Supreme court rules

[enoughisenough]

Thanks for that excellent digest and contribution Mark.

 

I would add, though I am uncertain as yet, as to whether, as other posters have stated, Dunlop continues to apply.

 

Dunlop of course relates to 'penalties'. Insofar as I know this argument was dismissed early on in the High Court and this was affirmed in the CoA. Has the SC judgment done anything to insist that such charges are penalties and that Dunlop still applies. I'd hate to see anyone float this boat and get short shrift.

 

Anyone?

[SurlyBonds]

Thanks for that excellent digest and contribution Mark.

 

I would add, though I am uncertain as yet, as to whether, as other posters have stated, Dunlop continues to apply.

 

Dunlop of course relates to 'penalties'. Insofar as I know this argument was dismissed early on in the High Court and this was affirmed in the CoA. Has the SC judgment done anything to insist that such charges are penalties and that Dunlop still applies. I'd hate to see anyone float this boat and get short shrift.

 

Anyone?

 

Penalties still applies to the older contracts where the banks did actually use the term 'penalty fee', or 'additional administration charges/fees'. Ruling yesterday included reference, as did Smith's Appeal ruling. Smith ruled out the later use of common law, except where the UTCCRs don't protect the consumer. It's all down to the wording of the contract... hence why most banks reissued their T&Cs when the balloon went up.

[boppers]

Thanks Mark, Thats been by far the easiest post to understand with all the relevant information. =)

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by SurlyBonds

 

Penalties still applies to the older contracts where the banks did actually use the term 'penalty fee', or 'additional administration charges/fees'. Ruling yesterday included reference, as did Smith's Appeal ruling. Smith ruled out the later use of common law, except where the UTCCRs don't protect the consumer. It's all down to the wording of the contract... hence why most banks reissued their T&Cs when the balloon went up.

 

Thanks, understand this point. However to be absolutely clear: If I were to cite Dunlop, as I have done before the 'test' case, would I still have a leg to stand on, on the notion of a penalty charge. My reading was no. Others are saying Dunlop still applies. Clarification please from anyone?

[Baggio]

Thanks Mark, Thats been by far the easiest post to understand with all the relevant information. =)

 

BTW folks, what Mark posted above is taken from Stephen Hones website, he was the chap who first fought and won his charges back... he is a lawyer.

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by sequenci

 

This is the last time I'll ask, please keep this thread on topic. If I see any more trolling I'll be placing people on moderation.

 

?

[Crapstone]

Thanks, understand this point. However to be absolutely clear: If I were to cite Dunlop, as I have done before the 'test' case, would I still have a leg to stand on, on the notion of a penalty charge. My reading was no. Others are saying Dunlop still applies. Clarification please from anyone?

 

I'd suggest that we wait and see. There are numerous QC barristers, that specialise in banking, looking over the verdict in defence.

[mark1arby]

BTW folks, what Mark posted above is taken from Stephen Hones website, he was the chap who first fought and won his charges back... he is a lawyer.

 

Sorry it wasn`t my intention to take credit for that piece. The kudos is all Stephen Hones. I was emailed the piece and with everybody running around with heads up bums ( so to speak) I thought it would help put things in perspective.

 

I then had to edit it because I had left my email address in the message. I will now go back and re- edit and give Stephen his right and proper recognition. He is much, much cleverer than me. A Wizard by any other name.

 

Cheers, MARK:cool:

[WHITEHART80]

From what I am reading, it is right that we need to basically sit tight a wait for all the info.

 

My case has been stayed in the county court since July 2007, I am worried that County Court will start throwing cases out before we have a chance to do anything. Is this likely to happen?

[ICY]

The courts would be foolish to do so, that may happen, BUT if they do once a valid arguement has been put to them demonstrating that the OFT case doesnt have a real impact on our claims, I would hope their decision will be overturned, nothing I have read in the judgement says that clims should be stopped, in fact it actually guides slightly as to the next move.

[themadcap]

anyone help me?

[landy_alert]

From what I am reading, it is right that we need to basically sit tight a wait for all the info.

 

My case has been stayed in the county court since July 2007, I am worried that County Court will start throwing cases out before we have a chance to do anything. Is this likely to happen?

 

Hi WHITEHART80:)

 

From what I have read on the HoL discussion thread it would be an idea to check your paperwork from the court as some Caggers have said that their paperwork states that they must inform the court of their intentions of how they want their claim managed within 28 days of the final determination of the OFT test case.

 

Additionally one member stated that their paperwork states that within 28 days of the final decision the bank will file at court and serve on the claimant -

 

'(a) a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of that decision

 

(b) their proposed directions in this claim'

 

and that the documents will then be referred to the District Judge to consider further directions.

 

Either way it would be a good idea to check your paperwork from the court to see what, if anything, it says you need to do - otherwise if there's something you should be doing and you don't, the banks will achieve what they want.....particularly as some banks (LTSB for example) are already stating their intentions to apply to the courts to have all cases dismissed.

 

Other than that you are correct in saying that we sit tight and await further instructions from the site team!

 

Hope this helps!

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[themadcap]

Ive gone and sent the template letter on wednesday and seem to have jumped the gun a bit can anyone help

Do we really need the OFT ruling to carry on our cases

[WHITEHART80]

Thanks Landy.

 

When you say the paperwork from the court do you mean the original notification of the stay or do you think it is likely that I will receive something from the court.

 

It seems a real grey area at the moment for those of us with claims already lodge with the county court.

 

As I said my biggest fear is them getting my case thrown out before I can do anything about it.

 

I dont see how they would have the grounds to have cases thrown out anyway.

[tiredandangry]

Hi all, can anyone look at this from the disabled angle?

 

For those of us who are ill or disabled can we use disabled law in our cases? Its hard for us to access bank websites to find information we need on for example right of appropriation. For many of us its hard if not impossible to even go into a bank to discuss our situations. To even do a SAR request and chase it up in my case can take months. We receive no help from the banks, just harrassment and of course what they are taking is our benefits.

 

Would a seperate class action from disabled customers be appropriate?

[landy_alert]

Thanks Landy.

 

When you say the paperwork from the court do you mean the original notification of the stay or do you think it is likely that I will receive something from the court.

 

It seems a real grey area at the moment for those of us with claims already lodge with the county court.

 

As I said my biggest fear is them getting my case thrown out before I can do anything about it.

 

I dont see how they would have the grounds to have cases thrown out anyway.

 

Hi WHITEHART:)

 

From what I read on the HoL discussion thread, the reference was to paperwork already received - which I took to be the notification of the stay - so I should have a check through your existing paperwork first.

 

I'm in the position where I only filed at court last month and paid my (£200) AQ fee the day before the judgment was handed down, so hadn't even got as far as the staying of my claim, therefore I don't have that actual paperwork myself.

 

I fully agree that the banks don't have the grounds to have cases thrown out, but it seems like they're going to have a damned good try:(

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

[enoughisenough]

Originally posted by Landy_Alert

 

I fully agree that the banks don't have the grounds to have cases thrown out, but it seems like they're going to have a damned good try

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

 

They certainly are...

 

 

BBC News - Lloyds to ask local courts to dismiss overdraft cases

[WHITEHART80]

They have no legal ground for doing this.

[enoughisenough]

Absolutely. But you can bet your last that is exactly what they will do. They should be made outcasts and not be able to rely on any law for their abuses of the legal process.

[landy_alert]

They certainly are...

 

 

BBC News - Lloyds to ask local courts to dismiss overdraft cases

 

Thanks for the link EIE;)

 

God I hate LTSB -

 

First they refer to my OH's suicide attempt that was caused by previous financial problems (partially brought on by their own actions, I hasten to add) as trying to 'top himself' in the notes in my SAR, then they turn down our Financial Hardship charges claim, despite our priority debt arrears and full knowledge of what our financial problems led to before.....and now this little gem:evil:

[enoughisenough]

Well Landy

 

I have to tell you that I stuck one on these barstewards during the stay and there is so much more coming their way. I hate them with a passion and what you've said confirms I was right to do so. 'Top himself.? How dare they?.

 

I've caught them red handed bare faced lying on a massive issue which could see them fined bigstyle by the EU. Seriously. Watch this space.

[landy_alert]

Well Landy

 

I have to tell you that I stuck one on these barstewards during the stay and there is so much more coming their way. I hate them with a passion and what you've said confirms I was right to do so. 'Top himself.? How dare they?.

 

I've caught them red handed bare faced lying on a massive issue which could see them fined bigstyle by the EU. Seriously. Watch this space.

 

Glad to hear I'm not the only one EIE.........and I certainly will be watching;)

[42man]

Just in case anybody hasn't seen this - Govan Law Centre

[marie6666red]

read all threads. .amazing with the exception of vegnomeat who is a moron....what pees me off is they keep talking about overdraft charges. on current accounts....but what about people with basic accounts..no one can go overdrawn because they are not allowed an overdraft. so a direct debit is presented...bank says no..then charges 35.00 for it!!! basic acc. customers have not borrowed any unauthorised money from banks, but are still charged the 35.00... would these people have a case??? would sooooooo go on a march....

[amber]

Thanks for the link 42man, thats really interesting and a clear step forward.