charges appeal goes with the banks!!

[babybear39]

Wonder how many dodgy deals had to be done to secure that outcome

[lickthewallfatboy]

[Blondmusic]

I couldnt agree more. Justice is only for those who can afford it.

[angry cat]

Covert Tactics;

Secret Deals;

Manipulators!!!

 

This is the sort of thing that has been going on:

BBC - Peston's Picks: Why did Bank of England keep shtoom?

 

The whole lot are a disgrace and should be sacked.

 

The Electorate will not forget this travesty come Election Day...

[lickthewallfatboy]

 

The Electorate will not forget this travesty come Election Day...

 

but that's the problem Angry Cat

 

Nu Liebore and the tory toffs are 2 sides of the same coin

 

that tosser Cameron promised us a referendum on the EU......where is it?

 

the electorate will walk in like good little boys and girls and in 80-90% of cases will vote the way they always have

 

if they don't take this opportunity to really shake things up,we might as well take off our hats and stick our heads up our arses,cos it's gonna be game over for the former "Great" Britain pretty darn soon

 

we're close to slavery as it is

[angry cat]

RBS Hester said: 'there are no free lunches'

BBC News - 'No free lunch' on bank charges, warns RBS boss Hester

 

 

But, he (RBS) took the taxpayers money!!!

What a Hypocrite...

 

We know that they are all in, cahoots and;

led by an unelected prime minister.

 

Shocking

[42man]

CAG TEMPLATES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BASED ON CLAUSE 5

JUDGEMENT BACKS OUR APPROACH TO CLAIMS

STAY REMOVAL TEMPLATE - PLEASE READ LINK BELOW....

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the Consumer Forums

[zazen.warrior]

Hi there, I have just spent the afternoon in court, read my cohens thread for the latest, but regarding the bank charges there was much glee in the waiting area amongst the black clad legal types.

 

They were all discussing it, even the judge started chatting to me about it after the hearing (reasonably pleasant chap for a judge)

 

Who knows where this will go now???

[lickthewallfatboy]

I'm just glad I took the whole thing on in 2006

 

£13,000 to the good between credit cards and banksters

[Huff&Puff]

I'm a little surprised that anyone thought that it would ever go in favour of the common person in the street. Not when the judges were all at Eton & Roedean with the bankers

[vjohn82]

Let's NOT forget... this is "overdraft" charges... nothing to do with default/late payment fees etc

[PSB123]

Well, even dear old Aunt Lizzie supposedly said "..there are dark forces at work in this country, about which we know so little."

 

The whole thing stinks.

 

Never mind. In a few months time we get the chance to vote for ........ more of the same....... whichever of them gets in.

 

Join in everybody - "It's the same, the whole world over, it's the poor wot get's the blame....."

Indeed, Labour or Conservative - Different cheeks, same backside.

[Livto]

The ruling changes nothing in the real world.

The banks will make these charges, the customer will complain, the bank refunds out of "goodwill gesture" and that cycle will just go on and on.

[zazen.warrior]

Indeed, Labour or Conservative - Different cheeks, same backside.

 

 

Which is why we should all vote Liberal Democrat.

 

Zazen's one and only ever political comment on this forum

[Enron]

Which is why we should all vote Liberal Democrat.

 

Zazen's one and only ever political comment on this forum

 

Labour and Conservative are both sides of the same coin. Liberal Democrats are the coin edge.

 

Flip that coin and you'll end up with essentially the same agenda regardless of which party gets into power, and that's because the politicians don't dictate the important policy, that is formulated at bodies such as the Bilderberg Group behind closed doors.

[ukaviator]

Let's NOT forget... this is "overdraft" charges... nothing to do with default/late payment fees etc

 

Hi Vjohn82

 

All of your charges 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. Hope this helps:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=23&a=167

[Livto]

It all goes to show that its the establishment that has the real power in this country and the political parties are just there to keep the public in their daily place.

[angry cat]

Let's NOT forget... this is "overdraft" charges... nothing to do with default/late payment fees etc

 

Exactly!

[lickthewallfatboy]

Liberal Democrat

 

so you're a "don't know" then

[angry cat]

The British Electorate are sick of the corruption...

 

We have witnessed;

the ludicrous Bank Bail Out;

the MP's expenses scandal;

the Bank of England cover up re: Covert Funding for Banks and;

the judiciary scandal:

Now the expenses spotlight falls on Britain's judiciary - Home News, UK - The Independent

 

Enough, is enough, I say!

[snowy101]

I wonder how many DCA`s think Christmas has really come early after this deal done in the Freemason lodge .... sorry i meant appeal.

 

For me nothing will change, any DCA wanting my hard earned is going to have to take me to court. ARE YOU READING THIS LOWELL & CONNAUGHT

I hope others on here don't think that it now means we just have to cough up, after all the corruption from our elected pocket dippers & the general disgust & stench of betrayal for the majority of law abiding peoples of this country........... its about time there was a real revolution in the sad sad once great nation.

Edited November 25, 2009 by snowy101

[OnSkidRow]

I can understand why the decision went in the bank's favor, afterall, if it is an unauthorized overdraft, on paper, it is reasonable to apply a charge for it. However, in practice, it is not. I think that people with accounts without overdraft facilities should be issued with Solo cards so it would be impossible for them to go overdrawn, and accounts should be set so that going over an overdraft would not be possible. Of course, that is not going to happen...

One way you can get back at them though, is to go to LloydsTSB and open an Islamic bank account. While going overdrawn still incurs a £15 'account management fee', there are no other charges applied, such as the X amount per day on top of the initial charge...

[dannyboy660]

There's an email doing the rounds at the moment which I expect many have already seen but I will reproduce it here. I'm not sure if the 'facts' are true facts, but it's makes a point in any case and it is slightly amusing.........

 

 

 

London Times Obituary of the late

Mr. Common Sense

　

　

　'Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who　has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

　He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

　Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the 　worm; Life isn't always fair; and maybe it was my fault.

　

　Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend 　more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children,　are in charge).

　　

　His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy　charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens 　suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher 　fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

　

　Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the 　job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly　children.

　　

　It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an Elastoplast to a student; but 　could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to

　have an abortion.

　

　　Common Sense lost the will to live as criminals received better treatment than their victims.. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

　　

　Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to　realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in　her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

　　

　Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth & Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; & his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, 　Someone Else Is To Blame & I'm A Victim.

　　

　Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If 　you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do 　nothing.'

　　

　And a little extra........................

　

　Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 　employees and has the following statistics?

　

　29 have been accused of spouse abuse

　

　7 have been arrested for fraud

　

　19 have been accused of writing bad cheques

　

　117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

　

　3 have done time for assault

　

　71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

　

　4 have been arrested on drug-related charges

　

　8 have been arrested for shoplifting

　

　21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

　

　84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

　　

Which organisation is this?

　　

　It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that

　cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

[dannyboy660]

Oh, wait a second!!!!! Here we go.....

 

"Seconds away, round 1" ding, ding........

 

Banks could be forced by Government to offer fairer bank charges - Telegraph

 

Gordon to the rescue !!!

[debt4get]

Supreme Court Judgment and what is means,

 

 

Well I have just got back from London where I spent a lot of time trying to put right the media stories that the Bank’s had won and this was the end for consumers, gladly I note that most of the Media have now reported that this case was not as important as many people thought is was:

 

I am going to set out parts of the Judgment and explain what they mean if needed. After which I will outline what I think should happen next.

 

 

The Judgment

 

Firstly the Lord Walker highlighted the fact that many members of the public were not aware of the limited nature of the issue, which the court had to decide in the appeal.

 

At Para 45 Lord Walker Said “…The Directive and the 1999 Regulations apply only to terms which have not been individually negotiated“. Clearly the contract we all entered into with the banks has not been individually negotiated so the regulations do apply.

 

Lord Philips Para 57. Stated the issue is whether the relevant charges constitute “the price or Remuneration, as against the services supplied in exchange” within the meaning of the Regulation. If they do not, the attack on the fairness of the term that is open to the OFT will not be circumscribed (restricted) by Regulation 6(2)b. If they do, then they will still be open to attack by the OFT on the ground that they are “Unfair” as defined by regulation 5(1) but that attack cannot be founded on an allegation that the Relevant Charges are excessive by comparison with the services which they Purchase, for that is forbidden by regulation 6(2)b

 

So what does this mean, well it means that the Court has ruled that the charges for bounced direct debits and unauthorised overdrafts etc are part of the price for the services, therefore they cannot be tested for fairness under Regulation 6(2)b of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, However the Court has said that the OFT can assess the Fairness of the price under Regulation 5.1. According to other criteria. (See Para 59)

 

This point is further explained in Para 80. Lord Philips states ‘it seems to me that this reasoning is relevant not to the question of whether the Relevant Charges form Part of the price or remuneration for the package of the services provided but to whether the method of pricing is fair. (My emphasis added) It may be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers by levies on others who experience contingencies that they did not for see when entering into their contracts. If not it may then be open to question whether the Relevant Terms fall within Regulation 5(1)….” Clearly his lordship highlighted that the court may be persuaded that it is unfair for some consumer to pay for services that other consumers benefit from for free.

What’s more it is mostly the consumers who are on low incomes and struggling financially that are paying for everyone else. This is in my opinion not fair, and shows the banks have not acted in “Good faith”. Or as Lord Mance’s suggested in the trial, that ‘the banks were engaged in a sort of Robin Hood in reverse’ (see Para 2) I would suggest he means the banks were taking from the poor to subsidise the rich.

 

All the Lords appear to have agreed with Lord Walkers final Paragraph that being 52, in which he said ‘…This decision is not the end of the matter’, as Lord Philips explains in his judgment. Moreover Ministers and Parliament may wish to consider this matter further. They decided in an era of so-called “light-touch” regulation, to transpose the directive as it stood rather that to confer the higher degree of consumer protection afforded by the national laws of some other member states. Parliament may wish to consider whether to revisit that decision.’

 

So what does all this mean, well it means the following

 

1. The OFT can still look at the charges under UTCCR 1999, and always has been able to. They could now launch a new test case. (However, what must be asked is why was there a two year test case on a very narrow point of law? when the OFT already had the ability to assess the fairness of theses charges under Regulation 5.1 and others )

 

2. All consumers who have submitted a claim using the Old Particulars of Claim, arguing that the price was unfair and or that these are a penalty charges. Needs to amend their claim to include an argument under regulation 5.1. (a new Particulars of claim will be live on the site tomorrow with full instructions on what you need to do)

 

3. We also need to put pressure on the Government to amend the Regulation so we all have the same consumer protection rights that other member states have. (So get writing to your MP’s a template letter for this will be on the site within 48 hours)

 

4. I am sorry to say but I would like to see the stay remain in place, for a least a month. This will give consumers time to amend their claims and other consumer groups and I will be discussing the possibility of joining forces to bring a joint Class action. I feel this would insure that we could make sure that all the legal arguments are covered in full. I will update you all on this when I have spoken to the other consumer forums.

 

 

Finally, I will explain Regulation 5(1) in more detail on the site for those that are interested. However, what was important in this news letter is to confirm that this was basically a set back to the OFT and not to consumers. Claims can still be filed.

The FSA has also lifted the Wavier.

 

I hope that the OFT if they do decided to bring a new action, that they will now invite the consumer groups to the table. Something we asked them to do before this test case, sadly that request was refused.

 

To conclude, the test case has only resulted in us having to amend the Particulars Of Claim and resulted in a two year delay, other than that we are back to the position we were in two years ago.

 

So was this test case a victory for the Banks, yes they beat the OFT on a small point of law, they did not beat the consumer forums and or the consumers.

 

from penalty charges.co.uk