Santander succeed in having charges case removed from small claims track ***WON***

[kennyh]

How's it go " Praise the GLC and pass the ammunition"!

Just off to order a quire or two of printer paper and copious ink catridges.

Well done folks.

[waronwant]

Brilliant news! Why are they still allowed to hide by paying though? Obviously they have illegal/unfair practises if they are unwilling to be investigated fully in court.

[noomill060]

The banks never did have the b@lls to try and justify their charges in the lower courts. They just paid up to avoid getting a kicking until their friends at the FSA imposed the infamous waiver when they could legally tell you to foxtrot oscar.

 

Sometimes they just coughed up on demand.

 

Santander have just paid up to make this paticular problem customer disappear, as is their right because, presumably, they didnt feel they had a good enough legal argument against whatever it was that Mike Dailly nailed them with.

 

However, there are quite a few other customers who would also like their money back...

Edited March 17, 2012 by noomill060

[caro]

Posts moved to thread on Santander case rather than BOS.

[havinastella]

subbing

[jdes26]

When is the news gonna break?

And are the banks shaking in there boots!!!!

[the_shadow]

When is the news gonna break?

And are the banks shaking in there boots!!!!

 

hmm IF there is groundbreaking news that'll affect the banks expect Angela Knight to be rolled out in front of the cameras to spin like a silkworm.

[means2anend]

so where does this leave us????

[noomill060]

Angela Knight- Princess of Darkness

[car2403]

Knight-mare

[jdes26]

I could say worse but I would offend the female race

Sorry

[caro]

Let's hope we haven't jumped the gun here. Nothing in the media or on GLC's website confirming the news.......

[seriously fed up]

Mike Dailly tweeted this about 6.00 on Friday. I am pretty sure that when the news is released in detail that he will be doing it in such a way as to maximise publicity. I dont think Friday night is the time to be doing that. Lets see what the new week brings.

In any event if Santander have settled as he suggests in the Tweet, the issue isnt if its happened, but how - ie that nature of the argument.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning everyone,

 

It would appear that this might just be a case of Abbey/Santander paying up to avoid the hassle........Now then I consider this VERY UNLIKELY. Why? Well I have been in a battle with them for 4 years over my account (you don't need the gritty details) but it concerns their action in relation to my account, we are at the Ombudsman stage and they returned all the papers saying they had dealt with...I contacted the Ombudsman telling hime they had'nt and he instructed me to send all paperwork from Abbey/Santander to him and the entire matter is being considered (hopefully as we speak), it concerns 'Unfair relationships.....'.

 

Basically the Bank rode roughshod all over me, I did not get a straight reply from ANY questions I asked them, whether by letter, in person or over the telephone/internet.

 

They (Abbey/Santander) [edit] repeatedly to me, and to the Ombusman(!), and to anyone else who asked any questions. I have provided full and detailed correspondence and ancillary notes and records, to the FOS. Abbey/Sanatnder have threatened me with all sorts of action, as have Westcot who have tried to collect money from me (they picked on the wrong guy this time - I record EVERYTHING!!)

 

I will conclude by saying simply this - they are welcome to do their worst, BUT they will not beat me.Will I accept a settlement (which is unlikely to forthcoming)? Answer is resounding NO, because I want this case to go all the way, so that all of the other people who have suffered at their hands may have a chance of a full recovery from the antics of these [edited].

 

In the meantime.....Watch this space. If I can help anyone, please only ask: I am no expert, but may be able to offer a glimmer of hope.....

 

ps: keep an eye on my HSBC thread..........

 

Best wishes everyone

 

 

Dougal

ps: Swift moves in the pipeline as well.......Porridge will be served in due course!!

Edited March 19, 2012 by GuidoT
Please do not post potentially libelous comments

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

A bit of 'digging' on the web produced this:It is important to note that it is dated MONDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2012

 

In RBS plc v. Ahmed, a creditor sought to recover payment under a unsecured loan agreement for a sum just under £2,500, together with its legal expenses, which would have been on the undefended summary cause scale, at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

 

GLC had defended the action upon the basis the statement of claim was lacking in specification, and was irrelevant on a number of grounds, including failing to indicate whether a default notice under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) had been properly served prior to proceedings being raised.

 

RBS agreed to dismiss the action with expenses at 10% of the sum sued in favour of the defender, together with an undertaking to write off the debt under the loan agreement. The case serves to illustrate the importance of advisers always checking court documents for payment, as opposed to taking the debt and charges as stated as being necessarily due at the level claimed, or being lawfully due. If this is 'a new formula', I would like to see how it 'works'...no offence at all to Mike Daly, but I think whoever posted that on 'Twitter', should have given more accurate details, and not raised our hopes...

 

Best wishes all,

 

Dougal

 

p.s.This is also posted, dated:14th Jan 2012, and makes (I think...) VERY interesting (pardon the pun..) reading:

 

Financially vulnerable consumers across the UK taken to court for defaulting on high interest credit - including 'second charge' mortgages - are unaware of powerful statutory rights which can help, according to Glasgow's Govan Law Centre.

 

Section 136 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) permits the court to amend 'any agreement or security' in making a time order under section 129 of the Act as it considers just, having regard to the means of the debtor. That includes the right to ask the court to reduce the rate of interest within a consumer credit agreement.

 

Most consumers are completely unaware of these statutory rights, which are seldom used, which have the scope to help make unmanageable, spiralling debts, manageable and affordable. Govan Law Centre's Mike Dailly said:

 

"The reason we believe section 136 of the Consumer Credit Act is so important right now is because of the disparity between interest rates in inter-bank lending and the wholesale market, and what UK consumers are being charged in many credit agreements. The Bank of England's base interest rate is 0.5% and the standard variable rates of most UK banks are around 2.5% at present. Yet many consumers will have second mortgages (regulated under the CCA) with interest running at 11 or 12%, or unsecured loan and credit agreements running at 18 to 30% APR".

 

"To give a typical example, a client facing repossession through default of a second charge mortgage borrowed £96k at 11.2% APR, resulting in monthly interest payments of £873. The client is eligble for some DWP help with housing costs while in receipt of benefits, but there is a major shortfall. If her rate of interest was 2.5% the differential in monthly payments would be a whopping £674 per month. Accordingly, consumers in financial difficulty should be asking the court to reduce or freeze the rate of interest on credit agreements to a fairer level so they can meet their financial obligations".

 

Consumers can make an application under sections 129 and 136 on the 'time to pay' form that comes with court papers, or as part of any legal defence to proceedings raised by a creditor. Always obtain independent legal advice from a community law centre or other local advice agency or firm of solicitors.

 

 

I really must get out more.....

 

As ever Dougal

[seriously fed up]

there may be some connection with s136 Dougal, I dont know - have to wait for Mike Dailly to tell us. BUT there is a big difference between the two cases in your posts above and Walls v Santander - and that is in the two cases referred to in your posts it is the bank who is the pursuer, who is bringing the action. Walls is different - she's is pursuing the bank to recover her charges, so it is Walls who is the pursuer and Santander pursued (so to speak!).

Moreover, it did seem to me that Santander were paying up to avoid a court decision. I take all you say into account - and its the sort of things many on here will be accustomed to - but these guys might be totally immoral but they arent fools. They know the difference between paying out to one customer and a court decision.

[Dougal16T]

Morning Seriously and all,

 

I agree with your comments, they are not fools - the banks, that is - and there is merit in paying just one to go away, as opposed to asking everyone (by a Court decision) to have their money back!

 

Sadly, I just cannot see how Mike Dailly's supposed post on Twitter is likely to be true......no offence meant to anyone. I would have thought that if it is true - this would by now be National news at the very least....

 

Best wishes to all,

 

Dougal

[mystery1]

What has a case involving default notices and a loan agreement got to do with bank charges ?

 

Given what transpired the last time banks made some concessions in bank charges i doubt they'd concede because it was too much hassle. Either way April 2nd will make things clearer when the debate is called in one of the other cases. If anyone cares to view and report on it that'd be great. I'm at work sadly.

 

M1

[mystery1]

https://twitter.com/#!/mikedailly

 

Posted 16th March.

 

Looks real enough for me.

 

M1

[Dougal16T]

Good afternoon

 

I agree this has (as far as we know) very little 'involving default notices and a loan agreement got to do with bank charges ?' (It may be in the wrong thread, and this could be my fault for which I humbly apologise.)

 

Well if anyone feels offended, I am afraid I cannot help that, but if this has happened then there are 3 scenarios:

 

1. It has been 'gagged' or

 

2. It has been a 'gossip' which has apparently (for some) become a reality.

 

3. If this was/is the case (that this has actually happened) then the news will be absolutely full of it by the end of the week - so shall we just wait and see?

Best wishes all

 

Dougal

[mystery1]

1. If it been gagged i doubt a solicitor who was involved would tweet about it.

 

2. Gossip from the solicitor in the case ?

 

3. It may or may not be in the papers, i have no info on that, but although a win it wasn't a Judge decided case. Hopefully the papers do get hold of it.

 

You also missed http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/B2732_3573.html when looking for Mike Dailly v banks and i would like to point out that it's nothing to do with bank charges.

 

M1

[seriously fed up]

Good afternoon

 

 

3. If this was/is the case (that this has actually happened) then the news will be absolutely full of it by the end of the week - so shall we just wait and see?

Best wishes all

 

Dougal

Probably true - but still exciting, isnt it?

[mystery1]

http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/unfair-bank-charges-update-from-glc.html

 

M1

[seriously fed up]

what the GLC blog says is that some of the same arguments are to be used in Reid v Clydesdale Bank which will go to debate in Glasgow Sheriff Court on Monday 2nd April. The good news is

 

1. the same arguments are being applied in Sharp and Bank of Scotland, and the bank was concerned enough to try to kick it into the long grass procedurally
   
2. the same argument having been used by Santander, they have preferred to fold and pay up.
   

If Clydesdale lose Reid, then I strongly suspect they will appeal (supported by the British Bankers Assoc) and this too may get to the Supreme Court just to get some more delay in.

But, I think we will learn more on/after the 2nd - or I hope so.

If Mike Dailly has come up with a further development of his argument then that might be why he was reticent to show all his cards last week.

[kennyh]

Without getting involved in UTCCR as SCOJ hinted the BECOBS seems to offer a distinct 'in'. I've already floated claims against RBS & Santander, so far without response. Looks like the time has come to float some new N1s.

Thanks for your post sfu, I'll stay my hand until after 2 April.