Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[HSBCrusher]

nope.

[srfrench]

Just goes to show that this site not only brings you the latest news as soon as it appears but reports it accurately 8)

[xp1]

I understand the case has been put back at the banks request

[srfrench]

Meaning?

[rdm2006]

I understand the case has been put back at the banks request

 

Meaning?

 

Meaning they are playing for time

[bustthematrix]

Meaning they are playing for time

Can they do this if the other side do not consent?

 

Who is the Claimant in this case? Is it the bank or the borrower?

[Michael Browne]

According to MSE:

 

MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - Heard from your bank/court about your claim being restarted? Please let us know.

 

I think the Govan case has been put back a bit as the banks wanted to make it a non small claims case.

[kennyh]

I know the cost implications of such a move but if the case is sound then will GLC continue or back off?

[srfrench]

Do you know that this is typical of the bank to try and win in a non-meritous way insofar as flexing their financial muscles to threaten bankruptcy on an entity that's lawfully challenging it's legality.

 

You would think it would be easy to defend a fairness issue if the the issue is fair and you would think that the bank would expend a couple of grand of their own (sic) money to settle the matter finally at an eventual saving of millions to them. Maybe they already know the fairness issue is indefensible and will abuse and frustrate justice!

[JGJ]

Thats exactly what they want "time" as in the "penal" type.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[citizenB]

Perhaps they want it in Small claims because if they lose, then it would not set any precedents and not binding on other courts.

[Bookworm]

Perhaps they want it in Small claims because if they lose, then it would not set any precedents and not binding on other courts.

But the quote says they DON'T want it in SCC? :-?

 

If this is true, and it's precious little info here, then I can see why they would do it that way: As I said before, the odds are only 1 in 3 in their favour, either an outright loss or an attempt to settle out of court will give us the checkered flag to start the process again. The bank HAS to win, and they are going to throw EVERYTHING they can to try and make sure this happens, and when it does, they want to make sure it is precedent setting to close the door on us plebs once and for all. I don't know how much the case is for, but I am pretty sure the banks will be spending thousands times more to try and ensure victory.

 

Of course, if they DO lose, then they'll appeal etc, etc... hoping the other side eventually runs ouf of money before it gets to the ECJ.

 

Cynical, moi?

[Bigdebtor]

I agree. The above post said the opposite - The Bank wants a "non small claims" case. Surely if it falls within the limit as a single case then that is where it should be heard? Precedents shouldn't matter to us too much since if they lose this one I'm sure they'll go back to "ex gratia" payments rather than face losing loads of identical cases.

 

BD

[bustthematrix]

Instead of speculating, why don't we wait to find out exactly what's happened, if at all we can? Are they taking it out of Small Claims or not? How much time have they asked for to file their further defence? On what basis did they ask etc?

 

Let's wait for more facts....

[Bookworm]

We're bored waiting, lol.

[HSBCrusher]

We're bored waiting, lol.

yup. me too.

[Bigdebtor]

Instead of speculating, why don't we wait to find out exactly what's happened, if at all we can? Are they taking it out of Small Claims or not? How much time have they asked for to file their further defence? On what basis did they ask etc?

 

Let's wait for more facts....

 

If you promise to get the facts tomorrow - we'll do the waiting.

[breeze1996]

I thought the Bank was being asked to prove the charges, a judge would know they are trying to wiggle after all that's why he said the bank had to PROVE the charges.

[Bigdebtor]

This Glasgow case was first heard in Feb 2010 and set for June 11. Why does it take 4 months to add up costs to £35? Have they not got Excel?

 

Anyway surely they must have had the figures already to know that charging us £35 in the first place was what they needed to do to "cover their costs" - as their letters used to say.

 

Surely no one suspects they have been profiteering in this?

 

BD

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

This is ridiculous, what the hell has been going on? Its now been almost 7 months since the Supreme Court judgement explicitly stated that consumers may still be able to challenge unauthorised overdraft charges under S.5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. In all this time I have heard not one case progressing to trial in any English and Welsh court to determine this new legal argument. There must now be countless bank charge claims that have been struck out of the system which just simply haven't been reported. We are all now waiting for one Scottish case to be heard which has absolutely no binding authority on courts in England and Wales and will at best perhaps, if its the right decision, be of minor persuasive authority. There surely must be more, as a collective action, that we can do to kick start these claims in the right direction as oppose to hanging our hopes (or moreover dashing our hopes) on this one case in Scotland.

 

CAG Team, any help or ideas appreciated.

 

TheyrCriminals

[caro]

Meaning?

 

They're trying to find a way to wriggle out of it.

 

By keeping it out of SC the claimant could be liable for costs which must be quite intimidating. I hope GLCs client doesn't agree to a settlement without going to court.:-|

[JonCris]

They're trying to find a way to wriggle out of it.

 

By keeping it out of SC the claimant could be liable for costs which must be quite intimidating. I hope GLCs client doesn't agree to a settlement without going to court.:-|

 

In order to provide justice & irrespective of track & if asked a court can protect an ordinary claimant against costs particularly where it can be argued there is a public interest

[citizenB]

I think the Govan case has been put back a bit as the banks wanted to make it a non small claims case.

 

 

Perhaps they want it in Small claims because if they lose, then it would not set any precedents and not binding on other courts.

 

But the quote says they DON'T want it in SCC? :-?

 

If this is true, and it's precious little info here, then I can see why they would do it that way: As I said before, the odds are only 1 in 3 in their favour, either an outright loss or an attempt to settle out of court will give us the checkered flag to start the process again. The bank HAS to win, and they are going to throw EVERYTHING they can to try and make sure this happens, and when it does, they want to make sure it is precedent setting to close the door on us plebs once and for all. I don't know how much the case is for, but I am pretty sure the banks will be spending thousands times more to try and ensure victory.

 

Of course, if they DO lose, then they'll appeal etc, etc... hoping the other side eventually runs ouf of money before it gets to the ECJ.

 

Cynical, moi?

 

Oops.. I should have gone to specsavers. I missed the "non" Thanks Bookie

[bustthematrix]

Wait we must...

 

TheyrCriminals' post #395 makes some interesting points. A multipronged approach, even if based on the same legal arguments may be better. i.e. where a claim is brought not only in Scotland but in one or more courts in England and Wales as well, preferably against different banking institutions.

 

Perhaps CAG could coordinate this behind the scenes with one or two willing members?

[johnnymitch]

Patience guys .... we've come this far , let's stick with it .......

 

I am also of the belief that there is a CAG members case going forward(in England ) as we speak , but I'm saying no more about that at the moment .....

 

I'm also of the opinion(maybe mistaken ) that the Glasgow case is being brought under Consumer Laws , which are UK wide , therefore the fact that it's in Scotland shouldn't bar it from being a precedent UK wide ... although the banks barristers will try desperately to argue this ......