Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM   1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack  Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached   2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00.  The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month.   3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement,   Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us.   Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement   9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate   4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:-   a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement number 756050. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     Thw total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by Firrst class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges ]= 5.  A the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or  alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage.   Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs.   Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024   What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Supreme court rules


Consumer dude
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5239 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

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

hi Bob

 

I agree with you to some extent about personal responsibility but I believe that there are real life, practical reasons why many people (myself included) can't be as controlled about their actual bank balance. For this reason I do use cash as much as possible and also check my balance on line almost daily.

 

I would much prefer a system where I can try to use my debit card (for convenience) and have it declined if I've not got enough money in the account rather than be penalised for them authorising me to spend more than I've got at that moment.

 

The issue of debits going out of an account before credits go in is a case in point. Despite checking with the bank beforehand my son found himself incurring £50 charges due to the process followed by the bank. Why on earth would they not apply credits to an account before the debits if they are all transactions for the same day? It seems to be nothing more than a money making exercise.

=================================================================

remember

 

the Sun is always shining, it's just that you can't see it sometimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpt.......

 

1. The members of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue which we have to decide in this appeal. But many of the general public (who are understandably taking a close interest in the matter) are not so well aware of its limited scope. It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair.

 

 

GAME ON.....

 

My claims are going in very shortly

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I am not getting into any kind of debate here. I dont work for a bank, so am not on a bank's side in any way here. Its personal money management. I know what is on my account all the time as I check, I have not been charged for 2 years now, well once 18 months or so ago, it was my fault and I accept the £8 charge. Some people dont seem to care though. "I dont care what is in my account, I will use my card and if I get charged I will complain" This is where it starts to go wrong. Then its the banks fault etc... I agree £30 + is by far too excessive, but you know what the charges are, if you do not want to accept the charge, check your balance, or dont go to the shop that shuts in 2 mins..... Use cash only, there are loads of alternatives to getting charged.....

 

 

sorry bob it wasn;t a toll hunt, i im in total agreement, i don;t mind paying for what i have asked for/requested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one will give the wonderful people on this site a few days to come to their conclusions.

 

 

 

It is not over by a long shot.

 

 

Doom and gloom is exactly the way the banks want us to feel, but I am not finished yet.

 

 

I await the clarion call, and I will be at downing street with my placard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt work like that......

 

I paid for something by debit card on the internet it cost me £2 and my balance was >£20 it was authorised and paid.......however come monday they decided to take out a previous months charges which then put me over and then charged me a "guarantee card payment" fee of £35 for the £2 which was paid and authorised with no problems.....

 

A prepaid debit card will NOT let you go overdrawn ..... why cant the banks do that.......A it would cost them money

 

If I went somewhere and paid by debit card it should know if I have money in the account...I have sometimes got the declined notice. BUT they engineer it so that they can make people go overdrawn and charge them.....

 

What makes it worse is that they charge you for NOT paying your d/d.

 

shouldnt respond to trolls....but couldnt help myself

 

Dave

 

You will have been told that they are going to charge you for the previous months charges on said day though, I used to get these letters, so I need to ensure an extra £35 in there, otherwise I will be charged again for spenfing £2

Not sure what you mean about Trolls, its plain and simple, people are blaming the banks for their own bad money management. Yes the banks make mistakes, and in most cases refund you, I know of some that have not been refunded, that is a different issue, but if account holders acted more responsibly over the handling of their own accounts charges would be few and far between...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have been told that they are going to charge you for the previous months charges on said day though, I used to get these letters, so I need to ensure an extra £35 in there, otherwise I will be charged again for spenfing £2

Not sure what you mean about Trolls, its plain and simple, people are blaming the banks for their own bad money management. Yes the banks make mistakes, and in most cases refund you, I know of some that have not been refunded, that is a different issue, but if account holders acted more responsibly over the handling of their own accounts charges would be few and far between...

 

That's a bit rich! If banks had behaved more responsibly with our money we wouldn't have had to bail the beggers out to the tune of billions.

 

Perhaps they should have checked their balances were financially sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you can now apply for the stay to be lifted and change the POC to state that the charges are quite clearly bias as the banks have all reduced charges and that you want the difference plus interet back....

Veester

 

"Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful." -- Joshua J. Marine‏ ;)

 

Better than the truth itself is truthful living.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any caggers fancy standing as one issue independents in the next general election- you'll have at least one vote in newcastle!

Natwest Credit Card- £850- WON!!!

Natwest Current Account- £380 (in 1 month!)- On Hold

Mint- £250- WON!!!

Egg- Still waiting on list of charges

CAP1- Still waiting on list of charges

HSBC current account- On hold

IF- waiting...

Barclaycard- £124 WON!!!

 

And now, using what I've learnt from you wonderful people, to CCA the lot of them! (well credit cards at least)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have been told that they are going to charge you for the previous months charges on said day though, I used to get these letters, so I need to ensure an extra £35 in there, otherwise I will be charged again for spenfing £2

Not sure what you mean about Trolls, its plain and simple, people are blaming the banks for their own bad money management. Yes the banks make mistakes, and in most cases refund you, I know of some that have not been refunded, that is a different issue, but if account holders acted more responsibly over the handling of their own accounts charges would be few and far between...

 

Debit card payment £2 on saturday...paid

 

bank took charges out on monday and then charged £35 for £2 which had already been paid ????

 

if they knew that there wouldnt be enough money why did they pay it .....

 

engineering debt

 

Last word on subject.... dont bother replying

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Bob

 

I agree with you to some extent about personal responsibility but I believe that there are real life, practical reasons why many people (myself included) can't be as controlled about their actual bank balance. For this reason I do use cash as much as possible and also check my balance on line almost daily.

 

I would much prefer a system where I can try to use my debit card (for convenience) and have it declined if I've not got enough money in the account rather than be penalised for them authorising me to spend more than I've got at that moment.

 

The issue of debits going out of an account before credits go in is a case in point. Despite checking with the bank beforehand my son found himself incurring £50 charges due to the process followed by the bank. Why on earth would they not apply credits to an account before the debits if they are all transactions for the same day? It seems to be nothing more than a money making exercise.

 

I dont suppose you are talking about Barclays? I have had the same issue, but do not get charges over this anymore, that is bad practice, and is a seperate issue that you need to address, I suggest you go into a branch that talk to the muppets on the phone...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debit card payment £2 on saturday...paid

 

bank took charges out on monday and then charged £35 for £2 which had already been paid ????

 

if they knew that there wouldnt be enough money why did they pay it .....

 

engineering debt

 

Last word on subject.... dont bother replying

 

Dave

 

Saturday is a weekend, counts as Monday for banking, always has, no change there, the £35 should have been in the account by COB Friday...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely you can now apply for the stay to be lifted and change the POC to state that the charges are quite clearly bias as the banks have all reduced charges and that you want the difference plus interet back....

 

NOT the difference....if a charge is unfair....its unfair ...get the lot

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit rich! If banks had behaved more responsibly with our money we wouldn't have had to bail the beggers out to the tune of billions.

 

Perhaps they should have checked their balances were financially sound.

 

I agree with you completely. That does not mean you should not be responsible with your own money though..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but I can live with an £8 charge, not the £30 I was being charged, as I no longer go od, I check my balance alot more now, I can live with 1 £8 over 2 years....

 

Think yourself lucky, Abbey took a Direct Debit twice from my account, it was clear that the amount should only have been taken once, this resulted in them charging me for going overdrawn, charges broke down as follows

INSTANT OVERDRAFT REQUEST FEE - PAID ITEM - £35

UNAUTHORISED OVERDRFT/INSTANT OVERDRFT MONTHLY FEE - £25

 

So thats £60 in charges because they put me overdrawn by a total of £3.59

 

I rang them up to complain, they kept blaming me despite them taking a payment twice, they gratiously refunded me £35 they would not back down on refunding the full amount they had taken from me.

 

I would gladly pay £8 if of course it was my fault

Edited by ICY
:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think yourself lucky, Abbey took a Direct Debit twice from my account, it was clear that the amount should only have been taken once, this resulted in them charging me for going overdrawn, charges broke down as follows

INSTANT OVERDRAFT REQUEST FEE - PAID ITEM - £35

UNAUTHORISED OVERDRFT/INSTANT OVERDRFT MONTHLY FEE - £25

 

So thats £60 in charges because they put me overdrawn by a total of £3.59

 

I rang them up to complain, they kept blaming me despite them taking a payment twice, they gratiously refunded me £35 they would not back down on refunding the full amount they had taken from me.

 

I would gladly pay £8 if of course it was my fault

INSTANT OVERDRAFT REQUEST FEE - PAID ITEM CARD PAYMENT TO SKY SUBSCRIPTION ON 2009-07-25 35.00

 

A direct debit is not taken by a bank, it is by the payee, IE SKY, they have claimed it twice, therefore you can claim under the direct debit guarantee.. and the charges associated with that should be refunded......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a read through the ruling chunky stuff. But one part of it infact this one sentence has summed up the whole thing for me i quote from Page 34 (section 88)

 

"

Whatever may have been theposition in the past, the Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part ofthe revenue that they generate from the current account services. If they did not receivethe Relevant Charges they would not be able profitably to provide current accountservices to their customers"

Edited by heimdalls
spelling

Bank of Scotland student account:

June 23 Data Protection Act sent

July 23 statements recieved

Aug 1 Prelim sent for 3660

Aug 3 comedy letter recieved

Aug 30 laughable £260 final settlement offer and LBA sent

Oct 07 Settled £1800

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly would people please stop insinuating that the members of the Supreme Court are corrupt, receiving backhanders (from the banks, government, their Aunt Molly), and so on. To do so does the reputation of this site no good at all. I do however find it a little surprising that Lord Phillips passed comment on the commercial aspects of bank account provision. To quote from the press release:

Lord Phillips also noted that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able profitably to provide current account services without a fee (Para 88).

 

Yes, this judgement is extremely disappointing, and I say this as someone who, with my partner, has around £9k in pending claims with 3 different banks. Perhaps our ire should be more directed at the OFT who have taken 2½ years to end up arguing on the wrong part of UTCCR1999.

 

To explain that last remark, again quoting from the press release:

The key issue was whether the charges constituted the ‘price and remuneration’ as against ‘the goods or services supplied in exchange’ within the meaning of the Regulations. The Supreme Court considered and decided a number of arguments as to whether the charges could be said to be ‘price or remuneration’ under Regulation 6 (2) (b):

and:

Lord Walker made clear that the scope of the appeal was limited – the court did not have the task of deciding whether or not the system of charging current account customers was fair, but whether the OFT could challenge the charges as being excessive in relation to the services supplied in exchange (Paragraph 3). As Lord Phillips stated, even if such a challenge was not possible, it might still be open for the OFT to assess the fairness of the charges according to other criteria (Para 61).

 

The "other criteria" referred to is Regulation 5 of UTCCR1999.

 

What I feel needs to happen is for the legal brains to come up with the appropriate wording for the Particulars of Claim and Skeleton Argument for people to use in making a County Court claim against the banks (for new claims), and how to amend cases already in the system, using Regulation 5 as the argument. As people above have stated, it seems appropriate to apply to the court to get a stay lifted now the judgement has been handed down and before another stitch-up waiver is put in place.

 

I notice fernack has put together what seems to me a very good letter to approach the bank with in the current situation:

Dear Sirs,

 

I note the ambiguous outcome of the Supreme Court ruling regarding the OFT and bank charges. The Supreme Court did NOT say that charges are fair - just that the OFT cannot assess charges for fairness. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the UTCTA Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used.

 

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.

It is my view that County Court judges have been given the the right to decide what is fair and what is not. A draft order to reveal the true cost of unpaid cheques, unauthorised overdrafts etc would be sought. Also interest at 8% would be added to the amount owed.

I again request that you repay the unfair charges applied to my account in the sum of £XXXX. You have already agreed that I am in financial difficulty and First Direct have already repaid unfair charges to thousands of customers prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

 

 

I am trying to draft a letter to my bank after the ruling - what does anyone think? Dont know how to proceed or how to end the letter. Is it even worth bothering? Shall I make this my LBA?

Thanks

Edited by IainHL
sorted out extra spaces in the press release quotes
Link to post
Share on other sites

And neither does it mean that banks can break laws made to protect consumers.

 

I also agree, but 2 wrongs dont make a right. If account holders managed thei accounts better, this claiming back charges, issue would not be anywhere as big, and now the dissapointment that many are now facing as they wont get them back.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

FSA STATEMENT:

 

The waiver is now lifted. Firms are encouraged to process complaints.

 

FSA statement following the Supreme Court ruling on bank charges

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...