Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

How persuasive would a ruling from a Scottish Court be in an English Court?

 

TheyrCriminals

[caro]

If charges aren't fair in Scotland how could they be fair in England?

[means2anend]

Yes......but in the majority of cases it's the Law that matters. In this case both the UTCCR's and the CCA's are law both sides of the border

 

 

Correct...

 

 

I had to double check ....

There is one version of Reg5 and one version s140A,B,C,D CCA1974 and they ALL extend throughout England Wales Scotland AND NORTHERN IRELAND

 

m2ae:grin:

[means2anend]

Hi,

 

How persuasive would a ruling from a Scottish Court be in an English Court?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

The same Provisions are being applied as mentioned in the above post.The Reasoning (RATIO) is very persuasive authority.

 

Taking for example the practice of smoking in Scotland in pubs was banned BEFORE it took hold over here.I suppose there are other examples but I am not gonna think anymore ...get some sleep..

 

I think your friend should apply for an extension if he has not already as was mentioned above in view of recent developments

 

cheerio

 

m2ae:-)

[banker_rhymes_with]

It seems the banks may have been a little too hasty splashing out on the bonuses then!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[ebonym]

This is heartening to hear. Good luck - the fight goes on and you have my full support

[JGJ]

GOVAN LAW CENTRE,

 

Thank you all for the superb work and outcome of the latest challenge to the Banks Unfair Charges debarcle. To you all, I say thank you for the renewed hope you are giving to us all in our endeavours to solve this ongoing problem and to you all I say "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS" You certainly do.

[Bookworm]

To Mike and all at the GLC:

 

Superb work as ever. Please, please, please update this thread as soon as you can.

 

Caught between a rock and a hard place sums it up for the banks here: either they try and defend it, and we all know how much they like to do that in smaller courts - not -, or they cave as they used to do and send out a really really good message to the rest of us that they are running as scared now as they were 4 years ago.

 

I like it muy mucho!!!

[Dougal16T]

To Mike and all at the GLC:

 

Superb work as ever. Please, please, please update this thread as soon as you can.

 

 

Good morning all,

I could not agree more - exceptional in every way. Very well done, looking forward to hearing more in due course.

 

As always very best wishes to all,

 

Dougal

[Josie8]

Excellent news. S. 140 is going to be an interesting argument to develop........

[bandonbhoy]

Many congratulations Mike.

 

Thank you for restoring a wee bit of sunlight for this year.

 

Would this same argument apply to credit card charges. Remember when OFT gave out their report on credit cards, the identified costs were much less than the window of opportunity that OFT gave to credit card companies of £12.

 

Lo and behold all adopted this figure in a rush.

 

But what is the actual costs.

 

Back to same argument.

 

Thus would the case being formulated by GLC be similarly appropriate to other charges?

[hsbcfiddled]

I was starting to think "it was all over".

 

Now I am thinking "its about to begin".

 

Great news.

[kennyh]

Originally posted by Josie8

Excellent news. S. 140 is going to be an interesting argument to develop........

But, very unfortunately, only if your claim elements fall within the date parameters "new charges from 6 April 2007, but only applies to people who had charges before April 2007 if the borrowing was still outstanding on 6 April 2008." I believe.

If else I will also be throwing my hat in the air.

[srfrench]

You're right, and then again not quite right Ken

 

We have never been able to find out what their costs were. However if they are extortionate post 2007/2008 they in all construction will have been so pre 2007/2008. That's the key I think?

[SHELBELLE]

Whoppee a glimmer of hope, well done GLC.

 

S.B.

[means2anend]

Can we not write to the courts asking them to deal under EU/EC directive 93/13

 

 

I dont think so The Directive has been implemented into National provisions...but still it has the same effect in terms of geographical extent.It's an EU provision.

 

The English Parliament was lawmaking for Scotland at that time too..I dont think Scotland had full Devolvement..I may be wrong if anyone could correct me on this.

[Bookworm]

As far as I understand it, and please remember that EU law isn't my forte, the Directive is what led to the UTCCR 99 in the UK, as in all member states had to implement the directive in one form or another with the key elements in it, but of course with variations according to each individual country... and the end result for us here was the UTCCR 99.

 

Happy to be corrected if I am pedalling in the sauerkraut as we would say in French.

[rdm2006]

I was thinking more of this part.

 

The aim of Article 6 of the Directive, which requires Member States to lay down that unfair terms are not binding on the consumer, would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfair nature of such terms. In disputes where the amounts involved are often limited, the lawyers' fees may be higher than the amount at stake, which may deter the consumer from contesting the application of an unfair term. While it is the case that, in a number of Member States, procedural rules enable individuals to defend themselves in such proceedings, there is a real risk that the consumer, particularly because of ignorance of the law, will not challenge the term pleaded against him on the grounds that it is unfair. It follows that effective protection of the consumer may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion.

 

i.e the court should raise this of its own motion at no risk of cost to the consumer.

 

In the case of Pannon v Gyorfi [2009] c-243/08

 

it was ruled by an ECJ that it was the courts duty even if the consumer had not raised an issue with unfairness

Edited February 22, 2010 by rdm2006

[Guest wino]

subbing

[kennyh]

Posted by RDM2006

In the case of Pannon v Gyorfi [2009] c-243/08

 

it was ruled by an ECJ that it was the courts duty even if the consumer had not raised an issue with unfairness

This looks pretty definitive and in our favour. How best do we present this obligation as a duty of the court ?

[rdm2006]

Posted by RDM2006

 

This looks pretty definitive and in our favour. How best do we present this obligation as a duty of the court ?

 

I am not a legally minded person but I am sure someone who is will check it out - perhaps GLC could ???

[IdaInFife]

[GARY68]

Hi guys

maybe confused here but i have a

CLAIMANT’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION

to which i thought was a amended defence to any applications for a strike out if the banks were to apply.

I have a claim in court at the moment and admittedly i havent done anything of late, I was waiting for the defendant to apply for a strike out because of the lords judgement,

Could I post this up its a 8 page amendement, or is this now a out of date, I downloaded this in january and not too sure where it came from but thought it was usable, maybe Bankfodder ,Caro are aware of this.

I cant put this up on photobucket as its done in word but can post up on forum,

please advise.

[tifo]

However a word of caution, I note that HSBC have already responded to one Cager That their Legal Team asserts that, charges cannot be challenged under Regulation 5 or 6 and that there is no unfair case under s.140A of the CCA. They have no doubt taken Counsel's advice in this matter and take comfort from it.

 

I've had the same. Three times.

 

They've failed to reply to why they cannot provide T's and C's from 2001 (when the charges were applied) and since the account was sold in 2007, how the current T's and C's and those from the test case are applicable to my claim (that's what they say) because they've sent them.

 

They also can't show any facility letters for the overdraft and state there is no executed agreement though they got a CCJ based on a 'regulated agreement'.

[Bigdebtor]

The English Parliament was lawmaking for Scotland at that time too..I dont think Scotland had full Devolvement..I may be wrong if anyone could correct me on this.

 

Wait a wee minute Jimmy! Whit's this aboot an English Parliament?

 

There are currently 2 (twa) Parliaments in the UK the noo - wan in Edinburgh run by Scotsmen and the UK Parliament in London - also run by Scotsmen!

 

Wales and Northern Ireland only have Assemblies - because they were conquered - but Scotland was NEVER conquered - and never ruled by an ENGLISH Parliament.

 

BD

Edited February 22, 2010 by Bigdebtor
typos due to outraged fury