Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[Bigdebtor]

Also if their "assumptions" were grossly out - then shouldn't they "recalculate" based on actual 20-20 hind sight what the charges SHOULD have been "to cover costs" and REFUND us the difference NOW?

 

BD

[kennyh]

Just to get back on the original subject - the current situation is? and hearing date is??

[hsbcfiddled]

Yes Kenny, I too would like to know when and where we are up to with the case itself?

[kennyh]

Hallelujah - thought I was alone out there, and if others have the same degree of difficulty signing in since the intro of the revised style( and I have sent pm to the organisers), I might just have been.

[manchesteruni]

You could always email or call Mike and ask him what the current state of play is ?

[hsbcfiddled]

Just want to see if there is any hope?

[hsbcfiddled]

Hallelujah - thought I was alone out there, and if others have the same degree of difficulty signing in since the intro of the revised style( and I have sent pm to the organisers), I might just have been.

 

I prefer old one too!

[rebel11]

If you track back a bit on this thread, Mike did an update, as much as he could.

[Bigdebtor]

Can you tell us what post no?

[middenmess]

Please can you advise when the SharpvBOS case is due to be heard?

25 August 2010 16:59

Anonymous said... Please GLC - when will the Sharp case be heard?

7 September 2010 16:40

 

Govan Law Centre said... The court has appointed a two day 'debate' in the Sharp case i.e. a hearing on the legal arguments. The date is awaited, but is expected to take place in the next few weeks. GLC is also pursuing other unfair bank charges test cases - we will post information on these as soon as possible.

7 September 2010 17:24

Edited October 7, 2010 by middenmess
added to

[rebel11]

Hi Bigdebtor

 

Here you go:-

 

Quick note to say we haven't advised any of our clients to give up!

 

We've enrolled a motion to sist (stay) in Walls v. Santander

UK plc pending an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Walls v. United Kingdom. The ECtHR has to first determine whether the application is admissible (having regard to its new, revised criteria). Admittedly, the ECtHR process is slow, but that does not cause any difficulty.

 

Essentially, this approach is designed to preserve our client's rights, prompt law reform, and also to potentially protect the rights of other consumers who have to drop the cases for fear of costs i.e. because if the ECtHR case was successful (in principle) certain consumers might be entitled to sue the state for damages. Not ideal, as it should be the banks, but at least it could preserve a right to recompense for disenfranchised citizens.

 

The key target is of course the banks and their unfair charges. In that regard, we have a number of cases proceeding (including Sharp v. Bank of Scotland

plc, and Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc, among others).

 

The banks have put forward highly technical and complex legal defences which will require to be 'debated'. It won't be easy, they are throwing a lot of money at defending these cases, and we do not underestimate the challenge, however, I anticipate having a decision on the banks relevancy and competency defences later this year.

 

So, at present there is no reason to give up hope.

 

Mike

Govan Law Centre

 

 

M1

[waronwant]

Thanks so much for that update. I feel like the biggest pessimist now that I realised I was assuming the worst because there was no news. GLC is doing amazing work just now, hopefully we'll really start to get somewhere with the dishonest banks.

 

I'll just have to remember from now on: no news is good news!

[rebel11]

The banks need a wake up call, they need to be hurt, yes we are in an unfortunate time, thanks to no economic planning, no regulation, no discipline, other wise the banks will carry on in the same vein. It would be nice if the banks had to report a loss to their shareholders.

[JGJ]

Hi all,

 

My claims are stayed in the court system until November pending my application to amend POCs, my first

 

application was adjourned by the District Judge pending my seeking further legal advice re the amended POCs.

 

Seeing as there has been no further amended POCs forthcoming, what are my options now ??

 

Would it be the wise thing to reluctantly Discontinue the claims to try to avoid legal costs against me, or could I ask

 

for further time to seek ongoing legal advice.

 

Time is running out rapidly, all advice/information will as always be gratefully

 

received.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Edited October 13, 2010 by JGJ
Added Text

[kennyh]

Mike (GLC) - very many thanks - give up; NEVER. Change direction? Yes if I must but what a learning curve this is.

[Bigdebtor]

Kenny

 

Just to clarify - that is not an UP TO DATE reply from Mike Dailly of GLC - was actually sent several months ago.

 

I share your impatience in the lack of news - but I suppose if things are in limbo awaiting further court action then there is no news to give us?

 

These Banks are despicable - I see they are now wriggling over the forthcoming new rules on missold Payment Protection policies - and still paying out £7 billion of OUR money in bonuses:evil:.

 

BD

[middenmess]

The banks need a wake up call, they need to be hurt, yes we are in an unfortunate time, thanks to no economic planning, no regulation, no discipline, other wise the banks will carry on in the same vein. It would be nice if the banks had to report a loss to their shareholders.

 

If we stop bailing them out to the tune of billions of pounds they would be so doing!

[JGJ]

Any takers for my post #814

 

All advice/info will be gratefully received.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[kennyh]

Thanks for pointing that out bd, but even with the tardiness of the legal system surely (and NO, I'm not calling you a 'girly' name) they should have had their 'debate' by now!?

[Bigdebtor]

I think I saw something about it being in early December - but not sure where I saw this.

 

BD

[vacma373]

Any takers for my post #814

 

All advice/info will be gratefully received.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Hi JGJ

 

Went to my lawyers about different matter (default removal) and this subject came up. She said it`s possible to throw in the towel and come back at it later esp if with different POCs.

 

Obv this time round you`d lose court fees paid so far, but Sharpe case and others are being presented by by barristers and will clear up many of the outstanding arguments for us if they win. On the flip side if they lose I don`t fancy LIPs chances. Your call, but best of luck either way.

[kennyh]

bd - fair'nuff

[JGJ]

Any takers for post #814

 

I fear the "Sword of Damocles" is being honed for the slaughter!!

[JGJ]

vacma373,

 

Thank you for the heads up and the info and good wishes they are greatly received. It appears not

 

many posters are willing or able to offer any kind of support as I have said previously the "Sword of Damocles" is

 

definately hovering.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[Bigdebtor]

JGJ

 

Given what Vacma says, I would either ask DJ now for more time (to see outcome of Sharpe v HBOS and other cases) - or if the DJ won't play ball then discontinue and issue new POC after these cases clarify matters.

 

BD