Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[manchesteruni]

Sadly, the programme decided to take a soft approach and focus on peripheral issues around charges (e.g. communication concerns) as opposed to the tough question of whether the UK bank charging model was unfair in law, whether it was morally acceptable to exploit vulnerable consumers to subsidise better off customers, as well as overlooking the plight of thousands of UK consumers still trying to seek refunds of unfair charges.

 

........................................

[Crazy Diamond]

Yep. Particularly "liked" the way the BBA mouthpiece said that "if you think you've been poorly treated, it is your ABSOLUTE right... to phone your bank and query it". Well, that was helpful. Not.

[Bigdebtor]

Yet another Establishment white wash! Are BBA and BBC related?

[oilyrag]

In a word BD I would say Yes.

 

regards

oilyrag

[bustthematrix]

Just goes to show. If we're going to get any real justice, we'll have to do it ourselves! It's not up to 'the Government' - it's what we put up with from the Government

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Does anybody have the correct legal citation for the GLC bank charges case, I am hoping to stop a strike out from the other side.

 

Thanks,

 

TheyrCriminals

[Fred_Funk]

I'm in a very similar situation to Theyrcriminals and, that being the case, would really appreciate it if any of you guys could take a look at the following thread and gimme your thoughts as a matter of urgency [i have to get back to the court today to avoid my claim being struck out].

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284829-HELP-How-to-avoid-my-bank-charges-claim-being-struck-out-!&p=3205198&highlight=#post3205198

[manchesteruni]

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

 

Access to justice denied: Scottish Legal Aid Board kills off hope of reclaiming unfair bank charges in Scotland

 

SLAB's CEO

Lindsay Montgomery The Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) has refused to grant civil legal aid in a leading Scottish test case on unfair UK bank charges - Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc - with their decision to refuse legal aid being upheld on an internal appeal to the Board this week.

 

 

The decision effectively means that no-one in Scotland can ever obtain civil legal aid to pursue a modest bank charges claim, and further, that any complex consumer credit or consumer law complaint of a modest value is unlikely to ever qualify for legal aid in Scotland. In short, SLAB have killed-off access to justice for many tens of thousands of consumers in Scotland.

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/12/access-to-justice-denied-scottish-legal.html

[rdm2006]

Another white wash - I wonder if people are getting paid to make decisions like these ?

[oilyrag]

Of course they are rdm. It dawned on me a long time ago that Britain (UK) or whatever you want to call it is THE MOST corrupt country in the world bar NONE. Oh its done in a "nice gentlemanly way" by a small cadre of old Etonians and the like who actually run the whole she bang. Just remember the old universities are the nurseries of the worst traitors we have ever had. Now the "Reds" have gone, to where have they turned their malicious greedy attentions??

 

oilyrag.

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

I agree with the comments - BUT remember this: Mike Daily has NOT said that this is the end of the road - indeed if you read in full all of the information from his office, it seems that this matter will end up in the ECJ. I believe that every effort will be made to block his path but it will finally get to the ECJ, there is too much at stake for all parties to stop....

 

I have my fingers crossed

 

Best wishes and compliments of the season

 

Dougal

[Govan Law Centre]

Dear Caggers

 

Just to explain the reason we sought a civil legal aid certificate in the case of Sharp v. BOS (and we have other legal aid applications and other bank charge cases before the courts too) is not for Govan Law Centre to be paid a fee (we have always undertaken our bank charges work for free in the UK public interest) but rather because these cases have been remitted to the ordinary court (at the instance of the banks, where there is no protection against expenses) and therefore it would have been professionally irresponsible for me to run a case and expose my client to an award of expenses if we were to lose.

 

As you may know the banks have employed advocates (barristers) instructed by solicitors to act on their behalf in these cases, and if the Sharp case ended up with a QC and junior counsel, and Dundas + Wilson LLP instructing them, you could be looking at many tens of thousands of pounds if we lost. I don't think we will lose, we have good prospects, but as a solicitor I cannot expose a client to that level of risk.

 

A legal aid certificate in Scotland provides an insurance policy against costs in the event of contra expenses or failure - section 18 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 entitles a legally aided client to ask the court to modify expenses to nil. That is why legal aid is so important in any contentious case, where the opponent has very deep pockets.

 

I can assure you that the new bank charges arguments will be argued before the courts by GLC, and the reason why we are making such a fuss here, is for tactical reasons.

 

Mike

 

Govan Law Centre

[rebel11]

Hi Mike

 

Thanks for the update.

The CAG are behind you 110%.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Ditto.

Thanks for that Mike, we totally support your battle.

My only wish is that we had such a passionate and principled Law Centre in England!

 

Elsa x

[Dougal16T]

Ditto again,

Keep up the very good work...

 

Regards to all

 

Dougal

[elsinore]

Scottish Legal Aid Board's response to GLC's statement

 

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/documents/bankchargessharpvbankofscotlandFINAL.pdf

[means2anend]

Read the scriptures Lindz...THE HIGHEST COURT has already dispensed with human courts...IT IS BRINGING JUSTICE TO ALL SOON..inc you and your 'friends'

 

m2ae

[oilyrag]

Yes mtae,

 

"vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay" and from Revelation specifically for all DCAs "and Death followed on a pale horse"

 

regards

oilyrag

[Bigdebtor]

Having been trained many years ago as a scientist where logic and common sense are usually most helpful attributes, I have discovered in attempting to understand legal processes that these same attributes don't ever seem to be used in our courts - making the use of the word "justice" a total mockery. lt seems to me that it is not us, the general public, that has made the law so complex that the Sharp case canot be dealt with in the Small Claims Court system. I think it should be standard practice that any small claim be protected by the same cost limits- no matter where it ends up - even at SC or at EU courts.

 

GLC have said they will cap their fees at £375 in the public interest. Well done to GLC - and a big thank you on behalf of all of us who continue to have huge overdrafts made up entirely of such charges and subsequent interest charges!

 

Surely it's now time to force the Banks (whom we have bailed out with billions - and continue to pay billions in bonuses!) to match that offer. After all, surely the Banks (being fair minded and law abiding coprporate citizens:roll:) need to find out once and for all IF their charges WERE fair - and the complexity of the law should not be used as a shield for them to cower behind and use their (our!) vast funds to prevent Joe Public from seeking justice?

 

I would suggest a huge publicity campaign to embarrass the Banks into playing fair - but Angela (black) Knight has already shown she and her cronies cannot be embarrassed and will continue to fleece us all at every opportunity! I have seen nothing about this in the Press or TV in recent days!

 

I am delighted GLC are pressing ahead to get justice on this. I am glad it's not the OFT we are relying on this time!

 

I think all of us in Scotland should write to our MSP's now and make them aware of this scandalous situation - and how we as their constituents feel about all of this - and the fact the complexity of the law is being used by the Banks to thwart justice. It doesn't even cost a stamp as their e-mail addresses are readily available on the Scottissh Parliament web site.

 

BD

[kennyh]

If I required biblical quotes I would look for some nebulous US Southern State Baptist site, however please can we stay on subject; I realise there's not a lot happening on the surface but it appears that some parties (GLC to name one) are paddling like the clappers below and it strikes me we could all do with a bit of ECJ familiarisation particularly since the UK seems to be one of the few NOT 'in harmony'. I seem to recall from past posts that euro legislation actually favouring our endeavours was passed some while ago - anyone?

[oilyrag]

Ok Kennyh

 

Biblical quotes aside. I have looked at the vast tome that is the Lisbon Treaty and got lost in all its meanderings. However two things UK citizens should be aware of that came through crystal clear.

 

1. If you look in the appendices to the protocols applying, appendix 26 if memory serves correctly is that the law applying AT THE TIME in Poland and the UK, note these two members singled out, will be the law applying to the citizens of those two member states. When you get to the nitty gritty of it elsewhere and I should have taken notes---sorry, our wonderful leaders Gordon Brown at the time and now Con-man and Treacherous Turncoat have totally excluded you and I from the additional financial and consumer protections of that treaty that benefit every other EU citizen, (and my passport without my agreement says I am an EU citizen.

 

2. One thing that they cannot get out of however under these terms is the EU Convention on Human Rights and one of the core rights endowed upon you is that you CANNOT be made a victim by any court in the UK of ANY retrospective law passed in our Parliament. Hence if your agreements are old enough to be CCA1974 and not as amended later, then any attempt by a creditor/judge/barrister/court to say otherwise infringes your basic human rights and the treaty allows an immediate appeal to the relevant courts in Europe.

 

I am sorry I can't be more specific but it is worth a look, but it is a nightmare in the wording and the complexity.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[kennyh]

Very many thanks oily (You're a braver person than I, submersing yourself in Lisbon Treaty detail!)

Hence if your agreements are old enough to be CCA1974 and not as amended later, then any attempt by a creditor/judge/barrister/court to say otherwise infringes your basic human rights and the treaty allows an immediate appeal to the relevant courts in Europe.

 

that alone gives some flexibility however I'm pretty sure that the item to which I alluded was a decision handed down in the past 5 years and, at the time comments were made, there was no obvious exclusion of UK citizens. Indeed it seemed as though the UK was badly out of step (as the French tend to be on so many aspects of various aspects of 'eurolaw') and the ECJ was more than a little miffed. I'll just have to find time for a bit of digging.

Ken

[oilyrag]

Unfortunately kenny this is the Britsh way. We as ordinary decent folk are denied the benefits of the EU but are told to swallow without complaint all of the bad bits. And please let me tell you that in another life I was a technical officer (engineering) working ,on paper anyway, out of the Technical Commission in Rue de Monteyer Brussels.

 

I am not a fan of the EU but the British people are being mislead and cheated every way which way.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[kennyh]

And in a former life I had positions in Budgetary control and international relations in Defence and dealing with NATO most certainly did not inspire ANY degree of confidence!

[rdm2006]

SLAB

 

Following receipt, the application was considered but refused as it did not meet the reasonableness test for civil legal

aid. No mention was made of wider public interest by Govan Law Centre at this time.

 

A review application was then made asking us to re-consider our refusal of civil legal aid.

The review application indicated that the case could be of relevance to the wider public interest in Scotland in that if

the case was successful it could lead the way for many others to make similar claims.

 

Have SLAB been living on mars? Did they not already know alot of people have a similar case? Do they really need a written reminder?

 

Hats off to GLC