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

[BankFodder]

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.

[Bookworm]

A masterly summary.

[noomill060]

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.

[Sammythebest]

Excellent

[yourbank]

comments taken out

Edited June 29, 2009 by yourbank

[Bookworm]

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.

 

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

[yourbank]

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.

 

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

 

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.

[Bookworm]

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.

[yourbank]

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 ?

[Bookworm]

[Bookworm]

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. ;-)

[Bookworm]

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? :-?

[Sol]

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.

[BankFodder]

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.

[Sammythebest]

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.

 

[hilaryfrances]

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

[GuidoT]

Karma.

[Sammythebest]

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 June 25, 2009 by Rooster-UK
Libellous comment removed.

[Aequitas]

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.

[Bookworm]

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

[Rooster-UK]

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

What hypocrisy ... and how exquisitely nice.

 

Sweet irony!

[BankFodder]

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"

[jansus]

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.

[BankFodder]

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?

[Bookworm]

How long is a piece of string?