The Way Forward.

[renegotiation]

I made a post on another thread, but wish to start a new thread so that thread doesn't get pulled off topic at all. Here is the post:

 

 

'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!!! '

 

 

Now, can anyone dispute anything I have said and on what grounds? Does anyone agree with all that I have said? I couldn't class myself as an expert on all of this, but it seems pretty straightforward to me! They have us running round in circles. All we need to do is push on with the original claims. All their lies crumble if you see the truth. Challenge your County Courts people and don't let them off the hook! The Supreme Court ruling has absolutely nothing to do with your cases. Feck!

[indebtstudent]

Well as I posted elsewhere the penalty charges argument is gone so I won't be using that in my POC. I DO agree that there was a very strange feel to the test case. I was working at Nationwide when this was announced and it was presented then very much as a preliminary kind of thing. OFT wins, OFT wins, then all of a sudden it loses and time is called. Hmm, just seemed a bit strange to me.

 

Whilst it is still open for individuals to bring thier own claims I do have real concerns about the Government's position on this. One of the reasons the OFT pulled out was fear of having to pay the banks costs, I have no idea how they expect a private individual to fund such a claim. One can only hope, given the uncertainty in the law, costs would not be awarded against an individual. I could not see the point if they could afford to pay.

[haggis1984]

Lol mate some serious frustration coming out there!

 

Can you explain in some more detail:

 

Why the original POCs are still valid - seems like rejection in Supreme Court minimises the chances of success at CC level?

 

How anyone has any chance of success against a bindinig precedent from a higher court?

[renegotiation]

Lol mate some serious frustration coming out there!

 

Can you explain in some more detail:

 

Why the original POCs are still valid - seems like rejection in Supreme Court minimises the chances of success at CC level?

 

How anyone has any chance of success against a bindinig precedent from a higher court?

 

From what I know, the Supreme Court was not making a judgement on any of the stayed cases whatsoever. It was making judgement on whether the OFT had the power to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law. What has the Supreme Court judgement got to do with the POC that anyone has? Absolutely naff all. Someone tell me in plain English. You are all being led on a merry dance by the banks, the controlled mass media and the corrupt Establishment. Don't sit there people. Write to your courts and ask for an explanation. I guarantee they will not be able to offer a response. ACT NOW OR YOUR CHANCES WILL DIMINISH FURTHER OF EVER GETTING A PENNY. I will be happy to pen a letter on request, but it's all pretty simple from what I can make out. I see that even the trolls and shills have stayed away from this thread. I wonder why...

 

P.S. This is what they have lined up for YOU in the next 10 years. Compulsory id. cards, cashless society, complete E.U. integration, more erosion of trial by jury and much, much more. Make a stand on this now. It's a start and you clearly have the law on your side. Think i'm joking? I wish I was!

[haggis1984]

From what I know, the Supreme Court was not making a judgement on any of the stayed cases whatsoever. It was making judgement on whether the OFT had the power to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law. What has the Supreme Court judgement got to do with the POC that anyone has? Absolutely naff all. Someone tell me in plain English. You are all being led on a merry dance by the banks, the controlled mass media and the corrupt Establishment. Don't sit there people. Write to your courts and ask for an explanation. I guarantee they will not be able to offer a response. ACT NOW OR YOUR CHANCES WILL DIMINISH FURTHER OF EVER GETTING A PENNY. I will be happy to pen a letter on request, but it's all pretty simple from what I can make out. I see that even the trolls and shills have stayed away from this thread. I wonder why...

 

P.S. This is what they have lined up for YOU in the next 10 years. Compulsory id. cards, cashless society, complete E.U. integration, more erosion of trial by jury and much, much more. Make a stand on this now. It's a start and you clearly have the law on your side. Think i'm joking? I wish I was!

 

 

Lets be sure I havent mis-understood the ruling before I get into any more depth with ya.

 

Supreme court ruled that bank charges cannot be tested for fairness pursuant to the UTCCRs. Is this the narrow point of law youre referring to?

[haggis1984]

Oh and from what you said about the conrolled mass media youd love reading Chomsky. Great political/media analyst.

[renegotiation]

Supreme court ruled that bank charges cannot be tested for fairness pursuant to the UTCCRs. Is this the narrow point of law youre referring to?

 

The Supreme Court said that the ***OFT*** couldn't 'investigate' on those grounds. That doesn't stop someone proceeding with their case from what I know. The bank will still need to submit a defence in the County Court. Do you see where i'm coming from? The test case could have offered up an en masse positive, but not a negative.

Edited January 25, 2010 by renegotiation

[haggis1984]

Lol, re-written this 4 times now!

 

So....you're saying that the Judgement was simply that the OFT cannot investigate the charges for fairness using the UTCCRs. There was nothing in the judgement saying that the charges are not covered by the UTCCRs?

 

Just found the word ive been looking for - you're saying that the court found that the OFT didn't have the jurisdiction to challende the charges for fairness under the UTCCRs?

Edited January 25, 2010 by haggis1984
big word escaped little brain

[renegotiation]

I think the Supreme Court judgement was very crafty and sly. Didn't you notice how they didn't even refer to the County Court cases? Why didn't they just say this:

 

'We find thus and all those County Court cases should now be struck out.'

 

Why didn't they? They only referred to the OFT from what I can remember. Why haven't the County Courts said they ARE all struck out? I have some things to do. I will reread it and post back later.

[haggis1984]

Same mate, illl have a read of the judgement.

[yourbank]

I think the Supreme Court judgement was very crafty and sly. Didn't you notice how they didn't even refer to the County Court cases? Why didn't they just say this:

 

'We find thus and all those County Court cases should now be struck out.'

It isn't up to the Supreme Court to make reference to individual cases which if you read paragraph 81 would indicate that they would perhaps favour the individual claimant over a collective challenge which was what the OFT attempted to do.

Why didn't they? They only referred to the OFT from what I can remember. Why haven't the County Courts said they ARE all struck out? I have some things to do. I will reread it and post back later.

 

Many cases are not based just on the level of charges but on the fairness of them.

There is a thread with regards to why bank charges are not penalties in law. The penal aspect of law is that the charge is for something to be performed outside of the contract. The unauthorised overdraft charges(collective name) are considered to work within the framework of the contract itself so, in law, they are not working outside of it and therefore are not considered penal in nature.

I think I covered other points with you but I'm not sure it is worth writing to the courts asking them to explain their logic of staying a case. Their logic was that they was a test case that should have resolved all issues........it didn't of course but did resolve penalties in law.

Made some point on the other thread. Do you want me to copy and paste onto this one?

[AA99]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/241827-legal-action-how-start.html#post2724294

 

Post # 74

 

[tedney]

Made some point on the other thread. Do you want me to copy and paste onto this one?

Yes please, Thx:)

[yourbank]

Yes please, Thx:)

 

 

Originally Posted by renegotiation

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?

[yourbank]

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

 

Paragraph 61 of SC Judgement:

"As it is, if the Banks succeed on the narrow issue, this will not close the door on the OFT’s investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges."

 

What did they mean by this if this did not involve the "myriad of cases that are currently stayed"?

[Bigdebtor]

sub

[AA99]

yourbank, I claimed bank charges under financial hardship in November, received a immediate sympathetic reply requesting an I&E form, a reminder 2 weeks later, and then this letter in the new year! They seem to be of differing opinion to us:confused:

 

http://i390.photobucket.com/albums/oo349/AA99/NATIONWIDE/NWresponseJan2010.jpg

[Bigdebtor]

AA99

 

This is VERY similar to my recent HBOS letter. Paragraph 2 is clearly designed to be misleading and is IMHO nothing less than FRAUD - trying to hoodwink us into giving up now. Maybe the OFT believed their spin(although I'm glad they have butted out) but WE DON'T. There is still plenty of mileage in the UTCCR route and I believe they have LIED in this letter. The Govan Law site gives a template tpo be used with other UTCCR regulations that the SC President of Judges pointed us towards.

 

If this is their scare tactics then I think we probably DO have them on the back foot - and need to kick them now where it hurts - in their wallets.

 

At the very least this sort of misleading cr*p must breach fair trading regulations or banking code practices by giving such a one sided - and false- report of the SC verdict.

 

Onwards and up them!

 

BD

[seriously fed up]

sub

[renegotiation]

First and foremost, I reiterate I am in no doubt that this was a huge Establishment stitch up. I will eat my hat if I see Bankfodder saying any different. He may well be more selective with his vocab though. If anyone doubts that I think they need some sort of psychiatric attention. An amoeba could figure it out. Anyhow, on with the nitty gritty.

 

 

 

Same mate, illl have a read of the judgement.

 

Allowing for the fact that the legal profession is largely inhabited by complete morons infinitiely less intelligent than myself, Lord Phillips included, who are nothing more than well trained parrots - BENT ONES IN THE CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT - I have to admit I am not a legal expert. However, I will say the following. I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court was supposed to be ruling on the jurisdiction of the OFT. The term 'jurisdiction' has been used at different stages during the test case. I believe, as mentioned, that the test case was going to allow for an 'en masse positive outcome', but not a 'negative outcome' for individual cases. Now that it hasn't been resolved the stays should be lifted and the banks obliged to submit a defense as was the case pre-stay. That's my view on it.

 

 

 

Yourbank, you make some fair points here and there, but you strike me as a 'gatekeeper' who is guiding us down the road to ultimate failure. I notice you haven't yet added your support to the 'March For Fairness' thread. Why not? You are not for a peaceful protest against all this corruption? It's just a few threads down this page if you can't find it.

 

It isn't up to the Supreme Court to make reference to individual cases which if you read paragraph 81 would indicate that they would perhaps favour the individual claimant over a collective challenge which was what the OFT attempted to do.

 

That's a good one and could go in a letter to a County Court. I see no harm whatsoever in pressuring our County Courts with some brief letters. That's just a few minutes of someone's time. My folks had some 'small' unresolved complaints, but nothing in the court system. I am not able to send a letter myself. I am not f**king here for money or personal gain. I am here as a citizen of this country who cares. An alien concept to many of the mofos who rules us.

 

 

 

Paragraph 61 of SC Judgement:

"As it is, if the Banks succeed on the narrow issue, this will not close the door on the OFT’s investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges."

 

What did they mean by this if this did not involve the "myriad of cases that are currently stayed"?

 

It means that the door was closed on future OFT investigations, which they knew full well when they read the judgement! However, it does not directly address the current impact of their verdict on individual cases. Why not? For the record, I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone doing anything legally without feedback from the site team who are obviously on our side. In my opinion, something is up for discussion here though. Or are we just going to lie down and be run over? It's all a big childish game and we are being lined up for a checkmate...

Edited January 26, 2010 by renegotiation

[bsia666]

I shall sub to this thread......thanks.

[fergal71]

This needs large banner on front page of cag... everyday now there are 200-300 registered caggers and often over 1500 guests.... they are watching to see our strength and I feel we are running out of strength and energy... something needs to be done and I have 20-30 people locally and a coach who will support any campaign immediately....

[yourbank]

First and foremost, I reiterate I am in no doubt that this was a huge Establishment stitch up. I will eat my hat if I see Bankfodder saying any different. He may well be more selective with his vocab though. If anyone doubts that I think they need some sort of psychiatric attention. An amoeba could figure it out. Anyhow, on with the nitty gritty.

 

 

 

 

 

Allowing for the fact that the legal profession is largely inhabited by complete morons infinitiely less intelligent than myself, Lord Phillips included, who are nothing more than well trained parrots - BENT ONES IN THE CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT - I have to admit I am not a legal expert. However, I will say the following. I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court was supposed to be ruling on the jurisdiction of the OFT. The term 'jurisdiction' has been used at different stages during the test case. I believe, as mentioned, that the test case was going to allow for an 'en masse positive outcome', but not a 'negative outcome' for individual cases. Now that it hasn't been resolved the stays should be lifted and the banks obliged to submit a defense as was the case pre-stay. That's my view on it.

 

The wording of the stays themselves dictate what happens next and that is CPR rules. If the claimant chooses to ask for their case to be heard then there is an application cost. Furthermore, I would suggest that the wording you have used for the supreme court is potentially libellous. You have labelled the legal profession(please remember there are members of site team who are in the legal profession and you are calling them morons' as well)

 

Yourbank, you make some fair points here and there, but you strike me as a 'gatekeeper' who is guiding us down the road to ultimate failure.

Explain what I am doing and how am I leading anyone down to ultimate failure?

I notice you haven't yet added your support to the 'March For Fairness' thread. Why not? You are not for a peaceful protest against all this corruption? It's just a few threads down this page if you can't find it.

I haven't yet seen what the March is about, when it is taking place, what time, location. Where it is marching to and who it is against and who is endorsing it.

Can you define support? So far I have given opinions which I continue to give when people want to arrange something mass market, ie media attention and unique selling point. I have dealt with the media to get them interested in various stories and their response is really about what is unique about the story. Currently you need that something where the press say "you cannot but cover it". Again you say "corruption" yet where is the evidence for this since again the statement is potentially libellous to say so. I should add "march for fairness" is a pretty good title for the march.

 

That's a good one and could go in a letter to a County Court. I see no harm whatsoever in pressuring our County Courts with some brief letters. That's just a few minutes of someone's time. My folks had some 'small' unresolved complaints, but nothing in the court system. I am not able to send a letter myself. I am not f**king here for money or personal gain. I am here as a citizen of this country who cares. An alien concept to many of the mofos who rules us.

This is the reason why I have said that if you are not prepared or able to do so yourself then wait until the advice of the site comes up with a solution because suggesting people challenge the logic of the decision could lead to it being seen as an application to lift a stay already in place and that may cost people money. Without doubt, I understand your sentiments but we cannot mess around with other people's money and I do not want to see people losing because we advise them something that is NOT endorsed by site team.

 

 

 

 

 

It means that the door was closed on future OFT investigations, which they knew full well when they read the judgement! However, it does not directly address the current impact of their verdict on individual cases. Why not? For the record, I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone doing anything legally without feedback from the site team who are obviously on our side. In my opinion, something is up for discussion here though. Or are we just going to lie down and be run over? It's all a big childish game and we are being lined up for a checkmate...

 

 

renegotiation, there are case that are currently going through the legal process, live cases not words on a page like we are doing. Those cases will determine the approach we will have on the future cases. Have you read Bookworm's post which explains to you that the LEVEL of the charges as an argument is no longer valid on individual claims? If not then you try hunting for it on the threads(for helpful advice: it was made today).

At the moment, i would say to be cautious because Rome wasn't built in a day and we have got to be clear on how to argue the case than rush in and simply say "you morons are corrupt". Those same morons will be the ones who will decide if claimants win or lose.

[renegotiation]

The wording of the stays themselves dictate what happens next and that is CPR rules. If the claimant chooses to ask for their case to be heard then there is an application cost.

 

That's not the same as the Supreme Court directly ruling on it.

 

Furthermore, I would suggest that the wording you have used for the supreme court is potentially libellous.

 

I maintain that the Supreme Court ruling was BENT. Like it or lump it.

 

You have labelled the legal profession(please remember there are members of site team who are in the legal profession and you are calling them morons' as well)

 

You have just been libellous towards me haven't you? I used the term 'largely inhabited' and you have conflated that with painting them all with the same brush. Not so i'm afraid.

 

 

Explain what I am doing and how am I leading anyone down to ultimate failure?

 

It's called 'gatekeeping'. Sending people in the wrong direction and controlling the agenda. Everyone knows the banks have people on this site. You seem to be very pro-Establishment and supposedly ignorant of corruption despite an amoeba being able to see it. I find that bizarre considering you are supposed to be an ex-insider. I find it suspicious.

 

 

I haven't yet seen what the March is about, when it is taking place, what time, location. Where it is marching to and who it is against and who is endorsing it. Can you define support? So far I have given opinions which I continue to give when people want to arrange something mass market, ie media attention and unique selling point. I have dealt with the media to get them interested in various stories and their response is really about what is unique about the story. Currently you need that something where the press say "you cannot but cover it".

 

Support and awareness is precisely what I am currently try to gain.

 

Again you say "corruption" yet where is the evidence for this since again the statement is potentially libellous to say so.

 

You do live on the same planet as me?

 

I should add "march for fairness" is a pretty good title for the march.

 

Well ok, but i'm not fussed what it is called.

 

 

This is the reason why I have said that if you are not prepared or able to do so yourself then wait until the advice of the site comes up with a solution because suggesting people challenge the logic of the decision could lead to it being seen as an application to lift a stay already in place and that may cost people money. Without doubt, I understand your sentiments but we cannot mess around with other people's money and I do not want to see people losing because we advise them something that is NOT endorsed by site team.

 

How on earth can you say that when in the very next paragraph I say the following:

 

It means that the door was closed on future OFT investigations, which they knew full well when they read the judgement! However, it does not directly address the current impact of their verdict on individual cases. Why not? For the record, I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone doing anything legally without feedback from the site team who are obviously on our side. In my opinion, something is up for discussion here though. Or are we just going to lie down and be run over? It's all a big childish game and we are being lined up for a checkmate...

 

You expect to be taken seriously? Please. I have pushed the issue of writing to the County Courts, which is harmless and not time consuming, but I have not deviated from the line that I am only raising something for discussion here!

 

 

renegotiation, there are case that are currently going through the legal process, live cases not words on a page like we are doing. Those cases will determine the approach we will have on the future cases.

 

We all know where that is going to lead though don't we...

 

 

Have you read Bookworm's post which explains to you that the LEVEL of the charges as an argument is no longer valid on individual claims? If not then you try hunting for it on the threads(for helpful advice: it was made today).

 

Well that is what the Banks are trying to sell us backed up by the Establishment. I still maintain that the case was supposed to be about the jurisdiction of the OFT and some lines have been blurred along the way.

 

 

At the moment, i would say to be cautious because Rome wasn't built in a day and we have got to be clear on how to argue the case than rush in and simply say "you morons are corrupt". Those same morons will be the ones who will decide if claimants win or lose.

 

They have already decided that i'm afraid. I honestly think you are a 'gatekeeper'. You can argue all you like.

Edited January 27, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

Everyone, you heard it here first. There are going to be no refunds through the courts. If a new POC is devised they are going to be watching like hawks to get a new set of stays and that argument will just end up going the same way as the old argument. Why? I'll tell you why. It's because the banks are in bed with the Establishemnt and are BENT. There you go folks. Don't say no one told you so when you get 'Wiggy Phillips' telling you the same thing in 2 years. His speech will of course go thus:

 

'Hear ye, hear ye. This verdict is not about whether bank charges are fair or not. I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your royal rogering and absolve myself of all responsibility. However, you still aren't getting any money back so **** off home peasants!'

 

And everyone lived happily ever after.

Cheers.

Baron Renog.

 

P.S. You have all been charged £20 for reading this post and consider yoursleves damn lucky it isn't more you chavs!

Edited January 27, 2010 by renegotiation