Banks 1-0 Consumers

[buzby]

The fact that the Banks have won their appeal to the Supreme Court just goes to show how much the judjes feel for the proles. What a disgrace! This does not bode well for the campaign to outlaw differential pricing on payments (DD, Vs Cheques and CC).

[labrat]

tho i note the oft are still stating they will chase it

[buzby]

Yup - next stop Europe! Who would have thought we'd be grateful for this 'final' appeal opportunity.

[BSC]

It can't go to Europe, the Supreme Court have decreed that it cannot go to the European Court of Justice

 

 

Staggering decision

[buzby]

I don;t believe that decision is within their gift - they may say it, but on what basis? Considering they've only just been created, and the action originally was to the Lords, the EU takes precedence irrespective of their wishes, and if there is no further appeal route - their creditibilty (of their first substantial judgement) will be in tatters.

[Consumer dude]

It can't go to Europe, the Supreme Court have decreed that it cannot go to the European Court of Justice

 

 

Staggering decision

 

 

 

 

How can they say that it can't go to europe, we are part of the euopean union. To say we can't go to Europe is just wrong. Like to see some one challege that statement..

[buzby]

Having now read the judgement - what a palaver, they were allowing stays based on this very narrow action? Heck, this only referred to O/d charges, yet the banks have been using this to block everything - from unfair letter charges to (probably) ingroing toenails. The OFT really dropped the ball on this. I wouldn't trust them to change a lightbulb...

[Bookworm]

After this judgment, I doubt that they'd be allowed to change a lightbulb without permission from their Lordships.

[pompeyfaith]

How can they say that it can't go to europe, we are part of the euopean union. To say we can't go to Europe is just wrong. Like to see some one challege that statement..

Indeed thats like swipping the carpet from under our feet and denying us justice which goes against the principles of the human rights act.

 

PF

[buzby]

After this judgment, I doubt that they'd be allowed to change a lightbulb without permission from their Lordships.

 

And to think we expected to 'win'?! I'll not be so easily fooled again - but at least all the stays will be lifted and business at usual in getting the justiciary to decide what is 'fair'.

[bedlington83]

After the banking crisis there's no way that the banks would be allowed to lose.

[mystery1]

Make no mistake, The banks lost big time.

 

The judgement even tells you which section of law to use in your claim !

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : General

 

Lady Hale even suggests that there is a cartel going on that perhaps should be investigated

 

"Or is the real problem that we do not have a real choice because the

suppliers all offer much the same product and do not compete on some of their terms?

This is the situation here. But it is not clear to me whether the proper solution is to find

some way of forcing the suppliers to compete with one another in the terms they offer or

whether the solution is to condemn one particular model of charging for those services.

Fortunately, however, that is for Parliament and not for this Court."

 

M1

[sailor sam]

At the end of the day the issue is whether the banks are entitle to charge a fine or not. We all know these 'charges' ar indeed 'penalties/fines' but the banks cannot call them that because they would be unrecoverable. Only the crown is allowed to issue fines in the true sense of the word. The banks can only charge for their losses and we all know that their charges are disproportinately higher than their losses. Remember credit card charges a few years ago were capped at £12? So whats the difference?

 

It would appear that the OFT and FSA havn't presented their case correctly. If they had then i'm sure the judgement would of been different! Maybe they will get it right next time around!