Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

Patience??!! That has got us absolutely nowehere for the last 3 years and certainly not in the last 7 months time is now ripe for positive ACTION before even more claims are thrown out as I'm convinced has been happening up and down the country for the last 7 months. The law being tested in the Scottish case is definitely of UK application but if determined in a Scottish court it is not binding on English or Welsh courts. If and only if CAG are taking a test case through an English court why on earth aren't they posting it up or informing us? I suspect because there isn't one.

 

TheyrCriminals

[johnnymitch]

You may suspect what you likeTheyrCriminals ...... I know different .....

 

and nooooooooo .. it's not me ................I wish it was !

 

If you had a test case going on .....would you broadcast it and give away your strategy to the banks .... |?

[Rhia]

JohnnyMitch is right. You can't spill your strategy into the public domain until it has been conclusively won.

We need to hold steady the law being an ass and all. It is a slow moving beast and my hunch is summat must not be going right for the banks as they would have been shouting it from the rooftops by now.

[Carningli]

Hi All,

I am completely puzzled now. Could somone please explain, if these cases are being heard in whatever courts, how have they managed to get the hearings heard either in chambers or in camera? There have been court notices of hearings, so have the respective Sheriffs or Judges, placed reporting restrictions on proceedings, if so for what reason? If not there must have been some interested observers present.

 

I can understand plaintifs wanting to keep their tactics confidential, but as both parties would have exchanged bundles, I fail to see the value of secrecy at this stage of proceedings! Obviously I have a lot to learn.

 

Carningli

[JonCris]

No matter if decided in the Scottish Courts litigated matters based on UK wide statute does have a bearing on the English Courts

[kennyh]

The law being tested in the Scottish case is definitely of UK application but if determined in a Scottish court it is not binding on English or Welsh courts.

As I understand it from earlier this thread, at the level this is currently being dealt with (ie not Fast Track or High Court) there's no question of any decision being 'binding'.

[bustthematrix]

No matter if decided in the Scottish Courts litigated matters based on UK wide statute does have a bearing on the English Courts

Legislatively yes, of course it has bearing. I think the point is more about whether or not it sets precedent in E & W, which I believe it doesn't.

 

It's being heard in a Sheriff's Court which I understand is akin to a County Court in England & Wales.

 

Sheriff (Scotland) = District Judge (E&W) ..............???

[Bookworm]

It wouldn't, no... but that's not the point.

 

It's not about legally binding at this stage, it's about giving us an indication as to whether the argument flies or not and whether it's worth all of us jumping on it.

 

If it goes to a higher court, then it's a different story, of course.

[TheyrCriminals]

Johnnymitch,

 

I do suspect, based on evidence, that claims are being thrown out of court and people are giving up (I am not one of those people). In answer to your question I would share it with the world if I had a legal argument that had a chance of standing up in court and was indeed going to trial - I would shout it from the rooftops because it makes absolutely no difference whether banks are watching these threads, a legal argument will either work or it wont no matter what is made public. It's just like Craningli says at Post *404 what on earth is the point of secrecy? The Scottish test case details were made very public remember although now we appear to have information access problems. To reiterate in response to previous posts the law being tested in the Scottish court is applicable to the whole of the UK not just Scotland but any decision from the Scottish court will not be binding on English courts but may have minor persuasive authority.

 

TheyrCriminals

[means2anend]

We should be cautiously optimistic....the fact that the banks are using this method to delay and not any legal substance is probably indicative that they are having problems making out a prima facie case...

 

m2ae:rolleyes:

[johnnymitch]

Johnnymitch,

 

I do suspect, based on evidence, that claims are being thrown out of court and people are giving up (I am not one of those people).

That would have happened anyway , the banks lied to the customers that there was no way they could now proceed with claims ...... we on here knew better ......

In answer to your question I would share it with the world if I had a legal argument that had a chance of standing up in court and was indeed going to trial - I would shout it from the rooftops because it makes absolutely no difference whether banks are watching these threads, a legal argument will either work or it wont no matter what is made public.

So ... you'd give them ammunition to shoot you down with .... doesn't seem like a good ploy to me ......

It's just like Craningli says at Post *404 what on earth is the point of secrecy? The Scottish test case details were made very public remember although now we appear to have information access problems.

 

The Scottish Test Case is only a private case being supported by the GLC and consequently not a lot of publicity could be given ....which is why I've urged caution until the Sheriff has made his decision in writing ...... if it goes against the banks , I wonder if they'd take it to a higher court .....there would be a danger of getting a High Court Direction against them ...

To reiterate in response to previous posts the law being tested in the Scottish court is applicable to the whole of the UK not just Scotland but any decision from the Scottish court will not be binding on English courts but may have minor persuasive authority.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one, TheyrCriminals , but that's what this site is about .........

[johnnymitch]

No matter if decided in the Scottish Courts litigated matters based on UK wide statute does have a bearing on the English Courts

 

 

That's the way I read it too ....... thanks joncris

[TheyrCriminals]

Johnnymitch,

 

'So ... you'd give them ammunition to shoot you down with .... doesn't seem like a good ploy to me ...... '

 

No I wouldn't! You have omitted the other points I raised. You don't seem to understand (and Im not being hostile at all) that it makes no difference to hide a valid legal argument from all the other CAG users because, and I'll say it again, - I would shout it from the rooftops because it makes absolutely no difference whether banks are watching these threads, a legal argument will either work or it wont no matter what is made public. To reiterate once more in response to previous posts the law being tested in the Scottish court is applicable to the whole of the UK not just Scotland but any decision from the Scottish court will not be binding on English courts but may have minor persuasive authority.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited June 16, 2010 by TheyrCriminals

[kennyh]

but may have minor persuasive authority.

 

Luverly turn of phrase!

[TheyrCriminals]

Kennyh,

 

Thanks, I picked up alot of this language during and on completion of my law degree.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited June 16, 2010 by TheyrCriminals

[hsbcfiddled]

that it makes no difference to hide a valid legal argument from all the other CAG users because, and I'll say it again, - I would shout it from the rooftops because it makes absolutely no difference whether banks are watching these threads, a legal argument will either work or it wont no matter what is made public.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

Hiding a small legal point may win ONE case - But like sooner or later, sooner I suspect, the banks will pick up on it and it will be worthless.

 

The more it is in the open, the more chance someone will hopefully find a legal challenge to whatever point the banks could come back with.

[Dougal16T]

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?

 

Evening everyone

Count me in......

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

[srfrench]

How do you know we aren't?

[TheyrCriminals]

Because you haven't told the vast majority of us!!!!

 

TheyrCriminals

[Bookworm]

a legal argument will either work or it wont no matter what is made public.

On the other hand, if you have found an angle they might not have thought of, it would be daft to give them advance warning of it. Yes, they'll have had the POC and other info, but they still need to work out the strategy and reasoning behind the documents provided. Discussing those openly on here would give them an additional edge they simply do not need to get.

 

Let's not forget as well that if a LIP were able to get the case thrown out before the hearing because of the bank's incompetence/negligence, they should get the chance to do so.

 

We should never lose sight of the goal here, and for each LIP, it is to get their money back from the bank, not to score a great goal for us all. If that happens as a consequence, great, but it would be unfair to ask of anyone to gamble their case for us.

 

For all that we are chomping at the bit, I agree that discretion is best at this point, there'll be plenty of time to crow if and when whoever is successful... or to tell us all to give it up, it ain't working. ;-)

[johnnymitch]

That's well put Bookie , thanks !

[rdm2006]

Also when a judge makes a "decision", it is the reasoning behind that decision which is far more effective than the decision itself, and therefore reaches further

[TheyrCriminals]

On the other hand, if you have found an angle they might not have thought of, it would be daft to give them advance warning of it. Yes, they'll have had the POC and other info, but they still need to work out the strategy and reasoning behind the documents provided. Discussing those openly on here would give them an additional edge they simply do not need to get.

 

Let's not forget as well that if a LIP were able to get the case thrown out before the hearing because of the bank's incompetence/negligence, they should get the chance to do so.

 

We should never lose sight of the goal here, and for each LIP, it is to get their money back from the bank, not to score a great goal for us all. If that happens as a consequence, great, but it would be unfair to ask of anyone to gamble their case for us.

 

For all that we are chomping at the bit, I agree that discretion is best at this point, there'll be plenty of time to crow if and when whoever is successful... or to tell us all to give it up, it ain't working. ;-)

 

I give up!!! Over the next two weeks I will try and save up (and beg and plead) to get together enough money to pay a reputable solicitor for a couple of hours work so that he/she can read through the Supreme Court judgement, hopefully he/she can elicit any scraps there may be in it that we as consumers can use to formulate a strong legal argument that has a chance of success in court. I will of course bring to his/her attention the S.5 UTCCR argument and the new legal avenue found under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). I will also put to the solicitor the negative response I have received from the bank in relation to the two new legal arguments. If I receive any hope from the solicitor I will bring it to this forum immediately and share it with you all. Keep up the faith 'cos it aint over yet. Please be aware that the Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court has given all bank charge claimants until the 30th November 2010 to request to have the stay imposed on their case removed. Time is now of the essence! Wish me the best of British...oh no on second thoughts just wish me luck.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited June 16, 2010 by TheyrCriminals

[caro]

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

 

Didn't know that. Thanks JC.

[rebel11]

Basically the banks said earlier that the charges covered costs incurred by them, and they didn't make a dime in profit. Now it turns out they make billions in profit from charges and it's their core business, but they still can't give us a breakdown of how much it costs. As an example say it costs them £1.50, on £12 thats 700% profit. Thats excessive. I can't think of any other industry where you could get away with that. If the supermarkets increased a pint of milk by 700% the OFT would be all over them, this is pretty much the same.