Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well, you've highlighted the problem yourself, whatever you decide will carry some risk.   However, I would think the risk of a default judgement & CCJ is to be avoided at all costs and the least worse thing would be to write them a two-line letter with their reference number and your new address.   As usual, any details you can give us on the forum sticky would be useful for the future      
    • That the value I paid for.. 250..  The cctv footage it's archived. 2 of them.. 
    • No copy of signature.. Just a name "jolly"... On tracking no proof of signature 
    • Thanks for the message that is what I thought. In the mean time they have sent another message, below, I can’t follow up with Amazon until 48 hours. But I will go armed.    “Your return period is 30 days with ourselves and then you are covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.”    
    • OK, I found the letter I was looking for:     Dear Sir/Madam,   Reference: [order number]   On [date], I placed an order for a [item] and it was delivered by you on [date].   I have discovered that the [item] has the following problem: [give details].   The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.    Any returns policy that says I have to cover the cost of returning items must only relate to the situation where I change my mind about the item ordered and not where there is a problem with the item.    I should not lose out financially as a result of your breach of contract and accordingly all costs of returning the item should be met by you.    I also require you to confirm you will arrange for [the item] to be collected.   I look forward to hearing from you.   Yours faithfully, [Your name]
  • Our picks

    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 8 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 12 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
BankFodder

Bank Charges - OFT test case - the banks have given up

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4034 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

It is the third day of the hearing.

 

The top QC in the land, Johnathan Sumption - who is probably charged out at £20k ++ per day - or in that order, has spent a lot of the time telling the Law Lords

 

That to give us our victory could spell the end of free banking

That the banks could face claims for restitution

That the banks might be deluged by claims

That people would be claiming back their charges from the 1990s

That the banks face an appalling prospect

That current account contracts could become completely unenforceable

 

 

The QC for the Nationwide contributed his 2 pennyworth by warning the Law Lords that 12.6 millions of people each year have to pay bank charges [and that this would then become 12.6 million claimants]

 

These are not legal arguments. These are arguments in mitigation. These are cries for help from a litigant in the depths of desparation.

 

It is clear that the banks have gone to the Lords cap-in-hand. They realise that they have no hope of success and that the game is up. They are now trying to paint a catastrophic picture of what could happen in order to frighten the Lords into expressing their judgment in a way which might block or frustrate the level of claims for refunds.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A masterly summary. :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. It is a prime example of one part of the Establishment seeking assistance from another.

 

Akin to calling on the King's militia when the revolting peasants are at the castle gates with pitchforks and burning torches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comments taken out

Edited by yourbank

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called an opinion, YB. ;-)

 

Of COURSE, they haven't REALLY given up... BF was making the point that their submissions smack of desperation. I don't think BF expected anyone to take him literally. :razz:

 

(although I have to admit my heart skipped a little when I saw the title! :-D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called an opinion, YB. ;-)

 

Of COURSE, they haven't REALLY given up... BF was making the point that their submissions smack of desperation. I don't think BF expected anyone to take him literally. :razz:

 

(although I have to admit my heart skipped a little when I saw the title! :-D)

 

perhaps an ill thought out title considering that he is the owner of the forum and people do take his opinions seriously. Your reaction, perhaps does prove the case.


.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's called a teaser title. That's how newspapers, TV, books and every form of media works. Far from ill-thought out, it is guaranteed to grab the attention of people and bringing what is after all a rather dull and possibly difficult to understand legal argument to the understanding of all. I know you went once to the courts and therefore feel more confident than others about the understanding of the case, but not all feel that way. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is difficult to understand what is the advantage of confusing people further with ill thought out and blatantly incorrect thread titles and summaries of the case ?

  • Haha 1

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, FWIW, I may not always agree with him, but in this instance, I think his analysis, far from being ill thought out, is actually spot on. JMO, as usual. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it brings (again) the question: If so far the banks have failed to bring a new legal argument or a convincing argument that the previous decision was flawed, why were they allowed to bring on this appeal? I thought it could only be done on a point of law, not because one disagreed with the result? :-?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see the banks doing what they do well - lie their way through anything!

 

I have lost all respect for them and I doubt I will ever have any again after all this crap. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find quite ironic is that the millions of people who must have turned to the banks in desperation and said "please give me a chance. You are putting me into an appalling situation. I'm getting swamped by this and I don't see a way out."

 

And now we see the banks pleading for exactly the same kind of compassion.

What hypocrisy ... and how exquisitely nice.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I find quite ironic is that the millions of people who must have turned to the banks in desperation and said "please give me a chance. You are putting me into an appalling situation. I'm getting swamped by this and I don't see a way out."

 

And now we see the banks pleading for exactly the same kind of compassion.

What hypocrisy ... and how exquisitely nice.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too true BF, I found myself in just that position, I can remeber crying on the phone and begging them to give me a bit of breathing space to allow me to catch up. I have no symapthy with them at all.

 

As ye sow so shall ye reap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karma.


If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can recall pleading with them as they were talking £105.00 per day out of my other halfs account, £800.00 in one month in total. I was having to put my money in to stem the flow, told them we had kids to feed and how much did they want off her....did not care and would not reverse the charges.

 

35.00 was for a NSPCC charity direct debit for £3.50.

 

I am still angry, all you at HBOS you are probably going to lose your jobs now, and it maybe that when you can't pay your bills you may not get hit with £35.00 charges so you are lucky.

 

If I am not paid back I will go to the highest court in the land, I PROMISE i will be with the baliffs outstanding Halifaxs HQ, and I PROMISE i will make a complaint to the CPS for the [EDIT] taking of our money by the directors of HBOS.

 

Rest assured I will never give up, I will fight on the beaches!

Edited by Rooster-UK
Libellous comment removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it brings (again) the question: If so far the banks have failed to bring a new legal argument or a convincing argument that the previous decision was flawed, why were they allowed to bring on this appeal? I thought it could only be done on a point of law, not because one disagreed with the result? :-?

 

What happens when you appeal on a point of law is that you argue that the arguments you put forward in the lower court were correct and that the decision was wrong. In other words you put forward the same arguments. It is not necessary to come up with a new argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it IS if you disagree with the results then? :-?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now we see the banks pleading for exactly the same kind of compassion.

What hypocrisy ... and how exquisitely nice.

 

Sweet irony!


If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

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

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

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

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, the banks are advancing new arguments - alhtough partly to deal with the same point of law in issue - but also to warn of possible disaster if it goes the wrong way for them. However, I would say that these arguments are almost "off-topic"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not exactly an argument of law - more like a warning of consequence if the ruling goes against them.

 

From some first hand reporting ,rather than giving up the banks sounded complacent that they were allowed to charge what they want and that the whole case was flawed.

 

So lets wait and see what the HOL say and then whether the banks want to take it even further.


Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not exactly an argument of law - more like a warning of consequence if the ruling goes against them.

 

From some first hand reporting ,rather than giving up the banks sounded complacent that they were allowed to charge what they want and that the whole case was flawed.

 

So lets wait and see what the HOL say and then whether the banks want to take it even further.

 

It is precisely that, a warning of consequence.

 

of course, the banks would have to say that the case against them was flawed. they owuldn't be there otherwise.

 

Yes, they could go further - but I think that this could only really happen if there was a split decision in which the dissenters raised some very real points of concern.

 

Don't forget that UTCCR is a result of a European directive. It is unlikely that we would ever have implemented such a law on our own.

 

The "Europeans" are far more interventionist than we are and European court decisions tend to be far more consumer oriented than our own courts.

Also, the judges in this country are obliged to give effect to the sense of the directive from which UTCCR are derived.

I think that an appeal to Europe is unlikely and of course it would raise a storm if that happened.

 

On the other hand, with the level their potential liability, the banks might consider that any chance should be taken.

 

What do you think that the banks potential liability might be?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is a piece of string?

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...