Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[elsinore]

Latest from GLC

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/12/confidence-must-be-restored-in.html

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/12/scotlands-justice-secretary-must-back.html

[Undercover-Elsa]

Consumers in Scotland are being denied justice against UK banks according to the MSP for Glasgow Ballieston, Margaret Curran, who is the local constituency MSP and MP for GLC's client Jennifer Sharp....

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/12/scotlands-justice-secretary-must-back.html

[oilyrag]

Is it fresh wild Salmon or genetically modified farmed Salmon---- I am told the flavours are different?

 

oilyrag

[Bigdebtor]

Oily

 

it's Salmond with a D - which is the grade he should get for his "efforts" as Scottish First Minister (he's actually the fourth First Minister!) with all his broken promises and mismanagement over the last 4 years - not to mention a feckless Justice Minister who is in charge of SLAB and a recently-resigned Transport Minister who brought us all that snow last week!

 

BTW - Salmond used be employed by (I nearly said work for) RBS!

 

BTW (too) - I see the Irish governement have banned AIB from paying any bonuses this year - but our useless UK Right Wing Government sits back and lets our banks pay out £7 billion in bonuses this year. Even in the "boom" year of 2007 (before their various houses of cards collapsed) they "only" paid out £11.5 billion. If their bonuses are related to profits then surely they should be paying US for the huge losses made by them in 2008 and 2009?

 

BD

[seriously fed up]

Bearing in mind Mike Dailly's post (#933) on 10th December at 19.33, can I ask why the CAG newsletter states quite clearly "Scottish Legal Aid Board kills off hope of reclaiming unfair bank charges in Scotland"

 

I think Mike's point was that clearly the decision was a set back but that it was being appealed and could be subject to judicial review.

[Michael Browne]

Bearing in mind Mike Dailly's post (#933) on 10th December at 19.33, can I ask why the CAG newsletter states quite clearly "Scottish Legal Aid Board kills off hope of reclaiming unfair bank charges in Scotland"

 

I think Mike's point was that clearly the decision was a set back but that it was being appealed and could be subject to judicial review.

Could it possibly be that the headline of the Govan Law blog is:

 

 

Access to justice denied: Scottish Legal Aid Board kills off hope of reclaiming unfair bank charges in Scotland

 

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/12/access-to-justice-denied-scottish-legal.html

[seriously fed up]

Cant argue with that - but the blog is dated 7th December while Mike's most recent post on here - the one I refer to is dated the 10th. I think perhaps the point is that unless or until SLAB are persuaded to change their mind, the blog is how it is. But the point about the posting on the 10th is that Mike might have lost a battle, but not yet the war.

[oldpeculiar]

Civil Legal Aid in Scotland is a joke and has been for several years. Try getting it for a welfare benefits case, its impossible.

 

[cynic09]

Can't be having any of this free speech nonsense in a capitalist society. It strikes at the very heart of the rich's god given right to profit by deception

[kennyh]

I can't believe that everyone is wealthy enough to b****r off for the festivities - but no posts for 3 weeks!!!!

Any chance of a 'where we are now' assessment from someone ( and no references to paddles/canoes/ creeks etc); given the significant number of legal actions ongoing, it would be really good to track them.

I would wish one and all the very best but given the absolute lack of ability shown by the ruling classes (and I don't believe we've missed the opportunity to see the population take to the streets) such a greeting might be construed as facetious in the extreme.

[johnnymitch]

And a Happy New Year to you Kennyh ... and mony 'o them !

 

I'd be interested to know myself where we are with this at the moment . ....I wait with interest ............ meanwhile ... lang may yer lum reek !

[manchesteruni]

I don't know how Govan is getting on since the last round of news, but there was a case heard in Anglesey today using the ''new'' arguments (CCA 140 and so on ) against Santander. Details are elsewhere, but basically the case was dismissed and the Judge indicated he would be using Santander's Skeleton Arguments word for word as his judgment in the case. Thankfully he also refused to award any costs to Santander. The case was a low value case (under £1k) and no specific examples of unfair relationship or financial difficulty due to the charges were put forwards but the bank still sent a barrister up from London to defend which shows they have not become any more complacent in these cases. Not huge news but possibly of interest to CAGGERS following this thread.

[The abused]

Sending of a barrister that was not cheap. Just shows you the degree they will go to to keep something which is not theirs. To write the sum off would have been less costly. I suppose they will stick some other unfair charges on some other poor buggers account to get the money back,

 

It is done to frighten and intimidate people. It makes you think if these banking institutions have any morals, perhaps thats why the bosses get paid big bonuses to compensate for their lack of sleep at night.

 

The government aint interested as they want the bailed out banks to make as much as possible. Perhaps a demonstration should be called for.

 

I wonder at what interest rates MPs get loans for. Yes this country has taken corruptness to a new level

[rebel11]

The only thing that would stop the banks is if they had real competition and they stopped making huge profits, they would then have to retain money to pay shareholders dividends and they would have to reconsider the amount they spend on legal costs.

 

Sending of a barrister that was not cheap. Just shows you the degree they will go to to keep something which is not theirs. To write the sum off would have been less costly. I suppose they will stick some other unfair charges on some other poor buggers account to get the money back,

 

It is done to frighten and intimidate people. It makes you think if these banking institutions have any morals, perhaps thats why the bosses get paid big bonuses to compensate for their lack of sleep at night.

 

The government aint interested as they want the bailed out banks to make as much as possible. Perhaps a demonstration should be called for.

 

I wonder at what interest rates MPs get loans for. Yes this country has taken corruptness to a new level

[Bigdebtor]

I agree - Our Old Etonian Government should be setting up the Post Office to provide real competition - instead of trying to sell it off to their Capitalist pals on the cheap! I tried to get the following thread going on this very topic over a year ago - but only got one other poster!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?236622-Let-s-set-up-a-quot-Peoples-Bank!&p=2623947&viewfull=1#post2623947

 

BD

Edited January 10, 2011 by Bigdebtor

[Aequitas]

So what is wrong with charging everyone for personal banking based on actual usage of facilities?

 

Nothing at all. It was what banks used to do and were happy doing. They gradually caved in to consumer pressure which resulted in the present system which seemed great until we started slipping into the red.

 

Be careful what you ask for as you may get it.

[Bigdebtor]

Personally I'd love it. One payment in and 3 direct debits out per month and other monthly spending on free (or even money back) credit (or free debit) cards and a single payment out of my account to settle in full. In any case if Banks ARE competitive then some would offer better deals than others.

 

BD

[Undercover-Elsa]

Sadly the Post Office Current Account plans, announced last February by Labour, were thrown out by the Coalition in November this year

[Bigdebtor]

What a surprise:roll:.

 

I note Fred the Shreds successor at RBS (the baldy guy with the forgettable name and personality) is in line for £2.5m bonus - despite his outfit getting fined the same mount for shoddy handling of complaints. Why should the shareholders (i.e us) - pay this? The RBS directors should pay it themselves!.

[rdm2006]

Now that is what I call interesting

 

Under the UTCCR a consumer association can make a complaint to the director general of fair trading which he/she is then under a duty to consider.

 

The UK Consumers Association now trades as “Which” (Google - UK Consumer Association)

 

Therefore, if “Which” were to complain that the term allowing a bank to make charges was unfair as there is no provision for the consumer to apply the same charges should the roles be reversed (UTCCR Schedule 2 item D), then the director general of fair trading would be duty bound to consider it, and as there is no provision - there can be only one result

 

He can also ask for an injunction to stop those charges.

 

do we all complain to “Which”?

Edited January 19, 2011 by rdm2006

[rebel11]

That doesn't sound remotely fair, as they have subscribers and not very representative.

 

Now that is what I call interesting

 

Under the UTCCR a consumer association can make a complaint to the director general of fair trading which he/she is then under a duty to consider.

 

The UK Consumers Association now trades as “Which” (Google - UK Consumer Association)

 

Therefore, if “Which” were to complain that the term allowing a bank to make charges was unfair as there is no provision for the consumer to apply the same charges should the roles be reversed (UTCCR Schedule 2 item D), then the director general of fair trading would be duty bound to consider it, and as there is no provision - there can be only one result

 

do we all complain to “Which”?

[rdm2006]

That doesn't soundn't sound remotely fair, as they have subscribers and not very representative.

 

They have subscribers to the magazines which they produce.

 

are the banks being fair?

 

Perhaps CAG should apply to be the new consumers association............

[bustthematrix]

Rdm2006, what would it achieve? And why "Which?" in particular? Are there not others? Why not CAG for example?

 

Rebel11, what's so unfair about it? They do have subscribers etc, but over the years they've campaigned on a number of issues that affects everyone. I think it's the result that counts - any person/association with the voice to get the OFT to lift it's finger would be suitable, no?

[rdm2006]

Rdm2006, what would it achieve? And why "Which?" in particular? Are there not others? Why not CAG for example?

 

Rebel11, what's so unfair about it? They do have subscribers etc, but over the years they've campaigned on a number of issues that affects everyone. I think it's the result that counts - any person/association with the voice to get the OFT to lift it's finger would be suitable, no?

 

Why "Which"? - because "Which" is the trading name for the UK's Consumer association (as stated in the post lol)

 

What would it achieve? - the removal of the term which allows them to make the charges and therefore, leaving them unable to make such charges regardless of the level.

 

Also as no provision ever existed then historical charges would also be unfair.

Edited January 19, 2011 by rdm2006

[rebel11]

Hi bust

 

No, I'd rather CAB or Consumer Focus, once they've decided 'Which' toaster I should think of buying.

 

 

 

Rdm2006, what would it achieve? And why "Which?" in particular? Are there not others? Why not CAG for example?

 

Rebel11, what's so unfair about it? They do have subscribers etc, but over the years they've campaigned on a number of issues that affects everyone. I think it's the result that counts - any person/association with the voice to get the OFT to lift it's finger would be suitable, no?