Supreme court rules

[lovejoy]

Well said, they were fined 28 million pounds, if you take advantage of an unauthorised overdraft you too will pay a penalty, if they write to you telling you so you will pay for their letter. However, if you stuck to the terms and conditions of the Bank you won't pay any penalties, simple really.

 

If I put in my T&C's that I will hit you over the head with a hammer if you fail to do X or Y it doesn't mean that I can get away with it, hitting you over the head with a hammer is still wrong.

All we are saying is the banks are wrong and so far have failed to prove otherwise.

I will continue to screw these immoral, greedy bankers any way I can.

[TenaciousC]

Being positive and keeping up the fight is obligatory. However, if you can hold the **** in the Supreme Court in anything other than a negative light over this decision, then I have serious reservations about your thought processes. The decision was bent. Your comments seemed to hint at something like 'oh, the Supreme Court weren't so mean after all. They are 'guiding' us down another path'. Absolute tosh.

 

I have serious reservations about your thought processes.

I think maybe spend a bit of time reassessing your own thoughts.

 

The decision was bent.

That was my first thoughts, but I thought about it for a while, maybe it was maybe it wasn't, but I wasn't there so can't reliably comment on that.

 

Your comments seemed to hint at something like 'oh, the Supreme Court weren't so mean after all. They are 'guiding' us down another path'.

If you look at it in anyway other than doom and gloom, you can see some possibility that this might be a blessing in disguise. After all, all is not lost now.

 

Absolute tosh.

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

 

In all honestly, I would love, absolutely love to see the banks pay. It would be no less than they deserve. they made my life a misery only 6 years ago, treat others as you would have others treat you.. go stomp all over them!

[adamc6671]

Despite all that has been said here today, there seems to me to be a lot of positives in this - see Bankfodder's Global Announcement for example, and the un-freezing of claims.

 

In my view, the dust needs to settle, and the legal experts, both here and elsewhere, need time to fully assess the judgement, turn it into English that we can all understand, and then advise us on the best course of action to take from here.

 

It seems to me that there is VERY likely to be a positive way forward, and we just need to wait for that expert advice - after all, a few days or weeks on top of the large ammount of time that has passed already is hardly significant! As someone else has already said, where else can you get 8% these days!

[renegotiation]

I think maybe spend a bit of time reassessing your own thoughts.

 

That was my first thoughts, but I thought about it for a while, maybe it was maybe it wasn't, but I wasn't there so can't reliably comment on that.

 

If you look at it in anyway other than doom and gloom, you can see some possibility that this might be a blessing in disguise. After all, all is not lost now.

 

Well you're entitled to your opinion.

 

In all honestly, I would love, absolutely love to see the banks pay. It would be no less than they deserve. they made my life a misery only 6 years ago, treat others as you would have others treat you.. go stomp all over them!

 

Look, I am angry and maybe was a little biting in my comments. However, it is so obvious the ruling was bent. You must know that deep down I think. You are quite right about uniting and fighting, but do so in the knowledge of how bent our whole system of government is. Don't make any excuses for those tossers!

 

Breaking news - banks say all claims are terminated!

[TenaciousC]

It seems to me that there is VERY likely to be a positive way forward

 

This is merely all I am suggesting too..

[TenaciousC]

Look, I am angry and maybe was a little biting in my comments. However, it is so obvious the ruling was bent. You must know that deep down I think. You are quite right about uniting and fighting, but do so in the knowledge of how bent our whole system of government is. Don't make any excuses for those tossers!

 

If you read my earlier posts from this morning you'll notice I already said about the corruption part....

 

I'm not defending the ruling, lords or the banks, I am merely saying, deep in there somewhere is some hint at our next move.. and it was given to us (perhaps unwittingly) by the Lords themselves.

They gave away that we and the OFT should perhaps try a different route.

 

And I'm sure that's what the OFT et al will be doing too.

[meagain]

I'm shocked at this ruling.

 

What horse trading shenanigans went on behind the scenes???

 

Refusing them leave to appeal as well, this well and truly stinks of something:mad:

 

The Court of Appeal denied the banks leave to appeal the case to the House of Lords, but they did so anyway.

 

In any case, the judgment does not mean what you seem to think it means. Read these first.

[fernack]

[breaking news - banks say all claims are terminated![/

 

Where?

[renegotiation]

[breaking news - banks say all claims are terminated![/

 

Where?

 

BBC NEWS 24. That was read out verbatim et literatim by a reporter who seemed to be reading from a statement issued by the banks. Maybe Angela Knight didn't have the balls to read it herself.

[Consumer dude]

They can say all they like. People will carry on claiming regardless..

[TenaciousC]

BBC NEWS 24. That was read out verbatim et literatim by a reporter who seemed to be reading from a statement issued by the banks. Maybe Angela Knight didn't have the balls to read it herself.

 

Courtesy of the unique way the BBC is funded!

 

Does the government have any bearing on how the BBC operates I wonder?

[veester]

Of course the possibility is that all these new terms will mean...if we get any charges back under clauses mentioned previously, then any assesment of repayment of historical charges will mean significant reduction, so £800 under the new "correct" and "fair charging" regime will probably mean you get back a lot less than £800, say £400.

 

......"financial engineering"....as somone quoted...

 

maybe....

[renegotiation]

If you read my earlier posts from this morning you'll notice I already said about the corruption part....

 

I'm not defending the ruling, lords or the banks, I am merely saying, deep in there somewhere is some hint at our next move.. and it was given to us (perhaps unwittingly) by the Lords themselves.

They gave away that we and the OFT should perhaps try a different route.

 

And I'm sure that's what the OFT et al will be doing too.

 

This is my take on it. The Supreme Court was trying to save some face and the OFT won't take on another case. The British Bull**** Corporation is already sending out subtle messages that the 'OFT might not have the heart for another case'. Maybe they have been brought into line? We'll see won't we...

 

 

Courtesy of the unique way the BBC is funded!

 

Does the government have any bearing on how the BBC operates I wonder?

 

Our corrupt system does.

[speedtrip]

Hey this is a very emotive sujbect and when I first heard the decision I was shocked.

 

I might be wrong but maybe the judge is being a bit clever as the banks have got away on a technicality but there seems to be other options. Maybe the OFT missed a trick here ... i dont know.

 

Think about this for a moment the Govt have piled a lot of money into the banks (our money) and approx 1/3 of the banking industry revenue comes from bank charges. If they lose that it will take longer for them to pay the Govt Loans back ... see where i am coming from.

 

Maybe there was pressure brought upon the SC to use this technicality but maybe the judge has pointed the way forward.

 

In real terms I suspect a million disgruntled customers is a small % of the total banking population and we could be in the minority because most people do not like complaining and lets faces it hardly easy to make a claim is it.

 

If this is successful the model we will end up with will be accounts that have annual charges attached to them and the FSA/Govt/Consumer Groups will agree a fair price guideline for the services.

 

ST

[TenaciousC]

This is my take on it. The Supreme Court was trying to save some face and the OFT won't take on another case. The British Bull**** Corporation is already sending out subtle messages that the 'OFT might not have the heart for another case'. Maybe they have been brought into line? We'll see won't we...

 

Pitchforks, torches and Pikes it is then!

[meagain]

BBC NEWS 24. That was read out verbatim et literatim by a reporter who seemed to be reading from a statement issued by the banks.

 

If the BBC haven't simply read it out and attributed it to an appropriate source, or if they expand or editorialize on this without correcting it, phone the BBC Duty Office immediately to complain.

[renegotiation]

Pitchforks, torches and Pikes it is then!

 

Hmm, metaphorically. We need a well organised huge march. The powers that be would love a riot and use it to their own advantage. They even use agent provocateurs when it suits them. We'll have to see what Bankfodder, Dave and the site team think. We'd need inter site cooperation and a massive media campaign.

 

 

If the BBC haven't simply read it out and attributed it to an appropriate source, or if they expand or editorialize on this without correcting it, phone the BBC Duty Office immediately to complain.

 

She said 'the banks said'...

[IainHL]

the Office for Meddlesome Litigation and the Financial Waiver Authority.

Nice one Peter!

[TenaciousC]

Hmm, metaphorically. We need a well organised huge march. The powers that be would love a riot and use it to their own advantage. They even use agent provocateurs when it suits them. We'll have to see what Bankfodder, Dave and the site team think. We'd need inter site cooperation and a massive media campaign.

 

 

Media help in our favour would help that tremendously.

 

Where does one find that sort of cooperation? The Sun, Daily Mail?

[TenaciousC]

Remember the Fuel blockade of a few years back, that drove home the public feeling of fuel prices. Nicely topical.

 

However for banking needs, what can be done to bring about a similar effect?

[Wethers82]

" The brutal truth though seems to be that the claims for refunds of past charges, whether at the banks, in the courts or with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) are dead in the water. "

 

The exact words of the BBC website.

 

I don't care what is said, there is no chance in hell they are going to get me to pay back £1,500 worth of interest, baring in mind they failed to pay back the full amount I requested 3 years ago! they paid me £100 less and now my charges have built up again due to their failure.

 

I'm taking this stance- they can drag me to the court room and they can threaten me with a jail sentence, but they will not be getting a penny out of me. Who's with me?!

[TenaciousC]

" The brutal truth though seems to be that the claims for refunds of past charges, whether at the banks, in the courts or with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) are dead in the water. "

 

The exact words of the BBC website.

 

I don't care what is said, there is no chance in hell they are going to get me to pay back £1,500 worth of interest, baring in mind they failed to pay back the full amount I requested 3 years ago! they paid me £100 less and now my charges have built up again due to their failure.

 

I'm taking this stance- they can drag me to the court room and they can threaten me with a jail sentence, but they will not be getting a penny out of me. Who's with me?!

 

But surely if they already paid you back some money they have admitted something was amiss in a roundabout way.. it's all twisted isn't it.

[renegotiation]

Media help in our favour would help that tremendously.

 

Where does one find that sort of cooperation? The Sun, Daily Mail?

 

The site already has plenty of media experience. We'll have to wait and see what the site team think about a march. I'll start a thread and see what the interest is.

 

Even Martin Lewis sounded angry. I didn't know he was capable. :lol:

[meagain]

Media help in our favour would help that tremendously.

 

Where does one find that sort of cooperation? The Sun, Daily Mail?

 

Worth a try. One thing we don't have is the BBC. I'm told that the radio bulletins on 1 and 2 have repeatedly stated, without qualification, that the banks won't have to pay up. Not heard them myself, so can't really take it on.

[Consumer dude]

" The brutal truth though seems to be that the claims for refunds of past charges, whether at the banks, in the courts or with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) are dead in the water. "

 

The exact words of the BBC website.

 

I don't care what is said, there is no chance in hell they are going to get me to pay back £1,500 worth of interest, baring in mind they failed to pay back the full amount I requested 3 years ago! they paid me £100 less and now my charges have built up again due to their failure.

 

I'm taking this stance- they can drag me to the court room and they can threaten me with a jail sentence, but they will not be getting a penny out of me. Who's with me?!

 

 

 

 

Your quite right, people will just say get stuffed or words to that effect..