Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4180 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My understanding is that it's over for those cases stayed with the Courts and FOS, but not necessarily over for future charges. The OFT could still use alternative by-laws and Parliament could use legislative powers to lower the charges.

 

I'm sure Marc Gander & Martin Lewis will be leading a lobby on this issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That is just like saying that the previous courts are not competent at all. There should be an inquiry into them making a wrong decision. Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?:mad:

 

 

If all else fails, kick them where it hurts and SOD'EM;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is just like saying that the previous courts are not competent at all. There should be an inquiry into them making a wrong decision. Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?:mad:

Whilst I agree with your name, and I don't want to defend the b(w)anks or the "Supreme" Court "Justices" in any way [as I also disagree with the Judgment], I have to disagree with the main part of your post.

 

"Higher" courts often overrule lower court's judgments. It is in no way a statement as to the lower court's competence. Looking at it that way is unrealistic.

 

I do not for even one split second agree with this Judgment in any way, shape, form, method or manner, but I don't agree that this Judgment deems the lower courts as incompetent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is as "Doom and gloom" as people are saying. To be honest I just wish the OFT had kept their noses out of it and left it as it should be, We put our claims to the court, they make a descision.

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is as "Doom and gloom" as people are saying.

What's not doom and gloom in the UK??? Of course it is!!!:mad:

 

To be honest I just wish the OFT had kept their noses out of it and left it as it should be, We put our claims to the court, they make a descision.

Me too - but only with the last word spelt as "decision"!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst I agree with your name, and I don't want to defend the b(w)anks or the "Supreme" Court "Justices" in any way [as I also disagree with the Judgment], I have to disagree with the main part of your post.

 

"Higher" courts often overrule lower court's judgments. It is in no way a statement as to the lower court's competence. Looking at it that way is unrealistic.

 

I do not for even one split second agree with this Judgment in any way, shape, form, method or manner, but I don't agree that this Judgment deems the lower courts as incompetent.

 

 

Would you agree that it deems the courts to be a complete bunch of time wasting A**EH***S?

 

 

If all else fails, kick them where it hurts and SOD'EM;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you agree that it deems the courts to be a complete bunch of time wasting A**EH***S?

Nope. Because I've succeeded in enough cases in the courts to know the contrary.

 

I would agree that it deems this case to have been a complete waste of time & money and the OFT to be the Office of eFfed-up Trading!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
looks like all is not lost peeps, the OFT used the wrong clause to make a claim

 

 

 

Yeah, they used the "Santa Clause".:D

 

 

If all else fails, kick them where it hurts and SOD'EM;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court Bank Charges Decision

THE FIGHT GOES ON AS JUDGEMENT SHOWS ANOTHER ROUTE FOR CLAIMS

As we read further into today's judgement it has become clear that the OFT may have used the wrong part of the UTCCR. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used, and this may lead consumers to consider rewording their claims.

 

Clause 5(1) states that "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

 

Any clause allowing a bank to impose repressive charges, and increase and change those charges at its own discretion would be extremely likely to put the bank in a dominant position - and therefore the term should not be allowed to stand.

 

Obviously the judgement is still being analysed, but it would seem that the fight is most certainly not lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The battle maybe lost, war is still on going.

Some useful links.

FAQ's

Making Posts

Letter Template Library

Bank Contact Details

AQ Guide to Completion

Court Fees

Data Protection non Compliance

Witness Statements for Court Bundle

Banking Code Website

Limitations Act

Fast Track Costs

A-Z Index

Mis-Claim Tutorial

Step By Step Instructions

 

Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs-The Titanic by professionals.

 

Please click my scales if you find my advice helpful !

 

If your claim is successful, please donate 5% so that it can continue to help others.

 

Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

 

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

YOU CAN NOW COMPLAIN TO THE OFT ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of your charges Kia are under historic T&Cs which say charges were to cover costs. Today's ruling only says the OFT could not assess the fairness of the prices of a bank's services.Your claim has nothing to do with the price of a service, its a dispute over whether you were being told the truth about how much their costs were. We need to consider whether the door is now open for claims to be made under sections 5 and 8 of the UTCCR 1999.

 

We believe that the Charges term within your bank contract will not be binding under Regulation 8 as Regulation 5 points to terms being unfair if they are not individually negotiated. This causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Once it is established that the term violates Regulation 5, then Regulation 8 negates that term and so the banks will be liable to return all charges. We will be working on the next step with the so many brilliant minds on this forum. I am so proud of how this forum has pulled together some of the most clever and devious minds from around the country, and given the banks and credit card companies such a headache, some of them should train to be solicitors.

Some useful links.

FAQ's

Making Posts

Letter Template Library

Bank Contact Details

AQ Guide to Completion

Court Fees

Data Protection non Compliance

Witness Statements for Court Bundle

Banking Code Website

Limitations Act

Fast Track Costs

A-Z Index

Mis-Claim Tutorial

Step By Step Instructions

 

Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs-The Titanic by professionals.

 

Please click my scales if you find my advice helpful !

 

If your claim is successful, please donate 5% so that it can continue to help others.

 

Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

 

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

YOU CAN NOW COMPLAIN TO THE OFT ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All of your charges Kia are under historic T&Cs which say charges were to cover costs. Today's ruling only says the OFT could not assess the fairness of the prices of a bank's services.Your claim has nothing to do with the price of a service, its a dispute over whether you were being told the truth about how much their costs were. We need to consider whether the door is now open for claims to be made under sections 5 and 8 of the UTCCR 1999.

 

We believe that the Charges term within your bank contract will not be binding under Regulation 8 as Regulation 5 points to terms being unfair if they are not individually negotiated. This causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Once it is established that the term violates Regulation 5, then Regulation 8 negates that term and so the banks will be liable to return all charges. We will be working on the next step with the so many brilliant minds on this forum. I am so proud of how this forum has pulled together some of the most clever and devious minds from around the country, and given the banks and credit card companies such a headache, some of them should train to be solicitors.

how true uk thank u for exp1aining it cos my ex seemed to think we had 1ost if it hadnt been for cag i wou1d have be1ieved it now i dont thank u xxxxxxxxkia

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me but i seem to be having a problem with the statue law database can somebody post up a link to the UTCCR please. Thanks

 

Also another thing.

 

Regulation 8 and 5. Does this only apply to banks or could this also apply to catalogue companys?

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DG

 

It does read as tho it could be used in catalogue companys.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...