Bank Charges Campaign Continues

[determindator]

So, good news the subject of the Banks is being put back in the fore ground and Panorama tonight covers this issue. I'm so glad Mr Vince Cable is becoming more vocal again on the matter as although we have a coalition government all we seem to be hearing about is Mr Cameron's 'Big Society.' Time for the other side to be heard.

 

If a government minister says we are being ripped off, more reason to pursue the reclaim of charges.

[determindator]

Originally this petition was due to close 2 Feb 2011, but since the new government came in this became 6 June 2010.

 

That clearly stinks.

 

 

The person who started the petition will write to Mr Vince Cable concerning the early termination.

 

We shall overcome!

[caro]

Didn't realise the programme was on until after it finished. Will have to watch later.

 

Glad to see you living up to your CAG name Termi.

 

Also good to hear that Vince Cable is still flying the flag on behalf of the consumer against the banks.

 

It remains to be seen what George Osborne will do in light of the report from the Which? Big Banking debate.

 

The Next Steps | Future of Banking

 

Now we all know who our MPs our I believe it's as important as ever to make our views known to them, whether by letter, email or in person at local surgeries and encourage them to support the cause and point Mr Osborne in the right direction.

[fergal71]

vince answer to open more banks will not work.... direct action will work ????

[Keldan]

What direct action do you suggest ?

[patrickq1]

You're missing the point yourbank. The point is that if, and I mean IF, the law says that bank charges are fair then the law needs to be changed. It is governments that change laws, and it's the electorate that appoint Governments. If we wait around for new arguments to emerge and be tested, we will miss the opportunity to galvanise candidates of all parties to take up the gauntlet on behalf of bank customers, and it will probably be another 5 years before we have this opportunity again.

 

i have to disagree Caro MPs may change the law by statute but it is the SUPREME COURT WHO DECIDE WETHER TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW after all look at John Story what a disgrace that was seems the judge decided not to look at the statutes and to make his own law ?

patrickq1

[caro]

So what's the answer then patrick?

 

Governments make laws, judges overrule them, and the banks continue to do as they like.

 

We should not accept it, and so far the courts have spectacularly failed to take up the gauntlet on behalf of the consumer.

 

As for direct action - the most direct is to take our custom away from the banks, but unless people do this in massive numbers, the impact is likely to be minimal.

 

 

I don't know what will work, but I do know that if nothing is done nothing will change, so we have to try and find a way to get justice for the man and woman in the street.

[determindator]

Introduction to e-petitions | Number10.gov.uk

 

 

Hi Caro!

 

The above explains what they've done but why? I ask. It seems later on in 2010 there will be a review. I'm still determined!

Edited July 21, 2010 by determindator

[caro]

Hm. Perhaps the Tories are less keen to listen than Labour.

 

The most pro-active people seem to be the good people at the Govan Law Centre, but it looks like it's still going to be a long haul if they go to the EU.

[determindator]

Oh yes Caro you are perfectly right on the T's being totally disinterested. That I expected. Along with Govan I hope if we chip away in a constructive way the right thing will be done.

[caro]

Just in case anyone missed the case of Walls v Santander, in which Santander convinced a sheriff that a bank charges case was too complex to be in the small claims court.

 

 

Customers hit by ?death blow? in bid to sue banks - Herald Scotland | News | Home News

 

Mike Dailly has confirmed that the fight continues.

 

Quick note to say we haven't advised any of our clients to give up!

 

We've enrolled a motion to sist (stay) in Walls v. Santander UK plc pending an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Walls v. United Kingdom. The ECtHR has to first determine whether the application is admissible (having regard to its new, revised criteria). Admittedly, the ECtHR process is slow, but that does not cause any difficulty.

 

Essentially, this approach is designed to preserve our client's rights, prompt law reform, and also to potentially protect the rights of other consumers who have to drop the cases for fear of costs i.e. because if the ECtHR case was successful (in principle) certain consumers might be entitled to sue the state for damages. Not ideal, as it should be the banks, but at least it could preserve a right to recompense for disenfranchised citizens.

 

The key target is of course the banks and their unfair charges. In that regard, we have a number of cases proceeding (including Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc, and Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc, among others).

 

The banks have put forward highly technical and complex legal defences which will require to be 'debated'. It won't be easy, they are throwing a lot of money at defending these cases, and we do not underestimate the challenge, however, I anticipate having a decision on the banks relevancy and competency defences later this year.

 

So, at present there is no reason to give up hope.

 

Mike

Govan Law Centre

[determindator]

I was so pleased to see Vince Cable MP in the thick of it telling it like it is. Comments were made there needed to be more clarification, I'm sure that's not far off!

 

[determindator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8USXjVOR1U

[determindator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkD6GqBFwns

[determindator]

http://commission.bnbb.org/banking/thenextsteps

[caro]

Thanks Termi. Keep the flag flying.8-)

 

I'll have a good read of that over the weekend.

[Smart9682]

hope one day the banks will really have to pay up

[determindator]

Brilliant debate on Question Time tnite. There's real thought in the right direction concerning the Banking industry.

[caro]

Let's hope that thought turns into action!

[determindator]

This Week programme also good. If the bankers are making so much profit then they can stop taking extortionate charges because they keep saying they don't profit from them! They can afford the charges refunds and they should get on with it as by reducing the amounts they charge is an admittance they were unfair, extortionate and wrong.

[determindator]

I vote for regulation retrospectively. There could be compromise, say 12 years a figure mortgage companies use to get shortfalls from people. Funny how that's possible.

[sweetjane]

Yes I agree with you both. The banks should also immediately stop the judicial review into ppi which is holding up so many claims. The money claims would cost them even if every single customer reclaimed is a fraction of their bonus pot. How stingy is that? Oh but the tine for remorse is over is it Mr Diamond?

[caro]

Yes I agree with you both. The banks should also immediately stop the judicial review into ppi which is holding up so many claims. The money claims would cost them even if every single customer reclaimed is a fraction of their bonus pot. How stingy is that? Oh but the tine for remorse is over is it Mr Diamond?

 

Absolutely. I haven't seen any evidence of remorse from any of the banks. It's an absolute farce.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8253549/Bob-Diamond-bites-back-at-Treasury-Select-Committee.html

[determindator]

Watched Rip Off Britain tonight. I applaud the programme for highlighting the disproportionate bank charges, but at the end of the programme the message was nothing can be done about extortionate bank charges. I think the message should be 'with continued pressure on the Banks by the people to stop this practise by making the government see it is unfair and profiteering by banks, these charges can be reduced to reflect the true cost.'

[Aequitas]

...these charges can be reduced to reflect the true cost.'

 

What do you mean by that exactly?