Do You think it's all going Pete Tong????

[Destinyofsouls]

What with Lloyds 2 cases under their belt and Halifax changing T&C's to 'fees'.

I don't think these people who take on the banks are really researching enough, and it's making it very difficult for everyone else.

 

I know heard that Clydesdale have been on the news saying that they are not paying out because of Scottish laws or something. I missed the snippet and would appreciate if someone saw it to let me know what was said.

 

I would have thought that if the bank trades in England, it comes under English laws, unless the charges are applied to the account at HO, then would that be a get out clause?

 

How do we now prove that the charges are a breach of contract when, clearly all the T&C's are changing and we cannot prove otherwise?

Can we direct the Court to make the banks supply us with older T& C's?

 

A lot of people I speak to have dropped their claim now before it goes to court as they feel they will lose. It sounds like the beginnig of the end to me.

Any views?

[PPMAN159]

I can understand people beginning to panic when they see that Lloyds have 'won' two cases but they should actually check the reason why the cases were lost before making any judgememt on their own situation.

 

From what I have seen the cases were lost by the claiment rather than won by the bank as the people involved had not prepared their case properly and were also claiming for items that were not reclaimable.

 

A lot of the banks are now referring to the Lloyds 'victory' in the hope that people will think twice but in my view I if anyone is thinking of claiming-continue with it.

[Bookworm]

Yes.

 

People who give up because they think they will lose are idiots who follow the latest media snippet. Thousands or cases settled in or out of court, 2 lost through lack of preparation, and they give up? Maybe they don't deserve to get their money back then.

 

What of Halifax changing their T&cs to fees? Even if it made a difference in law, 1) the charges incurred would have happened under old T&cs and would not apply retrospectively, 2) they can call it what they like, as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract, regardless of what the new T&Cs state, as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case.

 

We should ask for relevant T&Cs to be supplied to us before court, if they refuse, it will look very bad to a judge that they did not supply them when we specifically said we want to rely on them in court.

 

My view is that if people stopped jumping at their own shadows, the banks wouldn't feel encouraged to try and frighten them off even more. Those people are positively encouraging the bullying culture by the banks, and I have very little sympathy for them.

[Parkvale]

I don't know about it all going Pete Tong ( wrong ). I think you must be having a Hat , coat and Scarf. (a good laugh ). I banked a lovely cheque for £20,000 yesterday. Obviously Nat West havent been watching the news.

[PPMAN159]

In Parkys case it has all gone Gladys Knight!!

[CAGisforME]

Well, I don't think Barclays are reading the News.

 

They settled a second account with me this morning.

 

What i think is happening is that people are jumping in with two feet, without researching properly, and thinking straight and expecting the banks to roll over and have their tummies tickled.

 

Of course the banks are going to look for mistakes etc in POCs and of course they are going to exploit any weakness in the claims. Isn't that what we as claimers are doing? We are exploiting the fact that we know, if we do everything correct, that they wiill not want to defend their charges?

 

After the way they have got away with this for so long, isn't it natural that the Banks will try anything? In my opinion anyone entering in to re-claiming charges who isn't prepared properly is making it more difficult for everyone else. And of course the banks will exploit this.

 

 

Whilst it's great to focus on the money, at the re-claiming stage it's more important to focus on the DETAILS and the LAW to ensure a successful claim.

 

 

Just think how thick the papers would be if they reported every succesful claim as vehemently as they have reported the unsuccesful ones!

[Destinyofsouls]

as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case.

 

That's the problem though isn't it? If you don't get a judge.....

 

as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract,

How do we do that without the relevant T&C's ?

[Destinyofsouls]

they think they will lose are idiots

Maybe they are just not confident enough ? There are hundreds of people who aren't..

[crfx250]

Yes.

 

People who give up because they think they will lose are idiots who follow the latest media snippet. Thousands or cases settled in or out of court, 2 lost through lack of preparation, and they give up? Maybe they don't deserve to get their money back then.

 

What of Halifax changing their T&cs to fees? Even if it made a difference in law, 1) the charges incurred would have happened under old T&cs and would not apply retrospectively, 2) they can call it what they like, as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract, regardless of what the new T&Cs state, as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case.

 

We should ask for relevant T&Cs to be supplied to us before court, if they refuse, it will look very bad to a judge that they did not supply them when we specifically said we want to rely on them in court.

 

My view is that if people stopped jumping at their own shadows, the banks wouldn't feel encouraged to try and frighten them off even more. Those people are positively encouraging the bullying culture by the banks, and I have very little sympathy for them.

 

 

Of course they deserve to get their money back. It's comletely unrealistic

to expect everyone to research and present a case to the dizzy heights of your own standards and to ignore what they read in the press.

 

People are not ''idiots'', they're just less informed

[Destinyofsouls]

"Most agree that a cap on current account overdraft charges is likely. From the date it comes in, current account customers will not be able to claim a refund. However, they will still qualify for a refund on charges from before that date for up to six years. "

Now that's what I call an idiot. From the This is Money web site

[Bookworm]

Of course they deserve to get their money back. It's comletely unrealistic

to expect everyone to research and present a case to the dizzy heights of your own standards and to ignore what they read in the press.

 

People are not ''idiots'', they're just less informed

 

I disagree. It's completely unrealistic to start a legal process, and not even know the basic arguments to go with it. And most of the research and presentation have already been made for them, so it's hardly groundbreaking stuff they are dealing with here.

 

My own standards do not have "dizzy heights", I started a little over 1 year ago having no idea whether this could work. But one thing I made damn sure about was doing some serious reading and understanding before I even sent my first letter. Because it was quite obvious that if the banks were ready to take that much money off me in the first place, they sure as hell were not going to hand it back without a fight.

 

I did not say that they should ignore what they read in the press, I said they should not blindly believe it, which is a very different matter. Anyone panicking that their own claim will fail could reassure themselves quite easily by researching the ratio of successes to failures. But no. They see "oh, the banks have won a second case" and they throw in the towel.

 

Destiny of Souls:

as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case.

 

That's the problem though isn't it? If you don't get a judge.....

 

Don't get me started, I still can't believe that there was one judge in this country who hadn't... I am not one for conspiracy theories usually, but I still puzzle over that one.

 

as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract,

How do we do that without the relevant T&C's ?

 

You go to court, and you ask the judge to order the bank to release them. And that's worse case scenario, if you haven't managed to get them before that.

Ok, example: You have incurred charges in 2000, say, long before your bank changed your T&Cs to their current setting. You start your claim, and the bank defends with the "service" argument. You ask for the then T&Cs and the banks refuse to provide them. You go to court stating that the T&Cs at the time the breaches were levied did say that they were for a breach of contract. The bank will want to rebut, but how? If they provide current T&Cs, you can say to the judge that these are irrelevant, as they were changed, and the judge is unlikely to be impressed with the sleight of hand. If they provide the correct T&Cs, make your case.

 

Also, what maybe everyone should remember is this: At worse, ok, you lose your case. So? You are no worse off than you were before you started, except for your court fees. The small court system is designed to protect a genuine litigant in person (as opposed to vexatious, which is a different story) from huge legal costs. The way I see it, the odds are so colossally in our favour that it makes the investment of the court fee totally worth it.

[Brasic]

Pete tong?? No.

 

I'm no expert though. When I first started using this web site I read as much as I could even now I'm still learning things

 

The Birmingham thing has made us focus on the T&Cs, and things have had to be tweeked.

 

For people starting the process this has been addressed in changes to the initial letters which will help through the process. Unfortunatley there will be some in the latter stages, doing thier bundles, or preparing to go to court, who will be really frustrated at all this, and the T&Cs element will be a problem. They might not have time now to request them from their bank etc. However for most the recent call for T&Cs may help and there are threads and post out there with people willing to share copies of older T&Cs.

 

I think the outcome of the won cases will be to stregthen the quality of peoples cases from now on. I think anybody embarking on claiming from their bank should seriously think about what they are going to do, but shouldn't base any decisions just on these 2 cases, as stated many times this is 2 for the bank v 1000's for the consumer

 

JAnyway just my 2penneth

 

Brasic

[Parkvale]

Bookworm is exactly right. You cannot start a legal process without knowing what you are doing. Thats really high risk. Do your homework and be prepared.

[Parkvale]

You have misunderstood bookworm's statements. This site has helped more "shy and less confident " people than most. Our success rate has been spectacular to say the least.. The small claims court is i agree " hardly ground breaking stuff. " It was put into place for the specific reason of helping the litigant in person to use the legal system on a much fairer and more accessable way. I also started ayear ago, nervous,scared and terrified of the legal system, I had a claim thrown out by the financial ombusman, and was not very confident to say the least. I looked, read and learnt the way to proceed and have been very successful. With my latest claim for £20,000 being settled last week. This is a self help site and claimants must understand and present their claims as the present legal system demandsand be prepared to sit in front of a judge and argue the legalities of that claim.

[crfx250]

Ooops, my post's been CAGBotted. Or should I say Bookwormed?

[Destinyofsouls]

The problem now is though, what about all the court cases going on, how do we now prove they are Penalty charges.

 

I would think the judge would say

" sorry mate, you had your chance to get the T&C's, it's too late now"

[Bookworm]

For starters, most defences at the moment are still relying on the "genuine pre-estimate of loss" argument, so the Berwick et al arguments won't apply. That takes care of thousands of ongoing cases.

 

For the few using the "service" argument, the options are:

- to get hold of the T&Cs, and as you might have noticed, there is a great deal of work going on to retrieve those to make them available to users here, but it is arduous going.

- I think your comment doesn't take into account the fact that anyone preparing should request their relevant (as in, the ones in force at the time of your breaches) T&Cs from the bank, who will have them archived, no doubt about that. A refusal by the bank will not be looked upon favourably by the judge, and if you then go to court saying they have refused to supply the very terms on which you rely to prove your case, it would frankly be against the over-riding objective for the judge not to order the bank to cough them up.

 

I think you are approaching this form the wrong angle in those "service" cases. Concentrate on showing that they are NOT a fee for a service, the penalty charge part will follow from that. The T&Cs are only part of the argument, although they have become a fairly important part after Berwick, they are not the end all and be all of it.

Remember that if Kev had answered yes instead of no when asked by the judge if he thought he had breached his contract with the bank, the outcome might have been very different.

 

Of course, there is something very simple that you can do even if you can't get hold of the "then" T&Cs: get hold of the new ones. They will state something like this: "paragraph x.x - we have replaced this wording by that wording" etc...

In court, you'll argue that your contract had the terms which have been replaced, and that those terms, although you don't have a copy now, are the ones which the bank changed to make it look like a service fee. The very fact that those terms were changed after the whole charges reclaim campaign started speaks volume in itself. At that point, the bank will either have to confirm it or deny it.

 

Don't forget that in Small Claims, we are talking about of balance of probabilities, not proof beyond doubt.

 

And finally, let's not forget that for the vast majority, people will never actually get to court, as the banks are still settling (LTSB included) in their hundreds and thousands, even after Berwick. Let's also remember that Berwick was a fluke win for the bank, who didn't even turn up for the case.

[enaid]

Can I just ask are they obliged to date the ammendments to the T&C's.

[Bookworm]

Good question.

 

The Natwest ones are, quite visibly so, but I am finding it harder on some other banks.

 

I think they all come with a "changes to your T&Cs from...", though, so that could be worth keeping an eye out, as it would produce the same end result.

[enaid]

I asked, because my sister requested them for a PPI and it has no dates anywhere on it, so how can you prove that the T&C's are in fact not the ones relating to when you applied for loan etc?

[Bookworm]

Please note that abuse towards ANY member of the moderating team is met with 0 tolerance.

 

We do have a complaint procedure, please see here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/66282-cag-how-complain.html

 

If you have an issue, please use that procedure and refrain from disrupting the thread further. Thank you.

 

Note: Jonni2Bad is away at the moment, but will be back next week.

[nevos]

I think also, a service is a helpful activity it is hardly helpful to make a charge of say £35.00 for an automated bounced cheque!

 

Banks such as Lloyds with 16 million customers do not have the recourses to provide personal staff to deal one to one with so many hence, the charges are penalties for breach of contract by customers, this makes the whole deal self policing.

 

The crux of the matter is, the legal system itself is looking for ways to take the pressure out of the claims over load this is why you have the latest ill conceived judgments everyone is buying time...

 

Don't give up people.

[Destinyofsouls]

Still sure it's not??

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/94630-hull-cc-consider-striking.html

[Destinyofsouls]

Thanks Bookworm for your advice in your last post, makes it a little clearer. Where are all the T&C's ? are they in the banks particular forum?

[Parkvale]

Crfx250,

"Of course they deserve to get their money back. It's completely unrealistic

to expect everyone to research and present a case to the dizzy heights of your own standards and to ignore what they read in the press.

 

People are not ''idiots'', they're just less informed "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idiots are the people that don't bother to claim what has unlawfully been taken from their accounts. Contract law states that you have a legal right to claim it back.

As far as the press is concerned. No news is good news. There are presently thousands of people winning their claims against the banks. You wouldn't believe it, because they don't report it. I myself won £20,000 last week.If you had not read that on this sight you would not have ever known. Ignorance is bliss as far as the press is concerned. As far as people "being less informed" Thats down to the individual. There will always be the person who thinks its going to be easy and gets caught out by their own arrogance. There is enough information and help available on this site.

So its down to each individual to use it. Knowledge is power.

Bookworm's contribution to this site is vital and extremely important in the fight against the financial institutions that choose to ruin peoples lives with their regime of unlawful charges. Finally i would like to say CRFX250 have a look around the site and see the despair and frustration that many, many claiments are enduring. Both before and now during their claims and if you feel you can offer them help then do it.

The moderators and the sight helpers which in total is around 30 ish are stretched to the limit in helping people win their claims, and when they do win it is all worth it then .Try it yourself and feel the satisfaction of knowing that is one more for us and one less for them. Good luck.