Supreme court rules

[meagain]

If you are finding claims on TV or radio implying that people may not be able to get their money back, contact the broadcaster's Duty Office immeidately to put them right.

[speedtrip]

Dave, care to ellaborate?

 

ST

 

Excerpt.......

 

 

GAME ON.....

 

My claims are going in very shortly

 

Dave

[peterlucas]

This ruling is so unreal i was just in the middle of composing a letter to get charges back when i heard the news. Hope someone one with the know works this out. I have car repayment loan that has Adhock ( capalisation )charges for £100.00 all over it and is not in default. I know alot of other people are in this boat with the same company.

 

i'll hold on to the letter a couple of days till some great soul on this site works out what this means and where we go from here.

 

I can tell you now what this means. The Court ruled that the OFT can not asses the charges for fairness. They did not look at fairness. This means we can still complain about charges, we can still sue for charges, and for an amount of that size they will probably settle. That great weapon of theirs, the stay, is history and there are no longer grounds for it to be used. Get your claim in

[Wethers82]

Its disgraceful.

 

Doesn't this seem like another example of the Government MOLLYCODDLING the Banks?

 

Helping them out of the blackhole once again, with little respect to the public. I'm ashamed to be part of a country where the Government deems this court ruling as 'acceptable'.

 

Its an absolute farce.

[Guest Jason King]

 

Also, if you take the example of a plumber, electrician or carpenter, how many make their clients sign a contract up front before installing a new shower or building a kitchen? It just doesn’t happen. Rightly or wrongly, they would never get any business.

 

Those who do are the ones who don't get into trouble.

 

If a contractor wishes to conduct his business with just verbal contracts then he has to expect having problems, and then having a harder time to prove the elements of that contract if it gets disputed.

 

I have been a self employed builder and, if for example, I were building a garage, then all detail of that job would have been typed up including the payment terms.

 

If somebody wasn't happy with the simple request of paying me on time, usually during different stages of the build, then they could get someone else to do it for them because I wouldn't.

 

I rarely had any payment disputes because I made clear when I should get paid and I was never short of work.

 

Why wouldn't somebody be happy to pay you on time unless they never really had the intention to do so in the first place?

[davefirewalker]

Hi ST

 

The judgement was only about if the OFT had the right to decide if the charges were fair.

 

NOT if the charges were fair

 

The FSA waiver has been lifted.

 

The charges were / are still unfair, I'm getting my claim in as soon as I get it typed up

 

Dave

[peterlucas]

Does this ruling also apply to credit card charges? I have a closed CC Account with Barclaycard, got my SAR back and just worked out the charges claim. I was going to post it off today. Is it still worth pursuing this or are the Banks going to hide behind todays ruling as a 'catch all' for all products?

 

I can't believe what I am hearing regarding the ruling. Still awaiting statements for a closed another closed bank account but estimate around £4k in bank charges. Again, is it even worth going forward with this.

 

The ruling has nothing whatever to do with credit card charges. Yes it is worth going forward with the bank charges claim, the ruling had nothing to do with fairness, just whether the OFT could asses them for it. Claim, stick it to the banks and their OFT buddies who have held up people's claims for so long on their behalf.

[TenaciousC]

In a funny way the courts did something good..

 

They did the 'right' thing perhaps in their ruling as it keeps things clean.

 

As said they only judges on the OFT and it's limitations not the fairness of the charges.

The Lords said this, but then said the OFT might be able to pursue this in 'other' avenues, to me this sounds like a little wink to the public and the OFT.

 

Kind of like 'You can't get where you want to go using this route... but if you were to go another route.. nudge nudge wink wink..'

 

Soooo, the stays are lifted and we're now looking at other directions on the advice of the Lords.. so parhaps not so bad after all..?

[madlainey]

These are all strong words, most of you state you cannot accept what has just happened today, the verdict is a joke, so why not stand united and organize a picket in front of the Supreme Court building?

We cannot expect anything to change unless we start doing something!

Why not stand up together and do what people in my native country do when they are not happy?

Posting comments is fair enough as I am also upset if not disgusted about the decision made by the Supreme Court but media is a strong tool in this country so why not organize a picket??????

The power is in number, the decision affected us, normal people who as a result of deceptive bank politics are drowning in debts!

I am telling you all, let's get united and organize a picket.

All people (many still unaware they have been charged thousands in unfair charges) need to join us and all them bank bosses and court judges have to see us furious!

They are here for us not the other way round!!!!!

I am free for picketing at any time and have 4 free places in my car if anyone is up for it. (South Yorkshire area)

Edited November 25, 2009 by madlainey

[peterlucas]

The judgment is really good news if you think about it, the OFT can't delay things any more any we can all get our stays lifted and our claims resolved. The stays were the banks greatest weapon and they just went out the window. The important thing is to get the message out that this is not the end of the line, it just means claims can now proceed independently of the Office for Meddlesome Litigation and the Financial Waiver Authority.

[mcb1975]

Those who do are the ones who don't get into trouble.

 

If a contractor wishes to conduct his business with just verbal contracts then he has to expect having problems, and then having a harder time to prove the elements of that contract if it gets disputed.

 

I have been a self employed builder and, if for example, I were building a garage, then all detail of that job would have been typed up including the payment terms.

 

If somebody wasn't happy with the simple request of paying me on time, usually during different stages of the build, then they could get someone else to do it for them because I wouldn't.

 

I rarely had any payment disputes because I made clear when I should get paid and I was never short of work.

 

Why wouldn't somebody be happy to pay you on time unless they never really had the intention to do so in the first place?

 

In the real world, people are not always afforded the luxury of picking and choosing their clients. I suspect you are fully aware of this and are therefore being disingenuous. I have never ever seen a private trader demand a client sign a lengthy contract (which, one could add, is vastly different to a cost estimate) with clauses and caveats just to fix a washer on a boiler.

 

Also, I am interested in your thoughts reference staff employed casually by agencies who have little rights of employment?

[BSC]

In a funny way the courts did something good..

 

They did the 'right' thing perhaps in their ruling as it keeps things clean.

 

As said they only judges on the OFT and it's limitations not the fairness of the charges.

The Lords said this, but then said the OFT might be able to pursue this in 'other' avenues, to me this sounds like a little wink to the public and the OFT.

 

Kind of like 'You can't get where you want to go using this route... but if you were to go another route.. nudge nudge wink wink..'

 

Soooo, the stays are lifted and we're now looking at other directions on the advice of the Lords.. so parhaps not so bad after all..?

 

 

I agree - and the more I think about it the more I agree!

[paulson1985]

This in a way is good news.

 

All cast your minds back

 

Before the test case was brought in.

 

The morning the OFT announced this everyone was gutted "oh my Gosh my claim has been stayed pending the outcome".

 

Those who had claims lodged with there County Court have been in limbo ( Some were days away from being paid.)

 

Heads out of the sand folks persue, persue, persue.

 

Contact the courts, have your stays lifted the fight is on

 

" Now where did I put a certain persons contact number?

[GLoyal]

If the waiver is lifted, then surely it's easier to take the offedning banks to county court now.

 

The initial problem was bank's disclosing the true cost of sending out letters and imposing charges that were fair and not punitive.

I always look on the bright side of things and as far as I see, this decision has just made it easier for existing claimants to proceed?

 

[MikeBigg]

Are there any offshore banks that can be used for day to day banking? I don't want to give these &*&&!* another penny of my money

 

Credit unions? Maybe?

 

Regards,

 

Mike

[Guest Jason King]

 

In the real world, people are not always afforded the luxury of picking and choosing their clients. I suspect you are fully aware of this and are therefore being disingenuous. I have never ever seen a private trader demand a client sign a lengthy contract (which, one could add, is vastly different to a cost estimate) with clauses and caveats just to fix a washer on a boiler.

 

Oh c'mon! Building a new build garage is a lot more than fixing a washer on a boiler!

If I were to do a small job, like fix a few roof tiles in a hour or so, then I'd be happy to do a verbal contract on the understanding I'd be paid for it as soon as.

If they then tried to knock me I'd just rip the tile back up again!!

 

Also, I am interested in your thoughts reference staff employed casually by agencies who have little rights of employment?

 

If I worked for an agency and I wasn't paid on time, and I was then charged by my bank for not having enough money to cover DD's then I'd expect that agency to foot the bill.

If they didn't I'd sue them and I'd win. There are many cases that this has happened.

 

 

 

 

Yes

[jodenice]

Ok what about those of us who went via the OFT to claim back charges, do we rip that up and go via the courts now?

 

I can't help thinking that judges will strike off claims as a matter of course because of this latest verdict.

[vegnomeat]

Well it seems to have gotten rid of this tw*t from the thread at least

 

Just out at work, you might remember that concept ?

 

Regards

[Big Merv]

The judgment is really good news if you think about it, the OFT can't delay things any more any we can all get our stays lifted and our claims resolved. The stays were the banks greatest weapon and they just went out the window. The important thing is to get the message out that this is not the end of the line, it just means claims can now proceed independently of the Office for Meddlesome Litigation and the Financial Waiver Authority.

 

But won't that only be the case if Judges see it that way? I think on the BBC site they mention the fact that Judges might just decide to throw all these claims out (easiest option for them - less work) in light of this ruling.

 

I have to say I didn't expect any other result. We have no so called democracy or the so called 'freedom' everyone always spouts on about when sending people off to be killed so we can have bigger reserves of oil. Setting people free to be ruled by a much more sinister and covert tyranny. The Bankers!

 

Its all about money! Full stop. The banks and bankers basically run everything and have all the so called politicians and judges on their leash dancing to their tune.

 

Big Merv.

[GLoyal]

Just out at work, you might remember that concept ?

 

Regards

 

 

That's out of order.

[TenaciousC]

Ok what about those of us who went via the OFT to claim back charges, do we rip that up and go via the courts now?

 

I can't help thinking that judges will strike off claims as a matter of course because of this latest verdict.

 

 

Well as the banks themselves have almost admitted guilt/malpractice in the refunds they have already given, and now the stays are lifted, shouldn't this at least in theory make it easier?

 

If so the floodgates are open!

[speedtrip]

Ive just caught up with the thread and I think Tenacious C, Peter Lucas, DaveFirewalker and Fernack (plus others) have hit the nail on the head.

 

The Supreme Court and merely pointing out that OFT are using the wrong approach. They are not saying that the charges are fair or otherwise, but it seems they have opened the door for all us unhappy customers to put on boots and kick down some doors now the stay has been lifted.

 

If we are wrote to our respective banks along the lines of these charges are unfair please return them plus 8% compound interest please and cc the court if you were stayed, isnt it up to the Bank to prove they are fair.

 

In other words back to square one and would certainly keep the courts busyy.

 

I think this can happen whatever the OFT response might be.

 

If we all did this as one this groundswell will remind the banks if nothing else that we still believe charges are unfair and will fight to the.

 

Wouldnt do any harm to e-mail Supreme Court (posted earlier) and write to your MP, and no 10 as well just so they understand the support behind this item.

 

ST

[jodenice]

Just out at work, you might remember that concept ?

 

Regards

 

Dont forget to ask if they want fries.

[vegnomeat]

That's out of order.

 

Like I care, abuse will be met with abuse.

 

Regards

[amber]

peterlucas - thanks for your reply.