The Way Forward.

[fergal71]

hi reneg (ade) (otiation), I agree with much of all you say... but as individuals we can not fight the establishment....

 

MP's expenses is a big example(do we expect any of them in jail), chilcott enquiry(huge waste of money what will actually be end result will blair go to jail).... Bank charges is just another example of wool over the masses eyes...

 

I am not sure personally of the best way forward but I do agree it needs to be direct action... see my post 22.... Please dont waste time arguing with each other and try and spend time finding ways of taking fight to this establishment....This is a democratic country run by the media, mass interest multiplies rapidly... we need to set up a political party (cost £500) called none of the above... and get people to vote for none of the above.... what do you think I have mentioned on many threads... imagine interest we could get we might even get a slot on question time....

[AA99]

Bit of a hot bed in this thread, so I shall tiptoe.....

 

There is a big notice on the latest news page of the forums regarding the big meet in Victoria, London, on 4th Feb

[the_freedom_trail]

hi reneg (ade) (otiation), I agree with much of all you say... but as individuals we can not fight the establishment....

 

MP's expenses is a big example(do we expect any of them in jail), chilcott enquiry(huge waste of money what will actually be end result will blair go to jail).... Bank charges is just another example of wool over the masses eyes...

 

I am not sure personally of the best way forward but I do agree it needs to be direct action... see my post 22.... Please dont waste time arguing with each other and try and spend time finding ways of taking fight to this establishment....This is a democratic country run by the media, mass interest multiplies rapidly... we need to set up a political party (cost £500) called none of the above... and get people to vote for none of the above.... what do you think I have mentioned on many threads... imagine interest we could get we might even get a slot on question time....

 

At the end of the day, what an example that is being set. I am 24 years old and I for one can say that my peers are becoming more and more astute and using every angle they can to cheat the system and cheat their way out of their responsibilities. Their attitude is that if its good for the Goose - you know the rest. Our society is becoming one based on those who suceed are the ones that are the best cheats. For many of you, I'm probably not breaking new ground here and pointing out anything you didn't already know but where will it end?

 

It seems to be that everyones attitude to paying bills and the like is that I am paying this money because I can't get out of not paying it. Not that I am paying this money because it is owed. That is the example that we are being set!

 

TFT

[renegotiation]

At the end of the day, what an example that is being set. I am 24 years old and I for one can say that my peers are becoming more and more astute and using every angle they can to cheat the system and cheat their way out of their responsibilities. Their attitude is that if its good for the Goose - you know the rest. Our society is becoming one based on those who suceed are the ones that are the best cheats. For many of you, I'm probably not breaking new ground here and pointing out anything you didn't already know but where will it end?

 

It seems to be that everyones attitude to paying bills and the like is that I am paying this money because I can't get out of not paying it. Not that I am paying this money because it is owed. That is the example that we are being set!

 

TFT

 

Society is morally sick. A significant proportion of the population are dumbed down and brainwashed by the mass media. The people at the top need to be good people. The situation is indeed dire. I don't think i'm being melodramatic in the slightest. One can argue and debate about how deep the consiracy goes, fine, but the elites are conspiring for complete control. A lot of people have woken up because of the internet in the last few years, but not enough. They are hastening their agenda and that's the truth. No one take my word on this. Think about it. It may be too late.

 

I am for mass peaceful demonstrations all over the country outside any bank, town hall, council etc.. If we tried for a mass single march the powers that be would derail it and send in their goons to start a riot with their own officers. I will ask for my 'March For Fairness' thread to be moved to the 'Campaign' section and see what I can contribute on Caro's thread.

 

P.S. Two litttle gems. How is Lord Mandelson, unelected, pretty much running our country? How is Baroness Cathy Ashton, unelected, the E.U. foreign minister? She's never been elected to anything in her life. WTF!

 

Another thing, you could probably see the Prime Minister caught shagging kids at an after school club nowadays and some smiling female newsreaders would just spin it away!

Edited January 27, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

hi reneg (ade) (otiation), I agree with much of all you say... but as individuals we can not fight the establishment....

 

MP's expenses is a big example(do we expect any of them in jail), chilcott enquiry(huge waste of money what will actually be end result will blair go to jail).... Bank charges is just another example of wool over the masses eyes...

 

I am not sure personally of the best way forward but I do agree it needs to be direct action... see my post 22.... Please dont waste time arguing with each other and try and spend time finding ways of taking fight to this establishment....This is a democratic country run by the media, mass interest multiplies rapidly... we need to set up a political party (cost £500) called none of the above... and get people to vote for none of the above.... what do you think I have mentioned on many threads... imagine interest we could get we might even get a slot on question time....

 

I agree we can't just lie down. I will get on Caros' thread.

 

Oh and don't doubt that some junior spook reads this stuff. Come and march with us you little toerag. Don't hide behind your keyboard. Or do you support the banks?

[fergal71]

hi freedom , I am missing your point are you sitting on fence or have you fallen to one side... I notice all your cases ongoing and wonder what your point is????

 

This is not about getting out of debts it is about restitution... if banks and others had played fair then maybe we wouldnt be here... they all got greedy and someone started saying no... then the snowball begins and they realise they shouldnt have been so greedy.... we are helping the few become millionaires with our money... what frustrates me is that when a few people on here try and find ways of not paying for whatever their reason is... then we people attck them with morality..... MP's expenses, bankers bonuses....

 

I do wish people would direct the moral issue to those who started this house of cards... I am not justifying anyones attitude but we only hear half the story so I think it is best to try and help them with positivity with which ever stance they decide to take.... lets us not judge lets help if we can and if we cant dont try and give moral guidance.... forcing such moralty is dangerous as is forcing religion!!!!!!!!!! just my opinion.... people seem to have very short memories!!!

[yourbank]

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

 

They didn't rule on stays and no advice went from the Master of the Rolls(the judge in charge of County courts).

 

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

The Supreme Court ruling had some positives for consumers so if it was so bent it would have closed ALL avenues for reclaiming which clearly it didn't.

 

 

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.

 

I cannot libel you by saying that I believe your post to be libellous because it is an opinion from your words which I take back based on the fact that I misread the post. I still think it is questionable in nature but I take back the potentially libellous bit back on that point.

 

 

It's called 'gatekeeping'. Sending people in the wrong direction and controlling the agenda. Everyone knows the banks have people on this site.

Almost 12 months to the day I was suspended for leaking information to the press from bank documents.

 

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 do not believe in paranoia which from first hand experience is generally unfounded. Believing that the banks' know more than they do actually know does give them more credit than they deserve. Furthermore, I don't see corruption and I have no idea how you see me as pro establishment when I continue to do things with regards to enabling people to "reclaim their rights" across all forums and that is in spite of those people who continue to say the bank won the OFT test case. You are not the first who does not like the way I post, and I doubt you will be the last but all I would say is that at the end of the day we have the same goal on the bank charges side of things--to make sure people get their money back.

 

 

 

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

 

As I said elsewhere. I'll take a look.

 

You do live on the same planet as me?

 

Is that a no to evidence?

 

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

 

The title is pretty mass market which is why I have said that.

 

 

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

 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

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

yes we have a claimant on penalty charges forum who has fought off a Yorkshire Bank strike out yesterday. They have 6 weeks to amend their POC.

 

 

 

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.

 

I think even Bookworm would have stated that in her post cos she is not a gatekeeper(now I kinda get it) nor is she pro Establishment.

 

 

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

 

 

Renegotiation, if I am a gatekeeper then can you tell me what my agenda is(cos I clearly don't know)?

[indebtstudent]

"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."

 

Come on, I know the legal profession is not perfect but you do realize it takes YEARS to become a solicitor or a barrister don't you? That there is a reason that the law lords are all old. They know a lot about the law and it was the law they were ruling on. I may not like it, you may not like it, but that's the rub.

 

Your comments in relation you yourbank show how out there your opinions are. He's the guy what got dismissed for HELPING people reclaim charges. He goes on MSE too to help, in his own time for no reward.

 

I don't always agree with yourbank but I see Cagger since : Jun 2008 Posts: 4,474, I believe over 10000 posts on MSE, oh and he was on CAG before by a different name. So we're talking 20,000 posts. That's a HELL of a lot of time an effort to defend an ex employer wouldn't you say?

 

If the legal system was bent wouldn't the case have fell at the first hurdle? Why were the banks visibily stunned by the outcome?

 

At the end of the day people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to beleive. I don't see a consipracy and I am a human.

[AA99]

yourbank and renag !!!!! good banter there but please let's call it quits now and agree to differ. The Way Forward pleeeeeeeeeeeese:cool:

[renegotiation]

yourbank and renag !!!!! good banter there but please let's call it quits now and agree to differ. The Way Forward pleeeeeeeeeeeese:cool:

 

Is ok, we're both adults.

[renegotiation]

They didn't rule on stays and no advice went from the Master of the Rolls(the judge in charge of County courts).

 

As I said, that's still not the same as the Supreme Court ruling on it.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court ruling had some positives for consumers so if it was so bent it would have closed ALL avenues for reclaiming which clearly it didn't.

 

I have previosuly addressed that issue in the following post:

 

This is my take on it. The Supreme Court was trying to save some face and the OFT won't take on another case. The British Bull**** Corporation is already sending out subtle messages that the 'OFT might not have the heart for another case'. Maybe they have been brought into line? We'll see won't we...

 

 

 

 

I cannot libel you by saying that I believe your post to be libellous because it is an opinion from your words which I take back based on the fact that I misread the post. I still think it is questionable in nature but I take back the potentially libellous bit back on that point.

 

 

You still think it is questionable in nature? I used the term 'largely inhabited' and you took it to mean 'all of'. I don't find that ambiguous in the slightest and I don't think I am being frivolous at all. I think you need to reconsider your opinion. Furthermore, I thought it interesting that, as well as misrepresenting my words, you tried to throw a spanner of division between me and the site team. You tried to make out I was speaking ill of them. I find that a bit suspicious.

 

 

 

Almost 12 months to the day I was suspended for leaking information to the press from bank documents.

 

Yes, and JFK got shot by a lone gunman. So, you are a heroic citizen then? I find it bizarre how you seem very reluctant to add your name to the list of those calling for mass peaceful demonstrations. Why on earth wouldn't you? It really doesn't make sense to me. I reckon you may still be with the banks. I am suspicious that your remit is to gain the trust of the site team and try to influence their actions.

 

 

 

I do not believe in paranoia which from first hand experience is generally unfounded. Believing that the banks' know more than they do actually know does give them more credit than they deserve. Furthermore, I don't see corruption

 

M.P.'s expenses, corrupt Lords, a promised referendum not delivered and illegal wars where more than a million innocents have died. Perish the thought that the Establishment might have been corrupted by the banks. I must be insane! Get my padded cell ready!

 

 

 

I have no idea how you see me as pro establishment when I continue to do things with regards to enabling people to "reclaim their rights" across all forums and that is in spite of those people who continue to say the bank won the OFT test case. You are not the first who does not like the way I post, and I doubt you will be the last but all I would say is that at the end of the day we have the same goal on the bank charges side of things--to make sure people get their money back.

 

Like I said, people will not get their money back without mass peaceful demonstrations. End of story. I will lick turd of your boots if that happens. Even if you believed they had a chance, which I definitely don't, I still don't understand why you wouldn't put your name down in support of mass peaceful demonstrations. That just doesn't tally with your stated desires in my view. I reiterate, I am stunned you deny awareness of Establishment corruption and how this could be linked with the banks and then make yourself out to be someone folk should listen to. Absolute poppycock. I don't believe you.

 

 

 

As I said elsewhere. I'll take a look.

 

As I said, make sure you get your name down on the list in support of mass peaceful demonstrations.

 

 

 

Is that a no to evidence?

 

See all the examples of corruption I have given above.

 

 

 

The title is pretty mass market which is why I have said that.

 

Ok, good, i'll stick with that then.

 

 

 

yes we have a claimant on penalty charges forum who has fought off a Yorkshire Bank strike out yesterday. They have 6 weeks to amend their POC.

 

As I said, there will not be mass payouts without mass peaceful demonstrations. We will see though, won't we...

 

 

 

I think even Bookworm would have stated that in her post cos she is not a gatekeeper(now I kinda get it) nor is she pro Establishment.

 

I have never referred to Bookworm as being a 'gatekeeper'. LOL. I do maintain that this case was supposed to be about the jurisdiction of the OFT and some lines have been blurred along the way.

 

 

 

Renegotiation, if I am a gatekeeper then can you tell me what my agenda is(cos I clearly don't know)?

 

A 'gatekeeper' is someone working for the opposition who is keeping a close eye on what the other side is doing. They would try to control and influence the other side as much as possible. They would try to send them down cul de sacs and nudge them towards, and condition them to accept, ultimate failure. A bit like Grima Wormtongue.

 

I know full well the banks would try and send their people in amongst us and the folk of the other dissenting sites. I just don't trust you. Tell me, as you claim you are not one of them, do you doubt that the banks would do something like that?

Edited January 28, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

Come on, I know the legal profession is not perfect but you do realize it takes YEARS to become a solicitor or a barrister don't you? That there is a reason that the law lords are all old. They know a lot about the law and it was the law they were ruling on. I may not like it, you may not like it, but that's the rub.

 

It is largely a profession of parroting from what I can make out. 'Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly' If you have the power, then you can read 'the law' to suit your agenda. Don't be so naive.

 

 

 

Your comments in relation you yourbank show how out there your opinions are. He's the guy what got dismissed for HELPING people reclaim charges. He goes on MSE too to help, in his own time for no reward.

 

I don't always agree with yourbank but I see Cagger since : Jun 2008 Posts: 4,474, I believe over 10000 posts on MSE, oh and he was on CAG before by a different name. So we're talking 20,000 posts. That's a HELL of a lot of time an effort to defend an ex employer wouldn't you say?

 

I have explained in my previous post what I suspect of him. Beware of banks bearing gifts, especially ex-employees.

 

 

 

If the legal system was bent wouldn't the case have fell at the first hurdle? Why were the banks visibily stunned by the outcome?

 

I said the Establishment and the Supreme Court, when influenced, were bent. Some judges may well be to. That doesn't make the whole 'legal system' bent and I have never said that. The banks may well have been stunned at the outcome of the High Court case because their arrogance knows no bounds. They soon got it fixed though didn't they... The Supreme Court, per se, was just a massive stitch up for our democracy full stop.

 

 

 

At the end of the day people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to beleive. I don't see a consipracy and I am a human.

 

I see what my common sense tells me. If it's a conspiracy, then it's a conspiracy. If it isn't, then it isn't. There are many conspiracies in this world of ours. It's just a case of separating the wheat from the chaff. I usually call things out in advance and I haven't been wrong yet. That must make me lucky or crazy of course...

 

THERE WILL BE NO MASS PAYOUTS. READ, DIGEST, COMPREHEND. I KNOW SO.

[Bigdebtor]

I'm getting bored (and annoyed) by this thread - and beginning to wonder if it's renogiation that has a hidden agenda - in his trojan horse?

 

I think a march is a naff idea - it would be a PR disaster for those in genuine hardship - expensive and time consuming to participate - and actually what inconvenience or expense would it cause the banks?

 

Only the tax payer would be out of pocket! It would just portray CAGGERS as a crowd of immature leftie agitator debt avoiders - either unemployed (i.e on benefits) or who can afford to take a day off work - whilst avoiding debts.

(NB This is not my view of CAGGERS - but how I think this would be preceived by Joe Public)

 

IMO a much more effective protest would be for several thousand pretty well identical letters to be sent on the same day to all the UK banks rebutting their recent "ha ha we won" letters and asking for consideration to repay unfair charges under the alternative UTCCR issues identified by the SC -with copies e-mailed to all our individual MP's and John McFall. They would have 8 weeks to respond - and if we were not satisfied with their responses then the same number of complaints would end up with FOS - costing the banks £400 -£500 a time. THAT would hurt and annoy them!

 

Ideally I would like CAG to prepare a template for this - so we get it right and leave no loopholes for them to wriggle through.

 

However, in any case, would anyone still thinking of using this thread - and forum - to score petty personal points which risk bringing the whole of CAG into disrepute please STOP now? These posts are neither funny, entertaining nor informative and just show that some people have too much time on their hands!

 

BD

Edited January 28, 2010 by Bigdebtor
typos

[the_shadow]

However, in any case, would anyone still thinking of using this thread - and forum - to score petty personal points which risk bringing the whole of CAG into disrepute please STOP now? These posts are neither funny, entertaining nor informative and just show that some people have too much time on their hands!

 

BD

 

Couldnt have put it better if I'd wanted to BD.

 

S.

[Bigdebtor]

Thanks for your support S.

 

I have seen some pretty good posts from you so I am sure I just pre-empted something better from your own esteemed pen!

 

BD

[AA99]

I've just received MSE's email and I see he is meeting with the OFT next week to discuss the way forward with the banks. It is mentioned MSE and consumer groups opinions are needed. Is CAG involved with this? I have already signed up to the Which petition;)

[renegotiation]

I'm getting bored (and annoyed) by this thread - and beginning to wonder if it's renogiation that has a hidden agenda - in his trojan horse?

 

I don't think you can get much more of an open agenda than writing to County Courts; discussing the validity of the Supreme Court verdict; and mass, nationwide, peaceful marches, but hey ho! If you are getting 'bored and annoyed' I find it bizarre that you keep on reading. Just my opinion.

 

 

 

I think a march is a naff idea - it would be a PR disaster for those in genuine hardship - expensive and time consuming to participate - and actually what inconvenience or expense would it cause the banks?

 

Everyone is free to make up their 'own mind' on that aren't they? Quite how you can label the public exercising their right to peaceful protest as a PR disaster is beyond me. The motive is clearly to let the government know that the public won't stand for these rip off charges any more.

 

 

 

Only the tax payer would be out of pocket! It would just portray CAGGERS as a crowd of immature leftie agitator debt avoiders - either unemployed (i.e on benefits) or who can afford to take a day off work - whilst avoiding debts.

(NB This is not my view of CAGGERS - but how I think this would be preceived by Joe Public)

 

The tax payer would be out of pocket? Oh dear, I won't even get into that one with you considering the last few years. This isn't a march just for CAGGERS. This is a mass, nationwide march for the public. Otherwise, there would be little point doing it as it wouldn't achieve anything!

 

 

 

IMO a much more effective protest would be for several thousand pretty well identical letters to be sent on the same day to all the UK banks rebutting their recent "ha ha we won" letters and asking for consideration to repay unfair charges under the alternative UTCCR issues identified by the SC -with copies e-mailed to all our individual MP's and John McFall. They would have 8 weeks to respond - and if we were not satisfied with their responses then the same number of complaints would end up with FOS - costing the banks £400 -£500 a time. THAT would hurt and annoy them! Ideally I would like CAG to prepare a template for this - so we get it right and leave no loopholes for them to wriggle through.

 

The F.O.S. would deal with that as a 'special case' and just respond accordingly. It wouldn't cost them £400-£500 a time and I am doubtful if this is what it actually costs them anyway. I have raised that issue on another thread already. They will wriggle through alright. I am not against more letter writing and emailing though, especially to M.P.'s and the County Courts.

 

 

 

However, in any case, would anyone still thinking of using this thread - and forum - to score petty personal points which risk bringing the whole of CAG into disrepute please STOP now? These posts are neither funny, entertaining nor informative and just show that some people have too much time on their hands!

BD

 

I will continue to respond as I see fit. I don't find this situation 'funny or entertaining' at all. I find it very serious and alarming. If you don't find ideas revolving around a march as 'informative', then I politely suggest you look elsewhere for your stimulation.

 

 

 

These posts are neither funny

 

I'm very relieved to hear that. They aren't supposed to be.

 

 

 

I've just received MSE's email and I see he is meeting with the OFT next week to discuss the way forward with the banks. It is mentioned MSE and consumer groups opinions are needed. Is CAG involved with this? I have already signed up to the Which petition;)

 

All lobbying and action helps and I am for it. I am sure that we will not get any real change without mass, public, peaceful protests though.

 

Still no sign of Yourbank showing his support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. How bizarre. Could it be that he is actually against doing the one thing that might actually make a real difference? It certainly seems that way to me. Just as I predicted, yet again...

Edited January 28, 2010 by renegotiation

[indebtstudent]

"I have explained in my previous post what I suspect of him. Beware of banks bearing gifts, especially ex-employees."

 

I'm an ex-employee too, when I heard about yourbank being dismissed for gross mis-conduct I thought there but for the grace of God go I. Of course I don't believe I disclosed the contents of any confidential documents. However I did point people in the right direction in terms of the refunds which are given as a one off in particular circumstances.

 

I also believe I would've fallen foul of some term in the contract, the exact wording of which escapes me, but the gist of it was not doing anything agains the interests of the employer.

 

Frankly it concerns me that you have based your opinion on a person based on you seeing them on a thread. If you post a lot its difficult to keep track of threads.

 

FYI the Supreme Court just the other day ruled AGAINST the government, it happens a lot in relation to human rights and terrorism type things. Although I suppose you could use that as yet more evidence of the consipracy, they're so clever they've made this ruling just to confuse people, even though it will cause huge costs for the government.

 

Now here's my, slightly less knee-jerk and alarmist view of what has occured. We in the campaigned convinced ourselves that the charges levied were penalties under the common law and statue. This view was re-inforced by the banks continued committment to avoiding having this tested in a court of law by making multiple refunds totalling vast sums of money.

 

It turns out this is not the case. Other arguments were pointed out in the test case. Maybe you are right that individuals can still use the own arguments, for my part I'll be looking at all the options just in case.

 

I am VERY disappointed that the charges were not seen as penalties as I know very well that is what they are, in the ordinary everyday use of the word. So do the banks, and even the pro charges brigade some of whom argue dammit the charges should be higher!

 

Whilst we're dithering over what to do I will be writing to my MP again, the OFT and the FSA. I think the government has been spineless on this issue. A new law is badly needed to ensure an admin fee is just that.

 

I'm also going to write to the OFT asking why they have not referred the matter to the competition commission given the striking similarity between all providers charges prior to the test case. I am also going to suggest, as a stop gap, that the banks should NOT be permitted to apply charges to the account. This is the single most damaging thing they do apart from the level the charges are set at as it starts a snowball some people simply cannot stop.

 

Given that they sneaked a win by arguing that the are fees for a service then they should invoice seperately for them like any other service provider.

 

Actually dobut my MP will care much, he's standing down, maybe I'll approach the candidates instead.

[Bigdebtor]

I find it bizarre that you keep on reading. Just my opinion.

 

BD REPLY: I read in the hope of learning something. To assume there is nothing in value in an unread piece is the first step to ignorance and intolerance.

 

Everyone is free to make up their 'own mind' on that aren't they? Quite how you can label the public exercising their right to peaceful protest as a PR disaster is beyond me. The motive is clearly to let the government know that the public won't stand for these rip off charges any more.

 

BD REPLY: I remember how "peaceful marches" have been perceived over the last 40 years. They never succeed. Swamping MP's, judges, bank CEO's etc. with letters would achieve more at lower cost.

 

The tax payer would be out of pocket? Oh dear, I won't even get into that one with you considering the last few years. This isn't a march just for CAGGERS. This is a mass, nationwide march for the public. Otherwise, there would be little point doing it as it wouldn't achieve anything!

 

BD REPLY: Why cost te taxpayer even more now? Your last sentence is spot on apart from "otherwise"!

 

I will continue to respond as I see fit. Ideas revolving around a march as 'informative', then I politely suggest you look elsewhere for your stimulation.

 

BD REPLY: It's a free country. You keep writing rubbish and I'll keep reading it. I have not yet found it stimulating but I live in hope.

 

All lobbying and action helps and I am for it. I am sure that we will not get any real change without mass, public, peaceful protests though.

 

BD REPLY: I disagree. What mass protests have been successful? - G8 or G20 protests? the miners' strike? CND?

 

Still no sign of Yourbank showing his support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. How bizarre. Could it be that he is actually against doing the one thing that might actually make a real difference? It certainly seems that way to me. Just as I predicted, yet again...

 

BD REPLY: Maybe Yourbank has more sense and like me is focussing on doing things which CAN make a difference by helping other CAGGERs? I won't respond to any of your future points as attention just encourages the immature who seek it.

 

BD

Edited January 29, 2010 by Bigdebtor
typos

[the_freedom_trail]

My take on everything is that the Supreme Court verdict seems to have left the attack on banks looking a little fractured. When we had the OFT to get behind everyone with an interest had a single area in which to concentrate their energies. However, the situation has somewhat changed. It might be preferable for claimants in hardship to go the FOS route, whilst others with small claims might get a victory in the County Court by forcing banks to settle before a hearing on the commercial interest basis. The issue at hand is we need to co-ordinate this attack. I don't know what has happened with Ray Cox QC but I can understand it is difficult to get these things moving. In the mean time, I have drafted a letter which I will send to my bank. My claim is only £35 but would anyone like me to share it on the forum - I would be happy to do so?

 

TFT

[Bigdebtor]

TFT

I think OFT just delayed things for 2 1/2 years whereas before the banks were paying out to avoid court.

 

Have you seen the template on the Govan law Centre web site? It might be worth taking some ideas from it pending Ray Cox's feedback via CAG and/or MSE.

 

I tried FOS re hardship - the Bank promising not to charge me unfair charges for next 3 months (which were already being replaced by £1, £2 or £5 per day charges) made them happy enough to side with the banks - so FOS are still pretty useless.

 

BD

[the_freedom_trail]

TFT

I think OFT just delayed things for 2 1/2 years whereas before the banks were paying out to avoid court.

 

Certainly, I agree that the banks will be far more confident now; however, if Mr X makes a claim of £100 in the County Court then I think that the banks still might cough up on the small claims. There is a huge risk for them that they will incur significantly more cost through defending it rather than settling before. They also face the risk that if they do defend a case beig brought under different legislation and lose this could give the green light to many others (accepting of course that the County Court can't set precedent).

Have you seen the template on the Govan law Centre web site? It might be worth taking some ideas from it pending Ray Cox's feedback via CAG and/or MSE.

 

Thanks for the tip off, I have had a look and poached a few ideas from it. I think I've got a pretty good grasp of how to approach a case with the new legislation so will be going in to battle soon

 

I tried FOS re hardship - the Bank promising not to charge me unfair charges for next 3 months (which were already being replaced by £1, £2 or £5 per day charges) made them happy enough to side with the banks - so FOS are still pretty useless.

 

I know, talk about a snidey circumvention of bank charges - HBOS seem to have pioneered this.

 

BD

 

I am determined to get my £35 back from Halifax even if it costs me more to do so. Failing a County Court victory you will find me on their roof nicking lead for scrap lol

 

TFT

[Bigdebtor]

TFT

 

This might be a bit too easy for you - if you really want a fight - but I was told by a girl on the HBOS 08457 21 31 41 call centre that they had discretion to refund up to two £35 charges per account holder.

 

Have you had two charges back yet?

 

If not complain that you are being treated less favourably than other customers. Have you thought about FOS - just to rattle their cage and cost them the £400 plus referral fee? Being treated less favourably than other customers should be justification enough.

 

If you are you a male white able bodied christian of normal height and weight (or anything else in any of these options) then you can claim sex/race/disability/religious/etc. discrimination just to rattle them a bit. (might as well have some fun while the fight goes on!).

 

BD

[tedney]

Hello the_freedom_trail

Please forgive my ignoarnce but what is GOGW as in "Settled in full as GOGW"

[renegotiation]

I'm an ex-employee too, when I heard about yourbank being dismissed for gross mis-conduct I thought there but for the grace of God go I. Of course I don't believe I disclosed the contents of any confidential documents. However I did point people in the right direction in terms of the refunds which are given as a one off in particular circumstances.

 

I also believe I would've fallen foul of some term in the contract, the exact wording of which escapes me, but the gist of it was not doing anything agains the interests of the employer.

 

Frankly it concerns me that you have based your opinion on a person based on you seeing them on a thread. If you post a lot its difficult to keep track of threads.

 

In my opinion, I find Yourbank not supporting the notion of peaceful protest as very suspicious. I have also seen some of his comments on other threads that make me suspicious. That's my view.

 

 

 

FYI the Supreme Court just the other day ruled AGAINST the government, it happens a lot in relation to human rights and terrorism type things. Although I suppose you could use that as yet more evidence of the consipracy, they're so clever they've made this ruling just to confuse people, even though it will cause huge costs for the government.

 

I'm talking about the Supreme Court decision regarding the banks, not the government. Anyhow, even if the Supreme Court sided with the government on EVERYTHING, then the biggest village idiots would be suspicious. Corruption and peer pressure can be very subtle. I'm not for one minute saying they sat in a room with the banks and explicitly made a plan!

 

 

 

Now here's my, slightly less knee-jerk and alarmist view of what has occured. We in the campaigned convinced ourselves that the charges levied were penalties under the common law and statute. This view was re-inforced by the banks continued committment to avoiding having this tested in a court of law by making multiple refunds totalling vast sums of money. It turns out this is not the case. Other arguments were pointed out in the test case. Maybe you are right that individuals can still use the own arguments, for my part I'll be looking at all the options just in case.

 

It turns out it wasn't the case because the 'Supreme Court said so'. I'm saying it was a BENT decision. My view is indeed alarmist, but not knee-jerk. I half expected it, but my jaw still dropped when the verdict was read out. It's odd that the OFT didn't take it to Europe isn't it?

 

Level 1 - High Court - Wrong decision. Keep going!

Level 2 - Court Of Appeal - Wrong decision. Keep going!

Level 3 - Supreme Court - Right decision. Stop the case!

Level 4 - European Court. Not needed!

 

Not to mention that the High Court dismissed an argument and that wasn't appealed at all! How is it we are supposed to have any faith in the High Court having got that bit 'right' if they got the other bit 'wrong'? Ah, I know, that bit was 'right' for the banks. No need to take that argument any higher up the chain then. All seems unbiased to you does it?!

 

 

 

I am VERY disappointed that the charges were not seen as penalties as I know very well that is what they are, in the ordinary everyday use of the word. So do the banks, and even the pro charges brigade some of whom argue dammit the charges should be higher!

 

Well, we certainly agree on that. Who argues it should be higher? I have not heard that one before.

 

 

 

Whilst we're dithering over what to do I will be writing to my MP again, the OFT and the FSA. I think the government has been spineless on this issue. A new law is badly needed to ensure an admin fee is just that.

 

That's all great stuff and I do support it. Unfortunately, as our government and democracy isn't fit for purpose I don't see any success.

 

 

 

I'm also going to write to the OFT asking why they have not referred the matter to the competition commission given the striking similarity between all providers charges prior to the test case. I am also going to suggest, as a stop gap, that the banks should NOT be permitted to apply charges to the account. This is the single most damaging thing they do apart from the level the charges are set at as it starts a snowball some people simply cannot stop. Given that they sneaked a win by arguing that the are fees for a service then they should invoice seperately for them like any other service provider.

 

I raised that competition argument with Dave 2 years ago. For people that just can't afford these charges a stop gap will do nothing, but it's still positive action I agree. Good stuff.

 

 

 

Actually dobut my MP will care much, he's standing down, maybe I'll approach the candidates instead.

 

The whole party political system isn't fit for purpose. Our democracy needs a complete overhaul! We need to be voting for independent candidates.

Edited January 30, 2010 by renegotiation