OFT Test Case POC's

[crfx250]

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/PCA-particulars-of-claim.pdf

[kennythecelt]

Excellent find crfx. Thanks from everyone!

[Curlyben]

Very informative.

[livelylad]

A good find.

[Bookworm]

Posted by Zootscoot here on 5/9/7, to be read in conjunction, I think.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/113210-urgent-info-needed-confirm.html#post1115047

[Bookworm]

Interesting that the POC read as if when the OFT started looking into the charges (as per their promised investigation), the banks tried to argue that they were charges for service, which is what then led to this court action. That explains a few things.

[alecmac18]

This is facinating: Bank charges truly are about to go the way of the dodo.

 

From the particulars of claim:

 

1. The banks have to provide profit and loss accounts to the OFT - haha - I cant wait to see this.

 

2. The banks argument is basically that the charges are a core 'service' and are therefore not an unfair contract. How in the world are they going to argue that OD charges are a service?

 

In particular - how are they going to argue that they are a 'core' service? Certainly they are a core profit generator but that won't win over a high court.

 

Definition of service: "work done by one person or group that benefits another"

 

- I dont see any consumer benefits

 

The banks are idiots - The OFT will tear them apart in court. This is going to be so funny.

[bill65]

In this post i shall try to explain how the law reasons in relation to a contract. Previous posts concerned the formation of the constitution, it is time to put that constitution together and explain it's nature(sole) , and why the law holds a contract to be almost sacrosanct.

 

 

Definition of the constitution

 

 

The body politic ( self governing body) has a head (the crown) a conscience ( Christian) a body ( the people).This is the constitution we all live inside bonded by our Christian blood and protected by the crown( God). When you enter into a valid contract generally in the course of your survival you have a binding agreement one which the law considers sacrosanct, and will allow no man to plunder. The only way your contract can be disturbed other than inter se, is by, a properly constituted act of parliament( lawful authority) incorporated into the body politic.( Christ's blood). This is the reason a judge sitting under the “crown” cannot hear this case, the instrument known as UTCCR has not been lawfully( witnessed) incorporated into the body politic.( baptized if you like).

 

In others words you are all being conned, which i think you all know anyway. the courts and the government have closed ranks.

 

 

 

Crucial to your understanding of law, is that, legal reasoning grew out of religious thinking( the chancellor) and, peoples need to have certainty in their lives( the common law). I'm sure you are all aware of just how strict the common law is in relation to evidence( your bundle) presented to the court, that is because the judge sitting under “crown” must be certain when reaching a judgment.

[alecmac18]

Fair play Bill - but I'm sure certain of one thing. Bank charges are unfair. Law or no law.

[dewhit20]

Fascinating!!!

(Religion has a hell of a lot to answer for)

[bill65]

Fascinating!!!

(Religion has a hell of a lot to answer for)

 

You can read more here, and why your contracts with the banks are voidable, read the whole thread! That depends how you interpret it!

Defence for those having their action stayed - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

[TideTurner]

Bill,

 

Are we forgetting about the Bill of Rights Act 1689, a constitutional statute, whereby a penalty cannot be applied to a person or body prior to any conviction by a Court of Law?

 

Acts of Parliament may be amended and adapted, but those that are cast in stone cannot be altered.

 

The banks' argument that penalties applied to peoples' account were actually services is fickle. They have invested heavily in technology, which brought in the bucks, but meant there was no manual intervention when making a charge / penalty, and therefore no justification for the £39 charged for none payment of a DD etc.

 

Where a service cannot be proven (the banks have yet to provide a breakdown of the charges they make) therefore no service could have been provided. The OFT is now focussing on the justification of any such "service".

 

Tide

[adamc6671]

Hi All

 

This makes VERY interesting reading, especially the POC for the OFT case in relation to Abbey claims in which the Bank HAS admitted to 'breach of contract by the Claimant' in its defence to the claim. That admission by Abbey means, IMHO, that the OFT Test Case has absoloutely NO relevance to claims in which Abbey have filed such a defence, as the OFT Particulars of Claim seeks ONLY to establish if the banks that claim these to be 'service charges' (as Abbey have only done in the most recent claims) are acting lawfully.

 

GaryH has already done much truly excellent work on this issue, and I would have thought that attaching a copy of the OFT POC to an application for Stay Removal in such an Abbey claim would give the Claimant a 'cast iron' case for having the stay removed and allowing the case to continue. The only issue remaining in these claims, as GaryH has already said, is if Abbey's charges are 'in proportion' to their costs.

 

Does anyone know, for certain, if it permitted to use a copy of the OFT POC in this way?

 

All the best - Adam.

[poppynurse]

subscribing - abbey used the breech argument in my case which has been stayed, awaiting appeal

[adamc6671]

Hi poppynurse

 

It may help you to have a read of GaryH's thread, here -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/111571-abbey-court-hearings-important-2.html

 

Some VERY good advice there for stay removal in Abbey cases such as ours.

 

All the best - Adam.

[psm]

Has anyone found the banks collective defence to the OFT POC's yet?

[tifo]

Definition of the constitution

 

 

The body politic ( self governing body) has a head (the crown) a conscience ( Christian) a body ( the people).This is the constitution we all live inside bonded by our Christian blood and protected by the crown( God). When you enter into a valid contract generally in the course of your survival you have a binding agreement one which the law considers sacrosanct, and will allow no man to plunder. The only way your contract can be disturbed other than inter se, is by, a properly constituted act of parliament( lawful authority) incorporated into the body politic.( Christ's blood). This is the reason a judge sitting under the “crown” cannot hear this case, the instrument known as UTCCR has not been lawfully( witnessed) incorporated into the body politic.( baptized if you like).

 

There's too much 'religion' in the above post.

[bill65]

That is because our constitution is founded on Religious thinking, see if you can understand this for this way your contracts with the banks are voidable.

 

Charter 1066. the conqueror's address to the nation.( his will)

 

Here is set down what William, king of the English, established

 

in consultation with his magnates after the conquest of England:

 

 

. 1. First that above all things he wishes one God to be revered

 

throughout his whole realm, one faith in Christ to be kept ever

 

inviolate, and peace and security to be preserved between

 

English and Normans.

 

 

But first a summery:

 

1) we have seen that the conqueror's last will and testament is vested in the crown and that parliament are subject to it when making laws, as are the courts when making judgments and the queen when applying the seal of state.

 

2) We have seen how the body politic has been put together with a head, a conscience and body, bonded with Christ's blood, which feeds and nourishes the body and mind, and must be kept ever pure.

 

3) And any contract which has been executed inside the body is considered to be sacrosanct and, that it's Christ's blood that makes it legally binding, and therefore capable of being protected by the crown (the law).

 

4) We have also seen how a “written” law( subject to his will) becomes incorporated into the body politic and runs side by side with those natural rights.

[bill65]

Bill,

 

Are we forgetting about the Bill of Rights Act 1689, a constitutional statute, whereby a penalty cannot be applied to a person or body prior to any conviction by a Court of Law?

 

Acts of Parliament may be amended and adapted, but those that are cast in stone cannot be altered.

 

The banks' argument that penalties applied to peoples' account were actually services is fickle. They have invested heavily in technology, which brought in the bucks, but meant there was no manual intervention when making a charge / penalty, and therefore no justification for the £39 charged for none payment of a DD etc.

 

Where a service cannot be proven (the banks have yet to provide a breakdown of the charges they make) therefore no service could have been provided. The OFT is now focussing on the justification of any such "service".

 

Tide

 

In answer to your question, there are no written laws of England that cannot be amended or abolished, save only the last will and testament of the conqueror which is vested in the crown.

 

 

As i have said the instrument known as UTCCR has not been properly incorporated into the body of are laws (it does not run in the blood), it is not the law of the land in other words. And therefore cannot be heard by a judge sitting under the crown.

 

 

The common law is a creature of creation, in other words it accepts the law exists, it is therefore a matter for the courts to find and express what that law is, which in itself, is continuously evolving.

In other words there is no such thing as a hypothetical case in English common law, for the law is vested in us all. Which is what a test case would be. A precedent is born out of a dispute between two or more persons having legal capacity to do so, it is not the law of the land it can be used by courts of a similar status when deciding disputes on similar facts.

 

 

As I have said you are all being giving the legal run a round. If you do not understand the law, these people will tie you all up in knots.

[TideTurner]

In answer to your question, there are no written laws of England that cannot be amended or abolished, save only the last will and testament of the conqueror which is vested in the crown.

 

The Bill of Rights Act 1689 CANNOT be amended or abolished, nor can it be superceded by any other Act.

 

It is unlawful to apply a penalty to any account unless this has been agreed and included within the contract.

 

With respect to the POC's, the OFT have requested that the banks provide copies of agreements currently in force and those which will be in force come the 1st October 2007.

 

This refers to current and proposed conditions and is intended to introduce a remedy going forward.

 

However, it leaves room for a precedent with respect to contracts that have been in dispute but does not relate to conditions or terms of contracts made 5 years ago for example.

 

Paragraph 17 of the POC's

 

17. If any of the Banks' respective Relevant Terms and Charges are unfair" within the meaning of the 1999 Regulation, the continued use by the Bank in question of such terms and charges in relation to its customers who are consumers could constitute a Community infringement under section 212 of the Act.

 

As the application of charges and the claiming of charges made is currently in dispute, the banks cannot make any charges to bank accounts until this case is resolved. If they do so, then they must continue to repay charges made.

 

Anybody who has a charge made to their account should therefore contact the bank and demand that it is refunded until this matter is resolved.

 

Tide

[patrickq1]

i have entered this in another thread partly because of the thinking behind the FSA and their negligence in failing to provide a duty of care The Responsibilities of Providers and Distributors for the Fair Treatment of Customers - TLT Solicitors

The legal rights and benefits are being subverted by this cesspool of corrupt and unlawfull juggernaut we call the finance industry

TRADING STANDARDS AND Information Commissioners Office FOS AND ALL OTHERS who are put in place to defend our rights and privaliges are failing in their duties of care ,it is now far simpler to let the finance industry steamroller us into submission,this is why i have made a big thing about the RULE not only being REPUGNANT it is becoming obnoxious hence we should be asking for an audit comission and a judicial enquiry into the whole of the industry and for them to have their lawlessnes curtailed and brought to book.too many years have slipped past and we even see now some judges are asking what is happening...my rant over patrickq1

[bill65]

The most important document next to the conqueror's last will and testament is the magna carta ,which was amended several times from 1215 to 1219 it's most important enduring legacy is the great writ of Habeas corpus contained in clause 36,38,39 and 40. Three clauses still remain in force of the 1297 version:

 

• I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

• IX. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

• XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
  [1]

So you SEE the bill of rights can be abolished, indeed parliament could pass a law to abolish itself,not being the product of a written instrument, as has been said, England has no written constitution as such, only the last will and testament of the conqueror which can not be abolished.

 

 

Or, to express the above matters in an other way, the bill of rights can be abolished and re written, but you can not rewrite the last will and testament of your king, for he still rules you all, from the grave.

 

 

If, what you are saying that the sentiments expressed in the bill of rights can not be divested from the human condition, then i agree with you, however they can be rewritten.

 

 

You have stepped into my territory young man, would like to be educated a little more, if so, just post.

Kindest regards Bill.

[TideTurner]

The most important document next to the conqueror's last will and testament is the magna carta ,which was amended several times from 1215 to 1219 it's most important enduring legacy is the great writ of Habeas corpus contained in clause 36,38,39 and 40. Three clauses still remain in force of the 1297 version:

 

• I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

• IX. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

• XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
  [1]

So you SEE the bill of rights can be abolished, indeed parliament could pass a law to abolish itself, being the product of a mere written instrument, as has been said, England has no written constitution as such, only the last will and testament of the conqueror which can not be abolished.

 

 

Or, to express the above matters in an other way, the bill of rights can be abolished and re written, but you can not rewrite the last will and testament of your king, for he still rules you all, from the grave.

 

 

If, what you are saying that the sentiments expressed in the bill of rights can not be divested from the human condition, then i agree with you, however they can be rewritten.

 

 

You have stepped into my territory young man, would like to be educated a little more, if so, just post.

Kindest regards Bill.

 

"Before conviction" means that no fine can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a court of law. Of course, under constitutional law, the Bill of Rights Act 1689 is repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991. This is because the Road Traffic Act provides for fining outside of a court and, under British law, it is always the later Act that takes precedence.

However, Lord Justice Laws said in the 'Metric Martyrs' judgment (sections 62 and 63):

"We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes". The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Union 1707. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not?"

Thus, he ruled, the European Communities Act 1972, requiring metric, could and must repeal the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (allowing lb/oz), because the former was "constitutional" and the latter "ordinary".

This cannot be overturned, as you state. Your post does not provide any details as to why this could be.

You refer to me as 'young man'. Who said I was a man?

I look forward to any education you can provide Bill.

Tide

[patrickq1]

nice arguement more of the same

[bill65]

When England was impregnated in 1066 with the spirit of Norman administration, conceived in the mingling of Norman and English blood. England lay pregnant for some twenty years. Growing ever steadily inside her was feudal strife and private wars between his subjects. The king, Fearing feudal anarchy summoned a great assembly at salisbury in 1086 one of his last acts , of great constitutional significance , ordering all his councilors ( tenants in chief) and all the landed magnets (English) to this assembly.

 

 

The king sitting under the crown, wherein all the magnets bowed their heads and swore oaths of fealty to him that he would be their man and he promised to protect them,even as against their immediate lord,(in effect granting estates of inheritance) , witnessed by his tenants in chief. This was a highly significant constitutional event in the feudal hierarchy. And so the English returned to their homes and lands and took possession of their inheritance, secure in the knowledge that their children, and their children's children would reap the rewards and benefits of their labours, and so it was, the nation "state" of England was born imbued with all the promises of the parties thereto and Parented by the chancellor and the common law.

 

 

 

Only the conqueror sitting under the crown( the crown being a symbol of god's will) could make such a grant having taken all the lands of England into his “absolute possession” by right of battle.

 

Some legal points here, this is way an estate of inheritance is known as a “fee” the consideration, the price, the king was willing to pay in return for the loyalty and faithfulness of the English, and why fealty is always implied into all contracts in relation to land to this very day.

 

Whilst i will not say this was the beginning of an appeal as we know it today, it did give the most humble of tenants the right to take his wrongs to the highest court in the land, where previously only tenants in chief could be heard, namely the lords temporal and spiritual which is still the case today.

 

 

A precedent is born out of a dispute between two or more persons having the legal capacity to do so, that decision, is not the law of the land, in other words judges do not make the law.

 

 

Regards Bill

BTW apologies for the young man bit had a few drinks last night well to be honest quit a few!