Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just remembered!   Now I know this is no laughing matter for either your or your parents, but I guarantee if you read the following  http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1  by the end you won't be able to contain the giggles 🤣   On a more serious note, quote this in your WS as a persuasive case in (5).  Here there is VCS, someone who left the site, no locus standi, lots of stuff similar to your parents' cases.  And VCS took one hell of a hammering!         
    • You are wonderful, Dave!!   I shall get the WS drafted soon as I can! Thank you so much for your help!
    • I thought they were not allowing people to sign for recorded delivery/special delivery now meaning it could still be argued that they ever received it     
    • Don't worry about the questions - that's what we're here for.   I'll try and flesh out the arguments and answer your questions at the same time.  Let's use "I" to refer to your mum as it's her WS.   1.  Sequence of events Describe briefly that the driver parked in the retail park and visited Citygate garage, thinking it was part of the retail park.  Upon return to the vehicle there was no windscreen ticket or indication of any infringement.  Later I received a PCN for parking in a restricted area, then various threatening letters, after a Letter Before Action which I replied to and finally a claim form.   2.  Locus standi VCS are not the landowner.  The contract they have provided is not with the landowner, it is with another company, it ran out in 2018, the company it is with went into liquidation in 2019, the contract cannot possibly be valid.   3.  No keeper liability VCS should be suing the driver, they have not established keeper liability under POFA (you know all about the 29-56 day stuff, quote it all from POFA).   (Yes!  Good find on their sign!  Include the sign and say VCS maintain they have images that can identify the driver and yet have not identified me as such).   (Yes, keep it vague as to who was driving, it's up to VCS to prove, not you.  They could easily have used POFA correctly but have complete contempt for the law so haven't).   4.  Planning permission VCS go to great pains in their WS to emphasise their signage, none of which I disagree with.  However I do not believe they have planning permission for these signs which is a criminal offence under Town and Country [Advertisements} regulations and means no contract could be formed.  I have requested proof of planning permission from VCS by means of a CPR request but they have not replied.  I have searched XXXXX council planning portal and I cannot find planning permission for the signs.  Their CoP incudes that they must obtain all legal permissions yet they have not done so (look up the bit on the IPC CoP):   (You can't prove a negative.  The work you've done here is more than enough.  They have to prove they have planning permission yet have not).   5.  Predatory practises These are forbidden by the CoP (again, look the section up) (a)  The driver did not find the Notice to Driver on their return to the car although it appears in VCS's photos.  As the car park is patrolled, it is unlikely that a member of the public removed it.  I believe the patrol officer photographed it and removed it.  This is a well-known tactic used by PPCs so that the motorist misses the chance to pay during the discounted period.  I enclose a statement by Mr XXXXX which confirms what i say. (b)  The driver visited Citygate garage which is a matter of metres away from the retail site, in fact the driver thought it to be part of the site.  The patrol officer could easily have mitigated the loss by informing the driver of their mistake, yet did not. (c)  The parking violation alleged was to have left the site, yet the PCN is for a completely different violation, parking in a restricted area.  The area was not restricted, there were no permits to show or payment to be made, it is a free public car park.  This error was made either out of incompetence or deliberately to confuse me and make it impossible to appeal.  In any case in their WS VCS are alleging a completely different breach of contract that that stated in their PCN and in all their previous correspondence I would point out that the patrol officer will not attend the hearing so I will not be able to cross examine him, and I am confident that neither will the WS author since from research I have carried out I have discovered that neither Ambreen Arshad nor Mohammed Wali (VCS's other paralegal) who always write the company's WSs ever attend hearings, presumably to avoid cross examination.  Its is especially easy to attend on-line hearings during the COVID pandemic as no travelling is involved.   6.  Unicorn Food Tax Easy, copy from Alaska 101
    • Good evening. thank you for the add. I have a problem with returning a Dell laptop within a 14 day cooling off period. I bought it online on the Dell uk website, and it was delivered to me on the 6th of September. I could not set it up because I was stuck at one of the steps (got the frozen screen and I could not get past it waiting for hours for something to happen). Then I contacted Dell Technical Support. I spent over 4 hours with their advisors on the phone and whatsapp and they could not help me to resolve this problem. So there seems to be a software( or hardware?) issue and I want to return it. I have tried to arrange a return thru the Dell website by picking the date, however, I did not receive any email confirmation of this and nobody showed up on the day. I phoned and emailed and they said I could not return it. Earlier this week I have contacted both their customer service and complaints emails with no success. They are not giving me their returns address. The guy in the 2nd email was trying to offer me a £130 off voucher but never got back to me with the returns address in the UK. I have used the Resolver  site yesterday to write another complaint quoting Dells own returns policy as well as the Comsumer Rights. My return window is running out. What can I do now?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Supreme court case not the end of the world


tomterm8
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4306 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

TT, have you contacted BF to suggest that alteration? ;-)

 

Not exactly sure I am persona grata with BF, Bookworm. Nevertheless, I think any court case where you just rely on the UTCCR you are shooting yourself in the foot. I think there is a strong possibility given the judgement that you will lose.

 

I have suggested it to the owners of certain other sites, however, and I think they are hiring barristers to thrash it out.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

No need for appologies my friend, all in a state of flux at mo.........will be a way through........going to dig out my POC's go through with me magnifying glass :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, the judgement today blew the penalty charges argument out of the water.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, the judgement today blew the penalty charges argument out of the water.

 

 

Not at all... totally disagree... the judgement today stated that the OFT has no jurisdiction to examine whether the relative high charge for each individual penalty imposed on an account can be tested as a true, fair and representative fee for that single transaction... i.e. is £39 charge fair for that one bounced cheque. The Court has ruled that this is up to the banks. I suggest that you read it... every page.

 

Because, the finding was that the Court decided that such fees form the overall 'package' of all the costs associated with managing and providing that account. They are not a separate fee for a separate provision of services... i.e. the £39 fee for a 2p transaction on a mainframe doesn't come into it... the banks can decide that the £39 goes towards the ''whole' package.

 

Therefore, the OFT cannot use the "disproportionate penalty" clause of the UTCC Regs, being that £39 is not a 'fair' charge for one service.

 

However, the president of the SC stated that the OFT can use other legal arguments as to whether this still stands other litmus tests... I think he was clearly hinting at that too.

 

Other clauses in the UTCC Regs state quite clearly that a contract MUST be reciprocal... i.e. what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

 

So, IF the banks want to include a schedule of fees/charges/tariffs/service charges (or however they want to name them), then there MUST be a reciprocal clause in the consumer's favour... otherwise such a clause can be struck out of the contract... i.e. that table of fees gets removed from the contract.

 

And how can the banks then apply a table of fees that has been removed?... :)

 

The ruling states nothing about the banks having the power to strike out claims - that is still up to the individual courts. Whilst the banks can apply to ahve them struck out, the consumers can still respond to those requests by stating that the ruling does not negate the other clauses within the UTCC Regs, i.e. reciprocal clause, individually negotiated terms, changes in the contract (i.e. upping fees over the years without written consent, etc.)

 

The banks might crow on their websites taht they have 'won'... but, in relaity, they have simply shielded away one of the many arrows that can be fired at them. There are plenty more in the quiver...

 

They are hoping that the majority will now give up... and then they would 'win' if everyone gives up.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been giving this some thought (ain't we all) now I have no idea how the judicial system works myself and whether you have to go through all the different channels to get to the 'top' court i.e in the UK its this poncy 'Supreme Court'.

 

Now the Supreme Court has refused to allow permission for the OFT to appeal to the European Courts of Justice but my thoughts are, can't we, as a group of collective individuals fighting for our 'Human Rights' (

 

I'll shut up now, just waffling and thinking out loud. x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been giving this some thought (ain't we all) now I have no idea how the judicial system works myself and whether you have to go through all the different channels to get to the 'top' court i.e in the UK its this poncy 'Supreme Court'.

 

Now the Supreme Court has refused to allow permission for the OFT to appeal to the European Courts of Justice but my thoughts are, can't we, as a group of collective individuals fighting for our 'Human Rights' (

 

I'll shut up now, just waffling and thinking out loud. x

 

You don't need to go the Human Rights route... just re-pitch your canon (as they say) and use other clauses in consumer legislation.

 

why, oh why? is everyone so doom and gloom over this... as Bookworm has said on threads... how are the banks going to explain the other clauses.

 

Where's the reciprocity in the banks Table of Tariffs/Fees?

 

Send then a table of tarrifs stating that you intend to charge them the same fees should they fail on any part of the contract. e.g. you will charge them for letters, calls, etc. and if they refuse to accept your terms, then write back stating that their refusal to reciprocate is unfair under the 'equal terms' rule. And that is NOT covered by the SC's upholding of the appeal which covered totally different aspects.

 

Then use that as evidence to the court that their tariffs and penalty fees have therefore been unlawful all along and should be struck out the contract.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, the judgement today blew the penalty charges argument out of the water.

 

I also disagree. It's business as usual and the ruling only applies to the OFT and them being able to judge the fairness. Plenty more avenues to go down before we lie dead in the water. The lifting of the waiver is going to prove to be a tidal wave so they going to have to sit up and listen at some point.

 

Just because the OFT screwed up doesn't mean that the wise old owls here will. Every piece of legislation will be torn apart and we will get the revenge we well deserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an overdraft is 'unauthorised' by name it's a joke. The banks authorise it and are giving credit without it being asked for yet blaming the account holder. It's like labelling you as stealing the money. If they haven't given permission they why pay it out, blame the account holder and then charge them?

 

Ever tried stopping transactions to prevent going overdrawn? Tried changing banks? Perhaps it's easier now, although choice is restricted with bad credit history, but when I did it it took months to put payments in place.

 

Regarding credit history that's another thing. Choice is limited to say the least so it's anti-competative and relies too much on the poor records kept by the CRAs..which you are forced to check at a cost. Then it takes months to sort any errors out and all that time you are in financial limbo.

 

I'm still waiting to see why I have an Abbey Mortgage application registered..why my arrears on my mortgage are showing as over 6months and why I have made an application to some Xmas Hamper Farepak lookalike.

 

Finance supports finance and nothing is truly independent, not even the judiciary and legislators. Perhaps I should change my name to Cash Cow and line up on a daily basis to be milked by these greedy &@*&$£%?

 

Remember the good old days when you missed CC payments or went overdrawn and were then in-undated with letters saying what a valued customer you were so you were worthy of more credit that you didn't want and didn't ask for.

Edited by Crapstone
Link to post
Share on other sites

If an overdraft is 'unauthorised' by name it's a joke. The banks authorise it and are giving credit without it being asked for yet blaming the account holder. It's like labelling you as stealing the money. If they haven't given permission they why pay it out, blame the account holder and then charge them?

 

That's the chestnut. It's exploitative bull**** and nothing less. They know it; the government knows it; I know it; I like to think that most folk here know it; yet we play this silly and puerile little legal game with them? It's a fraud and a farce. The High Court and Court OF Appeal got it right, but the Establishment has influenced a corrupt Supreme Court on this. Gordon Brown is ****. David Cameron is ****. Our so called Establishment can take us on illegal wars where over a million innocents perish, but they can't sort out a system of fair overdrafts? Ha ha ha. :rolleyes: At the end of the day, it's only about banks making huge profits. Why do banks have an automatic right to make huge profits? They bloody well don't and I would like to know how they survived before this charges fiasco took off in the first place? I mean banks did exist pre-1990 right? And we even hear this pathetic argument that they will have to recoup their ill gotten games in other ways!!! You got to be ****ting me right? WTF! We just lie back and take it...

 

Lizard Woman - 'Hear ye, hear ye you stupid plebs. We used to make millions, but now we make billions through unfair practices. We don't wish to go back to making millions again and wish to continue making billions. Now you just be quiet and don't make a fuss because you are stupid plebs and haven't got a clue about any of this.'

 

That's honestly how I see it!

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

What will happen with Ombudsman claims. Mine is there and I have heard nothing from them in 2 years as they were awaiting the outcome of the court case. Will they persue the claims now, or will they roll over and give in. Would it better for all ombudsman claiments to file at court instead?

Bank of Scotland account 1 - £2,666 WON

Bank of Scotland account 2 - £2,500 on hold

GE Capital charges -£30 won (hey, every little helps!)

Barclays Partner Finance £425 charges - £225 offer accepted.

 

Finally debt free after 4.5 years, thanks to my Debt Management Plan through Payplan. There is no better feeling :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzie, well now they have the case done and dusted theres no reason why they cant take up your case.

People can take the banks to court still, weve just got to get the wording and laws straightened out for a new attack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess there are many more threads on this though, I have not read them yet.

 

My opinion all along has been that of; There is no such thing as an unauthorised overdraft unless, you back a cheque with a card knowing you can't cover it. If your overdraft is 1000 then it's 1000 not 1029...

 

On the spread sheets it should say Bank Authorised Overdraft Charge not Unauthorised Overdraft charge.

 

Also, I don't see how having a bank account gives the Bank authority to keep switching terms and conditions including higher charges. If we are to accept this practise then, most loans, mortgages could have any amount of fees added.

 

The Supreme Court ruling has left the door open and IMO there are plenty of other options to try. More than one way to skin a cat as they say.

Edited by nevos
Seen latest announecment

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

I jus had a phone call from one of those nice claims company, 'its coming up to christmas, we can help to clear your debt blah blah'

So I pressed the number suggested,

When they told me their name, I said ' do you realise that the latest Supreme Court ruling has ma' the cheeky so and so hung up:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far only one bank CEO has stood up and spoken out since the judgement - Stephen Hester of RBS said yesterday at the Scottish Parliament's Economy Committee that "We should understand there is not a free lunch here, that banks have certain costs of doing business and if you don't get paid those costs in one way then you have to find them in another way."

 

No I'm no expert in political doublespeak, but that doesn't sound like a man poised to refund millions of pounds in charges.

 

I can't imagine Lloyds, HBOS or Barclays taking the lead either so I reckon there's a very long slog ahead and no quick fixes.

 

Can anyone say they've ever seen a situation where a county court has ruled differently than a superior court? If you're going to progress, you need a totally different approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been asked before but could someone explain something to me.....

 

The banks lost in the high court.......yes?

The banks lost in the court of appeal......yes?

The banks were told they could not go to the supreme court.....yes?

They did anyway and won....am I right so far?

The supreme court have said the OFT cant go to the European Comission.....yes?

Why dont they go anyway like the banks did (and would have if they lost yesterday)?

 

I'm sure its a very simple reason but to me it seems strange that the Banks fought all the way and the OFT is giving up as soon as they get a negative judgment!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an overdraft is 'unauthorised' by name it's a joke. The banks authorise it and are giving credit without it being asked for yet blaming the account holder.

 

I'm not here to defend the banking system, but you're wrong in saying "without being asked for it". By the very nature of using your card, setting up a direct debit or standing order, you're issuing an instruction to make a payment on your behalf.

 

I agree that if an account reaches zero, the simplest thing would be to not pay out for you. No fees, no charges, just no payment. The problem is that the sheer volume of transactions each day makes this practically impossible.

 

Most banks employ an exceptions process that takes care of minor overspends based on your previous credit history with that bank. If you're a good guy who's salary comes in each month, they'll probably pay your mortgage even if your account can't cover it. Conversely, if you're not so financially astute, they will probably reject the payment.

 

The true cost of this process is totally irrelevant in all of this, and is probably impossible to calculate accurately. The point is that they decide what they will charge if you break their rules.

 

I can remember when we were charged for using our bank accounts if the balance fell below a certain level. IIRC it was 30p for every cheque, and 20p for each direct debit or standing order. In today's money that would probably be more like 50p or £1.00 a time.

 

If they went back to that system they would probably make a lot more money but the argument is why should those who live within their funds subsidise those who don't?

Edited by rickyd
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been asked before but could someone explain something to me.....

 

The banks lost in the high court.......yes?

The banks lost in the court of appeal......yes?

The banks were told they could not go to the supreme court.....yes?

They did anyway and won....am I right so far?

The supreme court have said the OFT cant go to the European Comission.....yes?

Why dont they go anyway like the banks did (and would have if they lost yesterday)?

 

I'm sure its a very simple reason but to me it seems strange that the Banks fought all the way and the OFT is giving up as soon as they get a negative judgment!!

 

The banks weren't told they couldn't go to the Supreme Court as it didn't exist at that time, it only came into being in October this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks weren't told they couldn't go to the Supreme Court as it didn't exist at that time, it only came into being in October this year.

 

Thanks for clearing that up Ricky, I was just going by what that Martin guy was saying on GMTV yesterday morning!

The Supreme court was set up just in time for the Banks then.......that was a stroke of luck!!

 

So what was happening between the ruling by the court of appeal and the setting up of the Supreme court. (Again sorry for these silly questions but all this court here and there stuff is confusing, it seems that if you dont like what one court has to say just pop accross to the next for a different judgment)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that if an account reaches zero, the simplest thing would be to not pay out for you. No fees, no charges, just no payment. The problem is that the sheer volume of transactions each day makes this practically impossible.

 

That's not true. A direct debit could easily just be rejected and standing orders already are as a matter of course. In fact for people without overdrafts and terrible credit histories they reject direct debits anyway! :rolleyes:

 

 

Most banks employ an exceptions process that takes care of minor overspends based on your previous credit history with that bank. If you're a good guy who's salary comes in each month, they'll probably pay your mortgage even if your account can't cover it. Conversely, if you're not so financially astute, they will probably reject the payment.

 

If you don't have an overdraft facility the bank has no right to give you one. Whether they call it 'authorised', 'unauthorised' or 'supercalifragailistic' it doesn't matter. It's none of their business.

 

 

The true cost of this process is totally irrelevant in all of this, and is probably impossible to calculate accurately. The point is that they decide what they will charge if you break their rules.

 

There is hardly any cost. This has already been looked at by a group of experts.

 

 

If they went back to that system they would probably make a lot more money but the argument is why should those who live within their funds subsidise those who don't?

 

That's why they are fighting tooth and nail to keep the present system then... They don't want to take more money from us. Are you having a bit of fun with us? :D

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...