Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[GLoyal]

I thought that might happen, so I have a copy if anybody wants one.

 

Els

 

I would like to see a copy of that please.

 

I have been involved in a stand off with the bank but they seem to be moving in again.

 

I am going to start a new claim as the FOS put my last one on hold then dropped it after the high court decision on fairness.

 

I now need to submit a new claim.

 

Where should I go from here?

 

Thanks

Gloyal

[kennyh]

BUMP on #725

[citizenB]

BUMP on #725

 

Kenny, go to the first post in this thread, click on the GLC link hten check out their arichive pages for the answer you seek

[kennyh]

Well CitizenB - I've been through all the 2010 archived pages at GLC and, yes, there is reference to the various 'shenanigans' of SharpvBOS and Walls v Santander but I still can't find a date for the hearing. I did leave a question on the GLC site some time ago but can't find my darned way back to it to see if they replied!

[noomill060]

Yeah, the recent "site upgrade" makes it damn near impossible to check what you, or others wrote some time back, or even find old and useful threads.

 

In my view, this makes the Nu CAG a poorer place. All that has been achieved by the hard work many many Caggers over the last four years has been lost.

 

If not, show me where I can find, say all of PT2537's posts and threads.

[citizenB]

Yeah, the recent "site upgrade" makes it damn near impossible to check what you, or others wrote some time back, or even find old and useful threads.

 

In my view, this makes the Nu CAG a poorer place. All that has been achieved by the hard work many many Caggers over the last four years has been lost.

 

 

If not, show me where I can find, say all of PT2537's posts and threads.

 

noomill, top right hand side of screen.. click on "Advanced search" and pop in pt2537 in the "user name" box. Tick whatever you want to be searched for ... there is a box for "posts" and you should bring up all posts made by pt

 

 

 

 

HTH

Edited September 6, 2010 by citizenB
removed non working link

[citizenB]

Or go to the user's profile page where you will be able to find links to all posts or threads for that user.

[noomill060]

Thanks CB.

 

My information cross referencing went t*ts up after the upgrade. Previous posts were nowhere to be seen and I just about gave up on CAG.

 

[kennyh]

Bump #729

[johnnymitch]

Hi Kenny

 

Why not just Google 'Sharp v Bank of Scotland' ...... there's a few sites on there ......... bound to be an answer to your query amongst that lot !

[kennyh]

Thanks jm - I've searched using Google/Yahoo/Jeeves/Webcrawler & Metacrawler and also tried search engines on the courts site but nowt has surfaced. Bet Booky knows.

[Bigdebtor]

Try searching on this thread for posts from "Mike" or GLC. I know Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre did post just after one of the cases was heard - but not sure exactlky when or what his ID was. Have you checked the Govan Law Centre site?

 

BD

[kennyh]

Hiya BD, Yup, including their archive pages but only general references and no specific details (dates) of way forward. I do NOT expect any strategy disclosures - just when???

[mystery1]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?267929-Santander-succeed-in-having-charges-case-removed-from-small-claims-track&p=3052003&viewfull=1#post3052003

 

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

 

 

M1

[Undercover-Elsa]

Excellent news! Thanks Mike.

 

Elsa x

[mystery1]

Excellent news! Thanks Mike.

 

Elsa x

 

Mike posted that in July. I just copied it with a link

 

M1

[johnnymitch]

I agree with elsa Mike ....thanks for the update .....it'll give our Caggers hope that all is still to play for ...

 

I will copy the shortcut to your post #739 - it'll help a lot .....

 

Thanks again

John

[mystery1]

I agree with elsa Mike ....thanks for the update .....it'll give our Caggers hope that all is still to play for ...

 

I will copy the shortcut to your post #739 - it'll help a lot .....

 

Thanks again

John

 

 

Please use the link i posted to Mike's post and not to my post so i don't get pm's that i can't answer.

 

M1

[johnnymitch]

OOps ! looks like I missed that one from July .... but not to worry I think it's still a strong encouragement ............

 

OK M1 point taken - I'll use Mike's post .....

[rebel11]

Hi Mike

 

Did you catch yesterdays news with regards to the Court of Appeal / OFT and the banks still wanting to appeal?

[JonCris]

Hi Mike

 

Did you catch yesterdays news with regards to the Court of Appeal / OFT and the banks still wanting to appeal?

 

 

Why? the SC gave them a favourable finding

[johnnymitch]

Not totally favourable ...... the SC left the door open for claims under other sections of the regs .......pity they hadn't directed that these were operable.....

 

But I think the banks are trying to close loopholes - with a bit of luck they'll shoot themselves in the foot again ....as they did after telling the SC that charges were part of their operating profit ......... having told their customers that that was what it cost them to deal with overdrafts etc .

[bustthematrix]

Greed greed and more greed...it will soon catch up with them.

[rdm2006]

Not totally favourable ...... the SC left the door open for claims under other sections of the regs .......pity they hadn't directed that these were operable.....

 

But I think the banks are trying to close loopholes - with a bit of luck they'll shoot themselves in the foot again ....as they did after telling the SC that charges were part of their operating profit ......... having told their customers that that was what it cost them to deal with overdrafts etc .

 

Not to be picky JM but the same section of the regs can still be used but the REASON/ARGUMENT can not be based on level/price.

 

sorry just to be clear ......

[kennyh]

mystery1 - very timely info; I wasn't seeking strategic info just where we are at, and what directions were issued at the last hearing. Hadn't seen the despicable Angela 'crowing' so I gathered the banks had not won. Had heard undertones re Walls but had lost all trace of Sharp. Will the grounds being deployed in the Sharp case be 'debated' in court and if so when?

I anticipate having a decision on the banks relevancy and competency defences later this year.

 

Again any ideas as to timing?

Never will 'give up hope'.

Ken