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

[Govan Law Centre]

As SFU says, the Sharp case is still ongoing. Perhaps that why Mike Dailly of GLC advised this client to give up - as Sharp can get legal aid and this client can't.

 

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

[Govan Law Centre]

Many thanks Bookworm, Caro and Bankfodder. GLC is a big fan of CAG, and we have done a lot of good partnership work over the years.

 

The law that we are attempting to found upon (CCA and UTCCR) applies on a UK-wide basis, and the way the English and Scottish courts operate is of course to consider the decision of Scottish and English courts, respectively, as 'persuasive' only on UK law issues (or 'highly persuasive' if it's a senior court such as the Inner House or Court of Appeal).

 

However, that's not really the point, because if we are able to have any UK court reject the banks relevancy and competency defences, then that will be helpful, and the arguments on how to do this can be disseminated via CAG and MSE to help other people to do likewise.

 

If we can get passed the technical defences we are then left with the substantive issue (which would require a trial/proof) of whether charges are fair or unfair in relation to the CCA and/or the UTTCR (except of course in relation to the 'level' of charges for UTCCR, standing the UK Supreme Court's decision - but we can argue on the level of charges under CCA). I believe that's an argument we can win; there is a considerable amount of evidence in our favour, including the significant detriment and distress to the individual consumer in a particular case.

 

Mike