest, a somewhat dodgy proposition for court action.

[kennyh]

UTCCR Reg. 5(1) – An imbalance of rights and obligations, contrary to good faith, and to the detriment of the consumer.

Surely we're seeking the broadest possible, practical (on a 'day to day' basis) interpretation and application to which this might be applied. Not merely occasional errors which, as YB says, the banks already have a mechanism to use.

[kennyh]

This is where the 1 single solitary charges on one day not creating excess could be problematic perhaps if 6.2(b) on UTCCR 1999 is considered.

YB, sorry to be so unyieldingly THICK, but whilst I do understand the 'not individually negotiated' aspect of the argument, the above has lost me a bit. Mind you I'm still trying to download the relevant bits of UTCCR,CCA et al...

[kennyh]

personal relationship of the bank manager and customer

are we sinking back into history now?

[kennyh]

There is also the new legal argument under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which goes into detail too but unfortunately will be limited to certain consumers only.

 

Do we know which?

[kennyh]

Hi RobRoy,

Yeh I remember them too - I remember mine in 1961, upon being asked if I could borrow to buy a motorbike, replied 'No problem young man - what collateral do you have?' I remember staggering out thinking a. what's collateral? and b. if I had it would I be asking for a loan?

Upon reflection I wouldn't have had it any other way - g'bless the old geezer.

[kennyh]

TheyrCriminals,

I reckon that, even allowing for new pocs, we'll have enough 'meat' to really have a telling effect on the banks. I concur with much earlier statements that the SCOJ has been instrumental in clearing a lot of 'trees' to expose a much larger 'wood'.

[kennyh]

moral

Sorry PompeyF - that word ain't in 'their' vocabulary.

CCA arguments are still being prepared/progressed, so that might change, however.

PERAYER MATS OUT!!

[kennyh]

Ibsys

ML and the other campaigning bodies-despite any articles you might have read it is NOT ML playing the Lone Ranger (much as he might like to give that impression on occasion)

[kennyh]

You're an 'ard person YB

[kennyh]

Tiresome I know but any info from QCs yet - even due date??

[kennyh]

all we need now is POC's so once they reply we can start court proceedings .

As before -when might we expect comprehensive input on this?

[kennyh]

Reading through the regulations, (UTCCR) the CCA, (s.140A) etc, it's clear that fairness turns on the facts of an individual case. What is fair is one case may not be fair in another, etc, etc.

 

Fair enough but Joe Soaps like me are going to need help, initially, identifying just what is and isn't fair. A steep learning curve it may be but, I feel sure a little help will go a very long way

[kennyh]

YB

We do not believe that there is

any legal basis on which the amount of the charges can be challenged.

 

How about that bit?

We are satisfied that the bank charges you seek to reclaim were properly charged and the outcome of

the legal proceedings confirms our position

does it really?

As I understand things (and I'm the first to admit there are an increasing number of areas I'm finding difficult) other avenues of attack quite probably exist and are being clarified.

[kennyh]

they are correct that the level of the charges cannot be assessed for fairness.

Under CCA also?

[kennyh]

So we try a variety of claims using a variety of alternative Acts/Regs and see which causes the banks most grief.

Somewhere there is surely something that will.

Edited January 17, 2010 by kennyh
spelling's crap

[kennyh]

So folks,

where does this leave UK customers? Presumeably we use UTCCR (bits not nullified by SCOJ) and CCA et al., as we've been discussing.

[kennyh]

So (as mentioned in #4606 above) it's looking increasingly like a dual-pronged attack using UTCCR1999 Reg 5 coupled with, where-ever possible, Section 140 a-d of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974?

So far as the Natwest anomoly is concerned, again whereever possible, do we formulate a fresh claim for the period in question (with, presumeably, good odds of success if the t&cs for the limited period were found wanting by justice)

I would still wish to await any revised information but times is 'agettin' tight.

[kennyh]

Only for a renewed onslaught for bank charges - if I can; else I might have to 'cobble together' some less than perfect ones to get things moving. So far as DCAs, Cr Cards and ppi are concerned, the existing resources seem to work a treat.

Be lucky mate.

And, don't forget to start your own thread on the subject.

Edited February 18, 2010 by kennyh
forgot last line

[kennyh]

Dougle & srf - many thanks

[kennyh]

HSBC- claim now £8858.27 'SHOCK NEWS 14TH OCT 2009 - HSBC BREACH COURT ORDER - ACTION PENDING JAN 2010.

 

This I gotta see!

[kennyh]

Blimey!

[kennyh]

Hi Speedtrip,

If you haven't already, I would strongly suggest you start your own thread.

Other than that patience is the name of the game and don't be overly hard on "Consumer Protection Champions" since the SCOJ decision was a body blow to them also (and, being human - like so many of us- they too have 'fish to fry')and the recovery is taking a little longer than anyone, outside the banks, would wish.

If your transcription of your bank letter is accurate

level of unplanned overdradft charges cannot be assessed for fairness under consumer fairness legislation known as UTCC."

then I should compliment them on their accuracy (lol) and proceed to p*** on their chips by perhaps (if you become that time critical) embarking on a rejoinder spiced by GLC - see earlier posts. Edited January 22, 2010 by kennyh
missed a bit

[kennyh]

Would anyone care to venture an opinion as to whether Statute of Limitation arguments are now largely redundant with the demise of the old fairness concept. We shall be probably using Acts which date between 1974 & 1999 and, if the 6 year countback starts on any of those dates then the range of each claim will, for many folk, be adequate.

C'mon what am I missing?

[kennyh]

justify

Not in their vocab dj