Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[Bigdebtor]

I totally agree - but I'm also now very confused!

 

Was it the review application that was refused in the attached quote - or the original application? If so, whose appeal was turned down and when is the GLC review application due to be considered?

 

"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."

[rdm2006]

That was taken from an update.

 

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

 

SLAB's reply to GLC.

 

Looks like a bit of back pedalling to me 8)

 

try and keep up BD lol

Edited December 10, 2010 by rdm2006

[Bigdebtor]

RDM

 

In response I think I'll take my lead from SLAB and say I was only acting on the information already provided.

 

Like SLAB I'm perfectly entitled to go around with my eyes closed, not read papers, not know anything about the vast numbers of other people still suffering hardship due to extortionate Bank charges etc.etc. 8-) They thought Ms Sharp was unique. I thought I was!

 

In fact when I think about it, the main difference between me and SLAB is I am not cushioned by a huge public sector salary and inflation proof pension. Thus I DO know all about how unfair Bank Charges are - and am suffering from their effects every day! Also - unlike SLAB, I do not get offended when I'm quite rightly told I'm not keeping up as well as I should!

 

BD

 

PS - BTW Thanks for the update - most encouraging. Something tells me they're a bit phased and pretty scared by GLC who seems to not be paying by the rules of the Old Boys' Club! More power to their elbow!

[oilyrag]

The Govan Law Centre are to be congratulated on their principled stand. Perhaps their colleagues elsewhere would like to take a leaf out their book. They deserve all our moral support even if we have little by way of material support.

 

Regards

oilyrag.

[Bigdebtor]

Oily

 

I totally agree!

 

Hopefully if - no! - WHEN !!!! - GLC win, not only will HBOS have to repay what SLAB have put up - but GLC will be able to claim a suitably substantial payment from HBOS in the way of costs awarded for a job well done!

 

I really hope this is the case and that GLC's public spirited stance does not exclude them from the same trough as the "best" (more accurately - the most expensive) advocates money (and the old school tie) can buy.

 

After all if these same "cream of the faculty" are beaten by GLC then it's only fair GLC are paid more than these same advocates from the Edinburgh Old Boys' Club!

 

BD

[Govan Law Centre]

Friday, 10 December 2010

GLC response to Scottish Legal Aid Board statement re bank charges

 

On Wednedsay 8 December 2010 the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) issued a formal statement in relation to GLC's case of Sharp v. Bank of Scotland and the generally availablity of civil legal aid for Scottish consumers to pursue claims for unfair bank charges.

 

SLAB alleged that "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". That assertion was false. The statutory statement at page 19 of the application expressly stated the strong public interest in this case, on the following basis:

 

"Page 19: Para 5. On the motion of the opponents these proceedings were remitted to the ordinary cause roll due to exceptional complexity. The applicant also seeks an order under the 1974 Act to prohibit any further charges being levied to her account in the future. Approximately 100,000 people in Scotland lodged complaints with their bank seeking a refund of overdraft charges, and therefore, there is a very strong public interest element to this case".

 

Before SLAB issued its original refusal of legal aid in this case on 12 October 2010, Dundas + Wilson, solicitors for the Bank of Scotland, lodged a 6 page letter of objections to SLAB on 27 August raising exceptionally complex and novel points of consumer credit law, issues around the UK Supreme Court's decision in OFT v. Abbey Nationals and others, and contentious issues around the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, as well as complex issues of fact, in objection to the granting of civil legal aid in this case.

 

GLC responded to these points on 14 September 2010 with an equally complex and detailed letter. The fact such novel points of law were at stake - from a Scottish and UK perspective - with such a massive public interest to at least 100,000 Scottish consumers (and by implication 900,000 consumers in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland), renders it extremely worrying that SLAB has chosen to falsely claim none of these issues were mentioned to them.

 

 

Separately, SLAB had claimed "GLC’s press release suggests that legal aid is unlikely to be obtained for certain cases. This is not accurate". We have just received another refusal of civil legal aid, this time in the case of Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc, where SLAB once again rely on the 'cost/benefit test'. GLC believes the that ridgid reliance on this test is unreasonable, irrational and unlawful for the reasons set out in our most recent letter to SLAB.

 

GLC's Principal Solicitor, Mike Dailly, said: "The Scottish Legal Aid Board's statement is fundamentally flawed and represents a failure to accept responsibility. It claims that GLC made 'no mention' of the wider public interest of the case when we lodged our client's application for legal aid. We believe, the Board's CEO should apologise for that false and unfair statement, and take responsibility for the self-evident failure to correctly apply the statutory tests in this case".

[rebel11]

Thanks for the update Mike. People really have to question SLAB, how can they not no the relevance of their decision and how it would effect many thousands of citizens through out the UK.

[Govan Law Centre]

Absolutely, but we're really positive that the Legal Aid Board will get this right and grant legal aid here; if not we can judicially review them urgently, and the legal aid application for such a JR challenge can ultimately be decided by the court (given the conflict of interest), so we are optimistic. But we want to get a move on as the delay has been unacceptable, and it's time to move up a few gears.

 

Mike

[kennyh]

Mike,

Even with the obvious ability and depth of knowledge within GLC, this appears to be one hell of a learning curve

May all our Gods go with you.

[Crazy Diamond]

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

 

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

Woops, they're not happy at having their decision exposed to the public at large, are they?

[Crazy Diamond]

 

"Page 19: Para 5. On the motion of the opponents these proceedings were remitted to the ordinary cause roll due to exceptional complexity. The applicant also seeks an order under the 1974 Act to prohibit any further charges being levied to her account in the future. Approximately 100,000 people in Scotland lodged complaints with their bank seeking a refund of overdraft charges, and therefore, there is a very strong public interest element to this case".

 

Well that obviously was too obscure for them, poor lads.

[Bigdebtor]

I very confiused:???:. The Banks clearly stated for years the charges were only to "cover our costs". Given that this must be true (as the Banks have said so and wouldn't ever tell lies) then surely all they need to do is to present the evidence to prove this was true to the Sheriff and we will all then know once and for all that their charges just covered their costs and were therefore perfectly fair. Of course that would mean they told the nice judges at the Supreme Court porky pies!

 

I think it's a shame the Banks have had to go to this extra expense (which they can ill afford after paying out £7 billion in bonuses) and a lot of trouble in opposing the granting of legal aid when they appear to have done nothing wrong - only covering their costs as any prudent business needs to do. Poor Banks!

 

I'm also very confused why they don't seem to want this tested in court given they clearly have nothing to hide and have never ever tried to profiteer from those uinfortunate enough to end up with an unauthorised overdraft.

 

I also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa and a Pot of Gold at the end of every the Rainbow (which I'll sell at the very best prices to one of the many postal gold companies). As we say in Govan - AYE....RIGHT!!

 

Good luck and awrabest to GLC - nil illegitimi carborundum!

 

BD

[rebel11]

They've gone as far as to tell the Treasuary Committee that the charges only cover costs, as where as now they claim it's part of there core business.

It's all documented. The Treasury Committee represent the people of this country, so ulimately the banks haven't told the committee the truth.

 

I very confiused:???:. The Banks clearly stated for years the charges were only to "cover our costs". Given that this must be true (as the Banks have said so and wouldn't ever tell lies) then surely all they need to do is to present the evidence to prove this was true to the Sheriff and we will all then know once and for all that their charges just covered their costs and were therefore perfectly fair. Of course that would mean they told the nice judges at the Supreme Court porky pies!

 

I think it's a shame the Banks have had to go to this extra expense (which they can ill afford after paying out £7 billion in bonuses) and a lot of trouble in opposing the granting of legal aid when they appear to have done nothing wrong - only covering their costs as any prudent business needs to do. Poor Banks!

 

I'm also very confused why they don't seem to want this tested in court given they clearly have nothing to hide and have never ever tried to profiteer from those uinfortunate enough to end up with an unauthorised overdraft.

 

I also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa and a Pot of Gold at the end of every the Rainbow (which I'll sell at the very best prices to one of the many postal gold companies). As we say in Govan - AYE....RIGHT!!

 

Good luck and awrabest to GLC - nil illegitimi carborundum!

 

BD

[jdes26]

i think this will drag on and on!!!! sure we all want a result but this is much bigger and corrupt than any of us can imagine!!! this is basically theft from the small people to pay the big big people and im sure that it will never change!!!!

[Bigdebtor]

I'm sure this wasn't a deliberate lie - but just the banks getting confused!

 

I wouldn't like ot see them prosecuted for perjury - having simply made an "honest" mistake.

 

I believe in "live and let live" - so if HBOS will just refund me the £5k I have built up in unauthorsied overdraft charges and interest - incurred through a combination of my own confusion and innocent mistakes (as funnily enough I never deliberately set out to incur such charges) - then I'll say no more about it!

 

Of course to be fair, then all the banks will need to refund the billions gained from all such charges to all of us (other than those who wanted to pay them) - but I'm sure they won't want to hold on to such cash when they realise we never meant to pay it - and were just as confused and mistaken as they appear to have been recently!

 

Perhaps all that is needed is to extend them the hand of friendship and embrace the spirit of forgiveness and redemption at this special time of year.

 

On the other hand we could give local construction firms a welcome boost (during this bank-induced recession) by building gallows in every town square and then hang the lot of them!

 

BD

[oilyrag]

I would second your latter proposal BD and commend it to the house.

 

And rebel, the web of lies, deceit and corruption now extend to every walk of life sadly, medicine, NHS (un)civil service, politicians, courts, legals, all areas in fact that lay claim to the moral high ground of being "pillars of society".

 

I have read both "Das Kapital" and "Mein Campf" which way should we go?

regards

oilyrag.

[kennyh]

They've gone as far as to tell the Treasuary Committee that the charges only cover costs, as where as now they claim it's part of there core business.

 

Since this has been clearly known now for some while, is it not possible to challenge these lies and perfidy in a court case; just to keep us jogging along whilst GLC do their thing. If so then some guidance on poc etc would be most welcome - come on Banky et al; givus some pointers.

[enaid]

The Supreme Court judgment effectively quashed any prospect of mounting a challenge on the basis of how the charges were previously accounted for or presented:

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decid...0_Judgment.pdf

 

88. When the relevant facts are viewed as a whole, it seems clear that the Relevant Charges are not concealed default charges designed to discourage customers from overdrawing on their accounts without prior arrangement. Whatever may have been the position in the past, the Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part of the revenue that they generate from the current account services. If they did not receive the Relevant Charges they would not be able profitably to provide current account services to their customers in credit without making a charge to augment the value of the

use of their funds.

 

 

[kennyh]

Yup - I am aware of the mis-named Robin Hood scenario; I was wondering whether there was any other avenue worth exploring

[Dougal16T]

Absolutely, but we're really positive that the Legal Aid Board will get this right and grant legal aid here; if not we can judicially review them urgently, and the legal aid application for such a JR challenge can ultimately be decided by the court (given the conflict of interest), so we are optimistic. But we want to get a move on as the delay has been unacceptable, and it's time to move up a few gears.

 

Mike

 

 

Mike, and all at GLC,

 

You are indeed paving new grounds for others possibly to tread and I personally wish you all the very best.

 

Your star is plainly in the ascendency!

 

Sincere best wishes from a mere Southerner,

 

Dougal

[Bigdebtor]

The Supreme Court judgment effectively quashed any prospect of mounting a challenge on the basis of how the charges were previously accounted for or presented:

 

 

88. When the relevant facts are viewed as a whole, it seems clear that the Relevant Charges are not concealed default charges designed to discourage customers from overdrawing on their accounts without prior arrangement. Whatever may have been the position in the past, the Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part of the revenue that they generate from the current account services. If they did not receive the Relevant Charges they would not be able profitably to provide current account services to their customers in credit without making a charge to augment the value of the

use of their funds.

 

 

 

Point 1. If £39 a go isn't designed to "discourage" us then God help us when they TRY to discourage us! I can tell the SC - even £5 would discourage me!

Also there is no point in discouraging someone from something they have no control over - These were NOT discretionary payments which could be easily avoided by most labouring under unauthorised overdraft. I am stronly discouraged from drowning, dying in a fire or car crash - and try to avoid such risks - but if I end up in the situation I will have no choice in the outcome - same with unauthorised overdraft charges.

 

Point2. So what is wrong with charging everyone for personal banking based on actual usage of facilities? This would be discretionary as they claim there is adequate competition - so let some banks try one method and some the other and let the "market" decide. However ALL charged similar punitive unauthorised overdraft charges - NO MARKET CHOICE - CARTEL - CRIMINAL OFFENCE - HANG 'EM HIGH!

 

Point 3. Both claims of "cover our costs" or "core part of revenue" CANNOT be true - so one is a lie - so PERJURY - criminal offence - HANG 'EM HIGH!

 

BD

[elsinore]

Scottish Legal Aid Board update

 

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/documents/13DECEMBERSharpvBankofScotlandstatementFINAL.pdf

[jdes26]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

i still think they will reject

 

alex salmon or whoever he is will prob poke his five eggs in

[citizenB]

For goodness sakes, how wider a public interest does there need to be ??

[Bigdebtor]

Are these overpaid pen pushers in SLAB the ONLY people who don't know just how widespread the fraudulent actions of the banks have spread, how much has been wrongly taken from us and and how much pent up anger there is in the general public?

 

They shell out millions in legal aid to criminals with a record as long as your arm - but try to wriggle out of cases like this because the information was in the wrong place! I'm going to stop now before I get really angry! :-x

 

BD