Supreme court case not the end of the world

[tomterm8]

Looking at the judgement, I don't think it's the end of the world. The supreme court has ruled that bank charges are a part of the core cost of service, and so the court can't rule on the matter of whether they are unfair under the UTCCR.

 

However, 99% of agreemets are fall under the consumer credit act 1974 as ammened by the consumer credit act 2006.

 

The consumer credit act 2006 gives the court explicit powers to alter credit agreements it deems result in an unfair relationship between the parties.

 

So, what the claims sites should be doing is getting together with lawyers, and rewriting the claims documents under the CCA 2006 unfair relationship clauses, and ditching the UTCCR argument.

 

Anyone following me?

[iconoclash]

Agreed. The fight for fairness should continue - I am very disappointed at this result today but: "tomorrow is another day" !

 

I do feel that the humble 'man-in-the-street' has paid over and over again in this country so that certain areas of this nation can continue to retain their status at our expense - yet another news item that hardens my resolve to get out of Britain eventually - the sooner the better! Did I hear that there is a plan to tax broadband now??

[bazaar]

Agree with you Tomterm,

Once everyone has finished berating the SC and each other we can look with clear minds to help people in getting a good argument for continuation via the courts now that the stays should be lifted.

The trick here is to ensure that the banks cant strike out the claims without a very good reason.

This ruling is only for the OFT ( who dragged a lot of people along ) not to be allowed to intervene. Have they helped many people anyway, we may well ask?.

Most people knew that with the slick lawyers the banks could afford that something would trip up the OFT.

[ICY]

Did I hear that there is a plan to tax broadband now??

 

They already do, its called VAT, or are they adding a new tax, that they can then tax again with more VAT.

 

Havent heard of a BB tax yet, but I am sure it is a possibility :-|

[renegotiation]

They already do, its called VAT, or are they adding a new tax, that they can then tax again with more VAT.

 

Havent heard of a BB tax yet, but I am sure it is a possibility :-|

 

That's been in the pipeline for a long time. The tax will just be added on to BT landline rental if it comes into force.

[Mr lex]

If you have a stayed case, have a look here :-

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : HSBC Bank

 

New, amended, POC templates are now in the Library.

 

We appear to be back to were we where before the test case, but if you read the full judgement we may have more weight. Even Gordon Brown seemed to be suggesting Class Actions to the consumers in PMQ's today.

[landy_alert]

Yet the banks are already putting out misleading info on their websites saying that (for example LTSB) -

 

'We will be asking the county and sheriff courts to apply the Supreme Court Judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold'

 

which will in some cases coupled with the negative picture portrayed in the media, put people off - not Caggers obviously!

 

So how exactly do we ensure the banks can't strike out the claims without a very good reason?

 

In my own case I only filed my AQ yesterday so haven't even been allocated to a track yet and fear the whole thing will get railroaded before it gets off the ground:confused:

 

And yes, I've read the advice given in the site team announcement, but am still a bit confused!

[einyuk]

The news and the banks make out that the claiming of bank charges is now over for good dead in the water, and to the man in the street it would seem so. This decision has now made around 60% of the public (maybe more) give up on the fight which is exactly what they want (banks don't want to payout on-mass). But to the rest of us (the til the death) the fight is very far from over.

Some good i believe will come out of this i.e. with the lifting of stays and with the ablility to proceed without the interference of the OFT and the FSA. Good luck peeps.

[Mr lex]

Hi Landy,

 

In my own case I only filed my AQ yesterday so haven't even been allocated to a track yet and fear the whole thing will get railroaded before it gets off the ground:confused:

 

It's to early to say what the courts will do if they are asked to 'strike out' a case. There has to be very good grounds to do that and todays judgment does not give those grounds. Needless to say, we need to let the dust die down a bit and see what comes out over the next few days.

[scared001]

can we organise a class whatsit of some sort?

[renegotiation]

Some good i believe will come out of this i.e. with the lifting of stays and with the ablility to proceed without the interference of the OFT and the FSA. Good luck peeps.

 

I'm not so sure about that. The largely controlled media isn't stupid and is pushing the message that these claims won't be paid out. The problem for the greedy banks is that they can't 'only' pay out on outstanding claims. It's pretty much all or nothing for them. The notion that a small minority might get their money back by pressing ahead seems very optimistic to me. It's gone beyond points of law now. The Establishment has decided and that's that. They do what they want to us. 'They can't do that!' I hear you cry out. We'll see though won't we...

 

 

 

It's to early to say what the courts will do if they are asked to 'strike out' a case. There has to be very good grounds to do that and todays judgment does not give those grounds. Needless to say, we need to let the dust die down a bit and see what comes out over the next few days.

 

Absolutely, but we don't have any other choice. Unless Landy and I can get our tandem gear on tonight.

Edited November 25, 2009 by renegotiation

[landy_alert]

Hi Landy,

It's to early to say what the courts will do if they are asked to 'strike out' a case. There has to be very good grounds to do that and todays judgment does not give those grounds. Needless to say, we need to let the dust die down a bit and see what comes out over the next few days.

 

Many thanks for the above words of wisdom Mr lex:)

[rickyd]

 

This ruling is only for the OFT ( who dragged a lot of people along ) not to be allowed to intervene. Have they helped many people anyway, we may well ask?. .

 

Sadly not true, the ruling also prevents courts from ruling on fairness claims under the UTCCR 1999 and also prevents the case from progressing to the European Court.

 

I think we might have to accept that the banks will be sticking to their guns on this, especially since some have reduced their charges and now they have the backing of the highest court in the land.

 

The matter of whether or not this is morally right, fair or legal is likely to be met with blank looks by the banks who now feel they have a remit to continue as before without fear of legal action, thanks to today's ruling.

 

If the Supreme Court has ruled that neither the OFT nor the courts are competent to decide whether or not these charges are fair, then who is able to make such a ruling?

[rickyd]

can we organise a class whatsit of some sort?

 

The Supreme Court's ruling has barred both the OFT and the Courts from ruling on any "fairness" claims. It also ruled against taking cases to Europe - so where would it (a class action) be heard?

[einyuk]

Thx Renegotiation, cheered me up no end , still, someone will have to take that next step as to test the water so to speak.

[renegotiation]

Thx Renegotiation, cheered me up no end , still, someone will have to take that next step as to test the water so to speak.

 

Sorry! I'm just saying it how I see it. Like I said, we'll see soon enough. I'm sure everyone isn't going to go home because Baron Renog said so... I'm for a march myself.

[SurlyBonds]

Sadly not true, the ruling also prevents courts from ruling on fairness claims under the UTCCR 1999 and also prevents the case from progressing to the European Court.

 

 

Not strictly true... English law does not prevent you using a different part of an Act, if the original claim was based on a separate part.

 

The OFT has basically lost the ability to test whether the charging structure is unfair and disproportionate. The reciprocity case hasn't even been challenged by the OFT.... yet.

 

Also, I think Europe might have something to say about an English Court deciding that a claimant cannot appeal having used a piece of legislation that originated in Europe in the first place.

[Bookworm]

I'd go further, I'd say the ruling specifically does NOT prevent the courts from ruling on fairness under the UTCCR and in fact reads to me as if they are handing that power exclusively to the courts.

[tosh1]

where does this leave the guy on the street?

[ICY]

I feel like I have been around on here forever, cant believe its been nearly 3 years, have seen many negative comments in all that time that the banks will always win, however that may not be true. All wars have many battles, the OFT test case was just one of the battles in this war.

 

I am looking forward to finally getting my day in court, I am certainly not discouraged by the very negative reporting that the press are putting out right now, every member here should spread the message to as many people as possible who arent registered here to NOT GIVE UP, dont let these "£$%^&*s win, they have taken the money unfairly, its up to US to keep pushing the point in as many courts as possible, the fat lady hasnt sung just yet, she is merely warming her voice up, she may not get to use it yet.

 

Peace

[Bookworm]

I could be wrong, (wouldn't be the first time), but I'd say exactly back where you were 2 1/2 yrs ago: You file at court arguing UTCCR 5.1 and leave it for the judge to decide whether the terms are fair or not. And I can't see the banks being any more eager to explain this to the judge as before.

 

Good, huh? All that money, posturing, time and nothing seems to have changed very much at all.

[Crapstone]

Just wondering....

 

What would happen if every customer wrote to their bank and stated that should insufficient funds be available in their account then they are under strict instructions not to grant 'credit' in the form of an unauthorised overdraft? And if they should give unauthorised credit, it is strictly forbidden in the CAG religion to pay any charges when the customer has clearly stated their instructions.

[phoenix11]

I was very down when I hear the news and have been going through the emotional hoops - and eventually decided that in the end I could have the last laugh by just declaring bankrupt.

 

And helping my son declare bankrupt too - anything to get shot of the weight of the despair and constant losing out, constant bashing and the snide remarks that leave me wanting to commit a very serious offence.

 

But now, I got to say I just love this place - I feel really great - I have more choices and I'm with people who are just gearing up for the next round.

 

So, just to say "thank you" and I'll be looking forward to the next load of advice and comments from all of you who help one way or another.

 

[tomterm8]

where does this leave the guy on the street?

 

It depends. Cases were brought under the UTCCR becausde it was a route that was available at the time. Some of the UTCCR isn't available any more. However, the fact the supreme court has refused to allow permission for appeal to the european courts isn't the end of the matter. The european courts can overrule domestic courts.

 

The OFT still has several routes to attack the matter, using, e.g. competition law and arguing other legal points.

 

For people who have complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service, this court ruling is pretty much irrelevant. The jurisdiction of the F.O.S. is based on different legislation, and the F.O.S. can quite explicitly consider all matters relating to the conduct of the banks, including their charges.

 

For people who have gone the court route, it is essential to seek permission to ammend the POC, CAG has already produced a draft POC which I am not happy with. If they add a phrase similar to "In the alternative, if the court does not have the authority to rule the charges unfair under the UTCCR, I ask that the court consider the reasons I have stated that their conduct is unfair as sufficient to declare the relationship between myself and the defendant unfair under its powers the consumer credit act 1974 as amended by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. And to order the repayment of unfair charges under the courts authority established by the act"

 

Of course, I am not a lawyer, and a professional could improve the phrases used.

 

In essence, if you do this pretty quick I think you will be more or less in the position you were two years ago.

[lovejoy]

I was very down when I hear the news and have been going through the emotional hoops - and eventually decided that in the end I could have the last laugh by just declaring bankrupt.

 

And helping my son declare bankrupt too - anything to get shot of the weight of the despair and constant losing out, constant bashing and the snide remarks that leave me wanting to commit a very serious offence.

 

But now, I got to say I just love this place - I feel really great - I have more choices and I'm with people who are just gearing up for the next round.

 

So, just to say "thank you" and I'll be looking forward to the next load of advice and comments from all of you who help one way or another.

 

It's not all doom and gloom on this ruling, we can still (as I understand it) challenge under section 5 of the act.

Stick in there bud.

Don't let the buggers grind you down.