inside info... judgement....

[finlander]

hi folks im back.

 

excuse the lack of capitals but im knackered ... its 1.30 in the morning and i have just got in.

 

i havn't been around for a while and thats because i became very aware that experian were monitoring my posts. however i am here now for reasons i will explain.

 

whilst being away i have used my time wisely.

 

i have recruited a source close to a banks policy unit through a friend of my wife. we shall call him shallow throat in keeping with the tradition of watergate. i have spoken to him tonight and the info is ..well... interesting.

 

Mods..please read this.

 

the info i have gleaned is as follows.

 

1. why the change of tact? supreme court over rules high court and court of appeal. no appeal to europe. well that is a matter for the government. the supreme court is totally and utterly impartial.

 

so are trains. but if you lay the tracks they have a tendacy to follow them.

 

if we had won the cost would have been enormous. in the region of £24 billion in refunds. now think about that. the government lent hbos £61 billion and there has been outrage. dubai owes £80 billion and the stock market tumbled. this was a matter of 'stability'. if there are to be refunds then they must be'controlled' and not a stampede.

 

2 that leads us to the ruling. the court rules we get nothing. wrong. the court has ruled but they have left an avenue open, i gues you cant control everything. this allows us to return to the individual claims and not the mass refund.

 

3.The question now is what todo. to be honest my source says that the banks are as worried as you are. since the judgement the lights have been burning late in canary wharf. the press have sold this as a victory so it will be very difficult for them to start paying out individual claims without being pilloried. but fighting is just as dangerous. what if they lose, which is a very real possibilty. as my source said......just go to the fsa site and look at their interpretation of unfair terms regarding contracts.

 

the inference is that the new route is far far more dangerous to the banks than the old one.

 

what i am saying now is that this has spiraled to the point it became a threat to the stability of some of the banks. the collapse in credit markets changed the whole situation halfway through the test case and that is why we are here.

 

i for one will not give up. we will still win. but we must be careful.

 

since the judgement some of you may have noticed alot more anti remarks on this and other forums. posts on this site and others have been refered to in court in earlier cases. be aware how your remarks may seem at a later date.

 

be aware that you are being baited.

 

it would be handy for us to be portaryed as a bunch of whinging anarchist nutters. lets not give them that chance.

 

during the lull the banks have not sat idol. this site and others are being monitored at a rate that we wouldnt believe.

 

remember folks we are not talking about your £2000 but a poss £24 billion. thats alot of motivation for corruption and skullduggery.

 

cag ..dont give up... you are back in the driving seat now and individuals are less easy to control than civil servants.

 

anyway i feel completely half cut as it took alot of red wine to get that information tonite.

 

[JonCris]

Britain used to be renowned as being the money laundering capital of the world so now't surprises me

 

Incidentally where do the drug barons now launder their vast sums in profits .. they can't ALL be sticking it under their mattress

[renegotiation]

hi folks im back.

 

excuse the lack of capitals but im knackered ... its 1.30 in the morning and i have just got in.

 

i havn't been around for a while and thats because i became very aware that experian were monitoring my posts. however i am here now for reasons i will explain.

 

whilst being away i have used my time wisely.

 

i have recruited a source close to a banks policy unit through a friend of my wife. we shall call him shallow throat in keeping with the tradition of watergate. i have spoken to him tonight and the info is ..well... interesting.

 

Mods..please read this.

 

the info i have gleaned is as follows.

 

1. why the change of tact? supreme court over rules high court and court of appeal. no appeal to europe. well that is a matter for the government. the supreme court is totally and utterly impartial.

 

so are trains. but if you lay the tracks they have a tendacy to follow them.

 

if we had won the cost would have been enormous. in the region of £24 billion in refunds. now think about that. the government lent hbos £61 billion and there has been outrage. dubai owes £80 billion and the stock market tumbled. this was a matter of 'stability'. if there are to be refunds then they must be'controlled' and not a stampede.

 

2 that leads us to the ruling. the court rules we get nothing. wrong. the court has ruled but they have left an avenue open, i gues you cant control everything. this allows us to return to the individual claims and not the mass refund.

 

3.The question now is what todo. to be honest my source says that the banks are as worried as you are. since the judgement the lights have been burning late in canary wharf. the press have sold this as a victory so it will be very difficult for them to start paying out individual claims without being pilloried. but fighting is just as dangerous. what if they lose, which is a very real possibilty. as my source said......just go to the fsa site and look at their interpretation of unfair terms regarding contracts.

 

the inference is that the new route is far far more dangerous to the banks than the old one.

 

what i am saying now is that this has spiraled to the point it became a threat to the stability of some of the banks. the collapse in credit markets changed the whole situation halfway through the test case and that is why we are here.

 

i for one will not give up. we will still win. but we must be careful.

 

since the judgement some of you may have noticed alot more anti remarks on this and other forums. posts on this site and others have been refered to in court in earlier cases. be aware how your remarks may seem at a later date.

 

be aware that you are being baited.

 

it would be handy for us to be portaryed as a bunch of whinging anarchist nutters. lets not give them that chance.

 

during the lull the banks have not sat idol. this site and others are being monitored at a rate that we wouldnt believe.

 

remember folks we are not talking about your £2000 but a poss £24 billion. thats alot of motivation for corruption and skullduggery.

 

cag ..dont give up... you are back in the driving seat now and individuals are less easy to control than civil servants.

 

anyway i feel completely half cut as it took alot of red wine to get that information tonite.

 

 

Everything you have said is very intelligent and true. I am sure Bankfodder knows most of this, if not all, despite being reluctant to shout it out. Moreover, that's why I have been very careful in my choice of words. I am furious and won't give up on this either. If it comes to it, then I am calling for massive peaceful demostrations up and down the country. I am a complete pacifist and violence disgusts me, but we need to draw up a Citizen's Charter and pin it to the forehead of whoever is incumbent at Number 10. They usually can't see past their nose so it might be necessary. Hmm, maybe that's a little violent. Let's use blu-tac instead...

 

What I saw in the Supreme Court decision was a 'desire' for no more refunds and possibly a slight reduction in the level of charges for the future. That's bull****. You are especially right on the issue of the 'powers that be' monitoring the internet. I have known this for a long time. They monitor all kinds of websites, blogs, forums and chat rooms. At the moment, this primarily involves looking at people speaking out against 9/11 and 7/7, which if anyone thinks involved 'Al Qaeda' - ***A MEDIA FICTION*** - can't have sensibly thought about it all for more than 5 minutes. They were false flag attacks. Anyhow, this isn't the place for that. This bank charges issue is huge and they will indeed be assessing our reaction closely. My opinion is it would be fine for the banks to refund it all over a period of years on a first come first served basis, REGARDLESS of how long it takes. They could keep a list and at the end of every financial year make payouts dependent on their profits. They would do this until EVERY LAST ONE OF US is paid. Genuine hardship cases should of course take priority. They don't want to see any other avenues though, even if shoved down their throats. They don't want to pay and nothing would be different if they had a vault with all the cash in it as we speak.

 

Meanwhile, our BENT government needs to UNBEND itself and get involved. One of the filthiest aspects of this situation is the government not stepping in to protect us in my opinion. The bankers are all 'grossly' overpaid and the banks could easily make a profit without charges. Even David Davis said this on Question Time! The government needs to enforce regulation now. They need to split up the different banking sectors and cancel ALL bonuses on consumer banking services. Almost all charges need to be cancelled completely. I thought banks made money by having our money in the first place!!! The banks need to stop sending out childish letters that look like they have been authored by the Brothers Grimm. They know it's BULL****, I know it's BULL****, even Baldrick knows it's BUL****! We need honesty and transparency. We need a full, frank and open debate on this. When are we going to REALLY stand up and stop taking all of this?! :mad:

Edited November 28, 2009 by renegotiation

[toasted]

I agree with both of you. The only thing that changes anything is public opinion. I was told that years ago by a lawyer working for the UN who had special responsibility for Gaza. Nothing has changed and we need to harness public opinion and let the power brokers know we will not be robbed any longer, by taking to the streets. A million people took to the streets in opposition to the Iraq war and although it didnt prevent us going in, notice was taken of the opposition to it and undoubtably contributed to the demand for the enquiry now taking place as to the legality of that decision .

 

We need to organise and make our voices heard. We need to start somewhere. I am not convinced we have sufficient protection in the current legislation to ever get anywhere in the courts. The financial institutions have it sewn up and the watchdogs just pay lip service.

 

Together we have power.

[finlander]

folks,

 

Im not saying we wont get a refund. I think we are reading to much into the banks win. If you stand back and look at the comments in the judgement the judges have given us all the answer

 

1 they tell us about the reg to challenge this under

 

2. they tell us the arguement to use. not the price... the pricing structure

 

3. and they virtual state they already think they are unfair.

 

now short of raising a banner and marching round with their nickers on a pole shouting it they couldnt do much more!!!

 

they will refund i think... but they want drip drip not a tidal wave...........

 

drip drip means a billion or two a year not 24 at once........

[renegotiation]

folks,

 

Im not saying we wont get a refund. I think we are reading to much into the banks win. If you stand back and look at the comments in the judgement the judges have given us all the answer

 

1 they tell us about the reg to challenge this under

 

2. they tell us the arguement to use. not the price... the pricing structure

 

3. and they virtual state they already think they are unfair.

 

now short of raising a banner and marching round with their nickers on a pole shouting it they couldnt do much more!!!

 

they will refund i think... but they want drip drip not a tidal wave...........

 

drip drip means a billion or two a year not 24 at once........

 

Look, first off the banks are STILL charging us and bull****ting to us. This isn't acceptable is it? The crazy thing is EVERYONE in the country knows it's bull****! The Supreme Court have not been helpful at all. They are BENT and haven't virtually stated they think the charges are unfair at all. That really is nonsense. The OFT case was sound and even if the Supreme Court had sided with the OFT it wouldn't have meant £24 billion of instant refunds. All the Supreme Court has done is deliberately mess things up. The public have common sense, unlike the banks, and would accept a rational and fair solution to this whole affair. We won't get a rational and fair solution until the banks come clean and our government gets involved. We are lucky some of our County Court judges aren't BENT and are still pressing ahead for us. We are yet to see how widespread this is. Neverending court cases with costs beared by the banks might actually force some real change.

Edited November 29, 2009 by renegotiation

[finlander]

I know you frustrated but turning on each other wont help.

[renegotiation]

I know you frustrated but turning on each other wont help.

 

I wasn't turning on you. Just saying it how I see it.

[finlander]

the supreme court went out of their way i think to point out we still had another line. they drew reference to the robin hood in reverse quote and stated that one third of customers paying for the rest may be unfair but they werent allowed to decide. they had to give the verdict they did or risk the very real chance that the ecj would strike it down when the rich banks bought their appeal.........

 

the point is they shut down a dead end and pointed to the new route.

 

we should now act on this and find other ones such as the cca and enterprise act..........

[renegotiation]

the supreme court went out of their way i think to point out we still had another line. they drew reference to the robin hood in reverse quote and stated that one third of customers paying for the rest may be unfair but they werent allowed to decide. they had to give the verdict they did or risk the very real chance that the ecj would strike it down when the rich banks bought their appeal.........

 

the point is they shut down a dead end and pointed to the new route.

 

we should now act on this and find other ones such as the cca and enterprise act..........

 

They didn't shut down a dead end, they decided it was a dead end and made it a dead end. It wasn't a dead end until they got their grubby little paws on it. I maintain they that they cynically did so under undemocratic pressures. Furthermore, like what they thought the ECJ would have done had any bearing on their decision? I don't think so. Pointing out 'another way' was just a smokescreen to try and protect themselves from biting criticism.

[the_freedom_trail]

Another issue is what about the tiny claims such as £50 to £250? Providing consumers can establish a sound enough legal route in to County Court surely the banks wont defend on purely economic grounds or would they?

 

TFT

[indebtstudent]

I don't agree with attacks on the integrity of the law lords. I know the landscape has changed very much from when the fight first started but to me comments about them being less than honest make us seem like bad losers.

 

The opening bit of the judgment is very explicit it states despite the publics perception that the case is about whether or not the charges are fair THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT. They were ruling on a specific and technical point of law.

 

This stuff about not allowing an appeal to Europe is meaningless because the banks did not have leave to appeal this case and still did. The OFT and campaigners need to consider if such an appeal would be the best route or if the new avenue provides a better opportunity.

 

The sad thing about this is that the banks are still being able to peddle the fiction that the charges are a fee for service, anyone can avoid the charges by asking for an overdraft, and that they help people in genuine hardship.

 

The last point annoys me the most, theier literature should say you find yourself in a bad financial situation phone this number immediately. This will you no good whatsover but it ups our telephone income a little abd makes us look like we're doing something.

[renegotiation]

I don't agree with attacks on the integrity of the law lords. I know the landscape has changed very much from when the fight first started but to me comments about them being less than honest make us seem like bad losers.

 

I speak for myself, not for everyone. Saying that, I am confident of my stance and hope people agree with me. Bad loser in the sense that we lost fairly, NO. Bad loser in the sense that we lost unfairly, YES.

[speedtrip]

F, some very good points well made.

 

We accept that the banks are not popular after the mess they caused and the resultant bale out which we are paying for.

 

However, given that they are necessary and are still in recovery and the impact of the Dubai debt on UK banks they are not out of the woods yet.

 

So adding a open door policy costing billions in refunds could provide a massive set back reversing the work over last year or so and mean this being funded by the taxpayer.

 

I am angry as well but getting angry never gets you anywhere but a well thought out plan does and thats what we need to concentrate on.

 

ST

[renegotiation]

F, some very good points well made.

 

We accept that the banks are not popular after the mess they caused and the resultant bale out which we are paying for.

 

However, given that they are necessary and are still in recovery and the impact of the Dubai debt on UK banks they are not out of the woods yet.

 

So adding a open door policy costing billions in refunds could provide a massive set back reversing the work over last year or so and mean this being funded by the taxpayer.

 

I am angry as well but getting angry never gets you anywhere but a well thought out plan does and thats what we need to concentrate on.

 

ST

 

But if the plan is to get all our money back, then what's the difference to getting it back by being angry? Getting it back with a legal plan would still wreck everything that you just have just warned against. Anyhow, you'd have more chance of getting it back by marching. I can tell you that for nought. If we did all march and laid down the law to them I wouldn't expect it all back at once anyway. Maybe you were thinking the same way about getting it back with a legal plan? Bit by bit? The key point I am making is that the bull**** and lies have to stop. They are still charging us as we speak for God's sake. How are we ever going to get anywhere if they still aren't being honest with us? Why can't we all speak the truth? It can only point towards intent for further deceit. Or do you think otherwise?

[indebtstudent]

"Bad loser in the sense that we lost fairly, NO. Bad loser in the sense that we lost unfairly, YES."

 

The only fact here is that the ruling went against the OFT, which is not us. In fact I believe things were going better before they got involved.

 

I can't understand all this fuss about the highest court going overturning the decision of the two previous courts. That's how it works, that's why there's a court hierarchy.

 

Despite what this victory does in terms of PR I beleive it raises more problems for the banks that it solves.

 

I do not believe the government put any pressue on the lords with regard to the decision. To do so and then comment at PMQ's to the effect that action will be taken and class actions are a possibility leaves the possiblilty of a massive scandel.

 

I don't think even Brown, inept as he is, would be so foolhardy. But hey its a free country and you are entitled to your opinion.

[baconbuttyman]

the supreme court went out of their way i think to point out we still had another line. they drew reference to the robin hood in reverse quote and stated that one third of customers paying for the rest may be unfair but they werent allowed to decide. they had to give the verdict they did or risk the very real chance that the ecj would strike it down when the rich banks bought their appeal.........

 

the point is they shut down a dead end and pointed to the new route.

 

we should now act on this and find other ones such as the cca and enterprise act..........

 

i agree with everything finlander said, the SC have actually helped up get back in the driving seat and have shown us the way forward, in real terms it would have been a catastrophy if the banks paid all that in one go, the credit crunch would be worse than ever, like finlader said, the banks need it to be in bits not in one big pay out, that allows them to recoup money as it goes out

[renegotiation]

i agree with everything finlander said, the SC have actually helped us get back in the driving seat and have shown us the way forward

 

You have got to be having a laugh?

 

 

 

in real terms it would have been a catastrophy if the banks paid all that in one go, the credit crunch would be worse than ever, like finlader said, the banks need it to be in bits not in one big pay out, that allows them to recoup money as it goes out

 

I don't think there would be many on CAG against that viewpoint and neither am I. Please explain your logic as to how the Supreme Court not giving the OFT a win this time, but giving them a win next time, would have any bearing on how rapidly the refunds are applied? That is a different issue entirely.

 

Anyhow, this is what should have happened:

 

1. Supreme Court give the OFT a win.

2. Banks come clean.

3. Government gets involved in reconciliation between banks and consumers and investigates the banks with honesty.

4. The overpaid banking cartel is halted for good and common sense is applied as to how and when refunds will be given.

5. We all move on happily with a fair financial system, in terms of consumer banking anyway, and all this BULL**** is forgotten!

 

I know why that isn't happening, which boils down to one word - CORRUPTION, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or seriously deluded.

Edited November 30, 2009 by renegotiation

[indebtstudent]

But what curruption? Of whom? By whom? You can't just throw around allegations without evidence. Well you can but then its just a story.

 

Its already been pointed out that the banks would've gone to Europe, and I think maybe the case still should. But if it can be looked at under other powers what's the big deal?

 

I cannot accept the view that when things go our way the system is fair but when it goes against us the system is corrupt. The law is not an exact science that is why a lawyer who takes on a case which is seems unable to lose will only state that there is a good chance of success.

[renegotiation]

But what curruption? Of whom? By whom? You can't just throw around allegations without evidence. Well you can but then its just a story.

 

The corruption is by bankers and the Establishment. Evidence lol? They haven't entered one defence in court. They all hang around together. Can't you put two and two together? I WILL throw around allegations and my story is true to anyone with basic intelligence that reads it. I am NOT directly intending to insult you here, but you really need to think about how the world works and why our country is right down the toilet. For example, do you actually believe that they went to war to fight terrorists and stop Saddam launching devastating attacks against us with WMD?

 

 

 

Its already been pointed out that the banks would've gone to Europe, and I think maybe the case still should. But if it can be looked at under other powers what's the big deal?

 

We are not going to go get any 'reasonable solution' to this by playing their games. It will just be fudged. It's a disgusting world we inhabit at the moment. Wake up friend. Fortunately some of our County Courts have some democracy left in them and are pressing ahead. Thank God! We are still waiting to see exactly how many County Courts are standing up for us. I have a good feeling though.

 

 

 

I cannot accept the view that when things go our way the system is fair but when it goes against us the system is corrupt.

 

Please tell me where I espoused that viewpoint? I certainly don't remember saying that. The banks are ****ing us over every single day. Central banks are running the world. They don't represent us, only themselves. All you can do is give vague maxims on the law being grey. I know that full well and that has nothing to do with this bank charges fiasco!

 

If we disagree, we disagree. No point going round in circles. Have your say if you like...

[citizenB]

People, please read the announcements in the Welcome Forums.. ALL is NOT lost.

 

Welcome to the Consumer Forums - The Consumer Forums

 

[Bigdebtor]

I agree with the post that said it was better before the OFT got involved. They were hopelessly outgunned by the banks' bigger and better team of QC's (9 to 1).

 

I think we should all put in the new template we are awaiting ASAP - and hopefully get the type of settlements folks were getting before mid 2007 (when the salaried OFT burecrats stuck their noses in adding delay to all our costs). If we get nowhere in 8 weeks we should then involve the FOS - it won't do any good but it will get the banks charged £450 per referral - a bit worse than their current £39 penalities!

 

BD