Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[tifo]

I was thinking more of this part.

 

The aim of Article 6 of the Directive, which requires Member States to lay down that unfair terms are not binding on the consumer, would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfair nature of such terms. In disputes where the amounts involved are often limited, the lawyers' fees may be higher than the amount at stake, which may deter the consumer from contesting the application of an unfair term. While it is the case that, in a number of Member States, procedural rules enable individuals to defend themselves in such proceedings, there is a real risk that the consumer, particularly because of ignorance of the law, will not challenge the term pleaded against him on the grounds that it is unfair. It follows that effective protection of the consumer may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion.

 

i.e the court should raise this of its own motion at no risk of cost to the consumer.

 

Where's this part from in the EC directive?

[tifo]

How about Article 3(2) of the EC directive: Perfect for banking contracts. Using this, there would be no need for a court to assess unfairness since it is always unfair by law. 3(1) has been implemented as Ref 5(1) UTCCR but where is (2). If the bank states any term has been negotiated, its for them to prove. Anyone?

 

1. A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

2. A term shall always be regarded as not individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term, particularly in the context of a pre-formulated standard contract.

[Surfer01]

Wait a wee minute Jimmy! Whit's this aboot an English Parliament?

 

There are currently 2 (twa) Parliaments in the UK the noo - wan in Edinburgh run by Scotsmen and the UK Parliament in London - also run by Scotsmen!

 

Wales and Northern Ireland only have Assemblies - because they were conquered - but Scotland was NEVER conquered - and never ruled by an ENGLISH Parliament.

 

BD

So why have we got a Scottish git running English parliament instead of the Scottish parliament? Wasn't he good enough for a Scottish parliament? Are you passing on your bottom of thje barrel politicians to us

[tifo]

So why have we got a Scottish git running English parliament instead of the Scottish parliament?

 

Apparently an angry Scot

[HSBCrusher]

I have been away from cag for a day or two... and come back to this.

 

this is quite excellent stuff Govan Law Centre, my hat is off to you!

[means2anend]

Where's this part from in the EC directive?

 

It is in the case law.

 

 

m2ae

[means2anend]

So why have we got a Scottish git running English parliament instead of the Scottish parliament? Wasn't he good enough for a Scottish parliament? Are you passing on your bottom of thje barrel politicians to us

 

Listen guys I certainly aint Helen of Troy

 

sheeeez ...not another civil war...;-)

[Bigdebtor]

So why have we got a Scottish git running English parliament instead of the Scottish parliament? Wasn't he good enough for a Scottish parliament? Are you passing on your bottom of thje barrel politicians to us

 

If you go back to 1603 you will see we gave you a Scottish King to run you lot way back then - and since 1707 we Scots have usually been in the front row of the UK (NB - Not ENGLISH) Parliament - even if you want the big one eyed Scot put out of power - just think - where does the name Cameron come from?

 

BTW - even the bottom of our barrels has some bl**dy good stuff still left in it sonny boy!

 

BD

[hsbcfiddled]

If you go back to 1603 you will see we gave you a Scottish King to run you lot way back then - and since 1707 we Scots have usually been in the front row of the UK (NB - Not ENGLISH) Parliament - even if you want the big one eyed Scot put out of power - just think - where does the name Cameron come from?

 

BTW - even the bottom of our barrels has some bl**dy good stuff still left in it sonny boy!

 

BD

 

This is not really the place for this drivel.

History is whats happened- It goes with Remember.

[means2anend]

If you go back to 1603 you will see we gave you a Scottish King to run you lot way back then - and since 1707 we Scots have usually been in the front row of the UK (NB - Not ENGLISH) Parliament - even if you want the big one eyed Scot put out of power - just think - where does the name Cameron come from?

 

BTW - even the bottom of our barrels has some bl**dy good stuff still left in it sonny boy!

 

BD

 

 

Hee! Hee! Hee!

:grin:

[Bigdebtor]

This is not really the place for this drivel.

History is whats happened- It goes with Remember.

 

Sorry if you're offended or bored by it - just trying to add a bit of light hearted banter to a very serious topic!

[hsbcfiddled]

Sorry if you're offended or bored by it - just trying to add a bit of light hearted banter to a very serious topic!

 

 

No! Sorry i misread your banter. Banter is fine by me.

 

apologies

[breeze1996]

Maybe this year will bring some bright spots after all.

[majorclanger100]

oh we all love the GLC! Well done!:D:D

 

I'm a bit thick with the s140 of the CCA argument though, as didn't this come into force in 2008 - where does that leave those of us with charges before 2007/2008?

 

I know I'm jumping the gun a bit but I can't wait to start planning my next attack on those smug gits at Barclays!!!

[Helford]

The BBC has now picked this up.

 

BBC News - Bank overdraft charges face new legal attack

 

Loved this quote; "It would be inappropriate to comment on any customer case before the courts as it is still part of an ongoing legal process," said a bank spokesman.

[Its WAR]

Well , I have two cases that were stayed. Both stays are lifted and the hearings are in April & May.

 

I could do with the amended POCs now, or a strategy to delay the hearings. It seems dumb to go to court and risk losing, whilst a more professional case is happening at the same time.

 

Unless of course, the strategy is full steam ahead and get the banks to make an offer.

 

Any advice urgently needed.

[noomill060]

Apparently an angry Scot

 

 

An angry Scot who clearly needs a slap to put him back in his box.

 

Slap to be administered on May 6th.

 

What all this about a Scottish Parliament?

 

Its an Assembly. You can have a Parliament when you get cast adrift, along with your rusty old empty oil wells.

 

(We got the Falklands oil to play with now) 8-)

[kennyh]

You can have a Parliament when you get cast adrift, along with your rusty old empty oil wells.

And when you can afford the expenses

[noomill060]

They could always reopen Linwood car plant and start making Hillman Imps again...

[rdm2006]

Where's this part from in the EC directive?

 

Links originally posted by M2AE on another thread here

[PGH7447]

Its made the news

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-finance-industry/248669-bank-overdraft-charges-face.html

 

[EricTheRed]

Does anybody know if this is a hardship claim or a general claim for return of all Mrs Sharps charges?

[rdm2006]

I wonder how they will attempt to defend this one ?

 

Since they have stated in supreme court that the charges are cross subsidies they cannot now say they are administrative.... OOOPS

[Gaznkaz08]

i had a hardship claim partially settled last year(out of court) pending the results of the test case at £3300 less than the total of charges and stat interest

 

if this did work and as it is a new angle would i be able to go after the remainder of my claim as a new claim

[tifo]

if this did work and as it is a new angle would i be able to go after the remainder of my claim as a new claim

 

Yes, you can still claim the remaining amount, anytime, so why not give it a go?

 

Any refund during the test case MUST have stated it's not in full and final settlement, as per the FSA waiver rules.