OFT case over, hows YOUR court dealing with claims

[themadcap]

Thanks Yourbank,

Ill have a run through the judgement and your arguments, will keep in touch when D&G send me their letter

cheers

Heres a copy of the letter received from court today, which arguments anyone?

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/46806057@N04/4295650214/

[yourbank]

excellent, stayed till 30 november 2010, so you needn't do anything yet, at least till the way forward is clearer, unless the bank / DG apply to the court so just check with the court in a couple weeks time, otherwise just be working on your case ready for when you need to take any action

[indebtstudent]

This is the same letter I had, I'm glad it means what I thought it means

 

I was a little worried the bank could ask for the stay to be removed but then why would they, does the bit about having tried to settle the claim apply to both sides?

 

I figure I may aswell respond to thier letter making it known that I'm not a muppet whos just going to accept thier legal advice at face value.

 

I'll update my thread and post the link so you guys can pick the letter apart, oops erm I mean refine and improve! lol

[yourbank]

the bank can apply for the stay to be lifted, and would, and are in lots of cases, to get the claims struck out.

 

The settle bit, that is more of the 'why would they' part. they think they have this sewn up in a cast iron jacket.

[indebtstudent]

It is of great concern to me that the letters I and others have recieved seem to suggest this is an open and shut case which is very much not what the test case resulted in.

 

I'm going to borrow from the one template I've seen on here and propose a compromize. At least if they then apply to have the stay lifted I can show the court I've made an effort to settle, and hopefully the new arguments will be ready to deploy by then.

[renegotiation]

Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims! It was only in relation to the power of the OFT to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law! Why is your local County Court referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the powers of the OFT when it has absolutely nothing to do with your case? From what I know they orignally stayed the cases, 'supposedly', because the courts were getting a little bogged down. I know the real reason and i'm sure everyone else does too. It was assumed that if the OFT won, then all cases could get resolved en masse. Now the OFT has lost it should be back to the courts with individual cases then. How it has been twisted to mean that the OFT losing means everyone has lost their indiviual cases is completely beyond me. ***You need to send a letter to your County Court advising them of this and warn them of their responsibilities. You are under no obligation to refer to the Supreme Court decision in applying to remove your stay whatsoever! They should have written to you and simply stated that you were free to proceed. Ask them to explain their logic to you! They will not be able to!*** Furthermore, it is also beyond me as to why the POC needs to be changed either. Again, your POC has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement. You are all being royally rogered. WAKE UP!!!

Edited January 24, 2010 by renegotiation

[indebtstudent]

If I was marking that post I'd give you a partial credit. Whilst I agree it is clear individuals can still pursue thier own seperate they DO need to POC's. The OFT case closed down the penalties route which many people have relied upon so using the same POC's is not a good idea.

 

I still think its worth a shot particularly with regard to consent. Of what value is consent when the only choice an individual is between virtually identical (and unfair) terms and conditions. It is of no value whatsoever.

[renegotiation]

If I was marking that post I'd give you a partial credit. Whilst I agree it is clear individuals can still pursue thier own seperate they DO need to POC's. The OFT case closed down the penalties route which many people have relied upon so using the same POC's is not a good idea.

 

How did the OFT loss close down the penalties route? I think you have been brainwashed to believe it did, but it didn't. Think about it a minute!

[yourbank]

How did the OFT loss close down the penalties route? I think you have been brainwashed to believe it did, but it didn't. Think about it a minute!

 

The first OFT Test case judgement specifically stated that apart from one single term of NatWest's which was as follows:

 

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

[yourbank]

Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims!

It does and it doesn't to be honest. It does in one sense because we all thought regulation 5(1) of UTCCR 1999 would be tested in court and in fact, UTCCR 1999 6.2(b) was tested. Furthermore, penalties in law doctrine went out on the first judgement of Justice Smith.

 

It was only in relation to the power of the OFT to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law! Why is your local County Court referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the powers of the OFT when it has absolutely nothing to do with your case?

It would have had an effect if the case had been successful for all claimants in that charges in the future would be assessable for fairness and the level of them would come into the equation.

 

From what I know they orignally stayed the cases, 'supposedly', because the courts were getting a little bogged down.

Cases were stayed because the test case was supposedly going to resolve the issues of penalties in law and UTCCR 1999 once and for all. In fact it didn't resolve the latter whatsoever.

I know the real reason and i'm sure everyone else does too. It was assumed that if the OFT won, then all cases could get resolved en masse. Now the OFT has lost it should be back to the courts with individual cases then. How it has been twisted to mean that the OFT losing means everyone has lost their indiviual cases is completely beyond me.

I completely agree with you and we have lost the media battle at the moment. We may not lose the war but the biggest battle so far has been lost and we are kinda regathering the troops and seeing where we go from here.

 

***You need to send a letter to your County Court advising them of this and warn them of their responsibilities. You are under no obligation to refer to the Supreme Court decision in applying to remove your stay whatsoever! They should have written to you and simply stated that you were free to proceed. Ask them to explain their logic to you! They will not be able to!***

Have you done this yourself and have you received a response yet? Please do not advise this if you haven't since their response would be ideal so that others know what to expect.

 

Furthermore, it is also beyond me as to why the POC needs to be changed either. Again, your POC has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement. You are all being royally rogered. WAKE UP!!!

 

Mate, have you taken your own advice and what is the outcome? If you haven't can you bell the cat and do it and then write on here or your own thread what the result was because words on a page are futile if you are doing it yourself. I can't do that for obvious reasons but have can do that?

[renegotiation]

The first OFT Test case judgement specifically stated that apart from one single term of NatWest's which was as follows:

 

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

Don't be vague. Quote the text of your argument, not the exception. Contextualise this within the raised arguments between individual cases and the OFT test case. Please post on the thread I specifically created for this topic. Thanks.

[renegotiation]

Mate, have you taken your own advice and what is the outcome? If you haven't can you bell the cat and do it and then write on here or your own thread what the result was because words on a page are futile if you are doing it yourself. I can't do that for obvious reasons but have can do that?

 

I don't have an open court case. I can see no harm whatsoever in writing to your County Court for further explanation of their logic. I am raising the issue of continuing with exsiting POC's for 'discussion'. Please post on the other thread. I will post back later. Thanks.

 

P.S. Meanwhile, how about you go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread?

[yourbank]

Don't be vague. Quote the text of your argument, not the exception. Contextualise this within the raised arguments between individual cases and the OFT test case. Please post on the thread I specifically created for this topic. Thanks.

 

I don't read signatures so if it is on there then I can't see it so can you link to it on this thread?

[yourbank]

I don't have an open court case. I can see no harm whatsoever in writing to your County Court for further explanation of their logic. I am raising the issue of continuing with exsiting POC's for 'discussion'. Please post on the other thread. I will post back later. Thanks.

 

P.S. Meanwhile, how about you go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread?

 

WHich thread mate, please LINKIE LINKIE or no FINDIE FINDIE

[renegotiation]

WHich thread mate, please LINKIE LINKIE or no FINDIE FINDIE

 

If you don't have the brains to 'findie findie' it, then please don't 'postie postie' on it. As I said, please go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. Or you want me to stick your name down for you in case you can't find it?

[yourbank]

If you don't have the brains to 'findie findie' it, then please don't 'postie postie' on it. As I said, please go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. Or you want me to stick your name down for you in case you can't find it?

 

It would be nice if you could be civil to me on the thread since my attempt at light hearted humour has clearly gone down like a lead balloon. I have found one thread and is the March thread the one CARO started?

[renegotiation]

It would be nice if you could be civil to me on the thread since my attempt at light hearted humour has clearly gone down like a lead balloon. I have found one thread and is the March thread the one CARO started?

 

If you can't briefly scan 3 inches on a pc monitor for 2 seconds, then I give up.

[indebtstudent]

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

How long was that term in operation? Does that mean anyone who was charged when this term was in operation would have a case for getting those charges back?

[yourbank]

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

How long was that term in operation? Does that mean anyone who was charged when this term was in operation would have a case for getting those charges back?

 

No because a court would have to determine if it was penal. The High Court judgement did not say that it was penal.

[steven4064]

Actually YB, I'm not sure. The High Court has said that charges for going overdrawn are not capable of being penalties. THis one is a bit different because it clearly talks about 'using your card'. If you did use your card to go overdrawn, that looks to me like a breach of the agreement and any charge would then be a penalty. This wouldn't apply to any other charges, onl to those where you used your card.

[themadcap]

If you can't briefly scan 3 inches on a pc monitor for 2 seconds, then I give up.

 

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

[renegotiation]

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

 

I disagree with you. I think he/she is a 'gatekeeper'. I fully stand by my comments, as I saw him/her viewing the said thread before he said he didn't know where it was. In fact, that makes my comments too kind. Save your pluck for the corrupt banks...

Edited January 26, 2010 by renegotiation

[Seminole]

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

 

I fact I think it's fair to say that he's sacrificed more in the bank charges cause than anyone else on this site.

[renegotiation]

I fact I think it's fair to say that he's sacrificed more in the bank charges cause than anyone else on this site.

 

Everyone is entitled to their honest opinion.

[yourbank]

I disagree with you. I think he/she is a 'gatekeeper'. I fully stand by my comments, as I saw him/her viewing the said thread before he said he didn't know where it was. In fact, that makes my comments too kind. Save your pluck for the corrupt banks...

 

Can you explain the gatekeeper comment because I do not understand the definition you have for the word?