Jump to content


!!!!! OFT could drop test case !!!!!!!


adam1976brown
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5185 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've just read the article you posted. I cannot believe what I'm reading. The fact that penalty charges are illegal seems to have passed them all by. There is so much law to back this up I can't imagine what the OFT are thinking!

:-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi adam1976brown and clippy,

I heard about the LTSB stint yesterday on my way into work last night, and it sounds as if the banks are trying to squirm their way out of the trial more than the OFT, I think the OFT are as always only compromising on the side of the Banks, and with the LTSB saying they have looked at the 'FEES' as being too high (which I would take as an admittance to the fact) that they are going to inform their customers of when they may be near the point of going over any agreement on the account and allowing them the possible time to 'Pay In' to their account to prevent the 'Fee' from being charged. How sly is that.!!!! :mad:

What's betting the other Banks follow suit, but we have to remember the banks will not have discussed this between each other as that may be seen as colaboration!!!!:mad:

watch this space thats what I say!!

 

stay fresh peeps

 

regards

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi peeps, If as I read the artical, the 'test case' is to determine whether the OFT can rule on the bank charges or not then the fact is that this case is irrelivent to our cases, meaning our cases shouldn't be stayed........ + the fact that the OFT agrees that the charges are service fees when we do not and the bank has said they are 'penalty charges' proves that this test case is irrelivent to our cases....... does anybody know if we can use a foregn bank, (eg: bank of Ireland) via the internet as a basic account, as if our banks want to charge £300 pa then I'm off...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the case is dropped then it seems fairly obvious to me that we still continue with our claims through the courts as nothing will have changed and we can still challenge them to provide their true costs in a court of law. Just my humble opinion anyway

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Lula, but if your in a position like me (Read Chelseaboy vs Abbey) Then I think i've got a decent case to fight a probable stay application on the grounds that the 'test case' isn't relevent to my case as 1. The test case is about whether the OFT can rule or not and 2. The Oft's argument is over the amount of the 'service charge'........ In my case (and many others) the argument is that it is a 'penalty fee' over a breach of contract which is unlawful...........Therefore any stay in reference to the 'test case' is irrelivent as the test case is irrelivent to my case.... any fight against a stay should (in my oppinion) be allong these lines...

Link to post
Share on other sites

One question, Does the UTCCR (1999) superseed the Robinson vs Harman extract, as if not you could fight the stay on this ground as this statement is in essence the whole point of the argument.................... ("A contractual party cannot profit from a breach of contract")

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read my thread PSM V ABBEY the judge stayed part of the case relating to UTCCR (1999) but was prepared to proceed on the part where the abbey, in their, claimed Breach of Contract as this can be argued at County Court on points of FACT not LAW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read my thread PSM V ABBEY the judge stayed part of the case relating to UTCCR (1999) but was prepared to proceed on the part where the abbey, in their, written defence claimed Breach of Contract as this can be argued at County Court on points of FACT not LAW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question...Just what exactly does this mean for all of us?

 

Do we have cases that need to be answered? The courts that have "Stayed" cases pending this so called outcome should now be deemed to go to trial and the Judges made to review the very cases they have stayed and outlining whether or not the banks have totally abused process and that te stunts pulled lately by OFT and the banks should now all be ruled in favour of the consumer. Lets face it, it is our money and if the banks believe they were right and just in taking it in the first place they would not have paid out the millions they already have, now would they?? they have stayed and outlining whether or not the banks have totally abused process and that te stunts pulled lately by OFT and the banks should now all be ruled in favour of the consumer. Lets face it, it is our money and if the banks believe they were right and just in taking it in the first place they would not have paid out the millions they already have, now would they??

 

Ladidi

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always said that the oft will go soft with the banks.The banks combined are too powerful for the likes of the oft. What the OFT should have done is to get the help of the CAG and Martin Lewis right from the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at this, from a newsletter from penaltycharges

 

"In most instances we would probably agree with the banks' arguments that these are not penalties as defined in common law," said Mr Elithorn.

 

Now what is interesting about this is the fact that Mr Elithorn use to be a Senior Manager for Capital One . See The Office of Fair Trading: OFT appoints new Senior Directors

 

So in realty his comments were not that surprising “however it does beg the Question what on earth is going on at the OFT” and is it all ex bank, credit card mangers making the decisions?

 

 

Is this correct? if it is, then it is a bloody disgrace and he is not impartial at all, DISGUSTING!!!

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Extract from penaltycharges news letter:-

 

We would advice people to WRITE to the OFT and ask them to confirm that

Mr.Elithorn Statement is correct, (remember spell it out) if they

confirm it is I would included this in your application for stays to be

lifted as clearly there is no guarantee the test case will ever get heard.

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone should have to write to Mr Elithorn or anyone else for that matter. I think it is high time they thought of the consumer as if they had thought it through in the first place before stating they will take on the banks in the high courts blah, blah no one would be in this mess in the first place.

 

The top and bottom of it is this. The banks got GREEDY, they took and carried on taking what they knew what was not theirs and not earned. The money taken belongs to the consumer, so the simple task is this. Tell us what it costs you truly and we will pay it and give back what is not earned by yourselves. simple! even a baby could do it a click of a couple of buttons on the computer!

 

Secondly, seeing as the OFT had said they would take the banks to court to get the matter resolved and gave them powers to "stay" all impending cases, the should now tell them to they should deal with the cases they have put hold and the courts in turn should now be told to review every single case they have "stayed" by way of "WIN" or come to court a justify with no more time wasting of the courts processes or asking for time to gather further info if they already everything that is required to hand.

 

Our hard earned money has been taken for long enough and should not be allowed to be taken any more! The banks dont give us time when we owe them, they scream and shout and stamp their feet and before you know it all kinds have happened before you can even say " hang on a minute, I wanna put a "Stay" on that or I would like to have more time and for you to justify why I owe you this money! They even have the "balls" to take away your overdraft in some cases without even giving you a chance and in some cases telling you, to repay it within 28 days or you wil owe us more money and we dont care about you because we dont know you! we just want your money!

 

High time they got out of their high chairs and came down to earth and said, ok we are sorry, we will repay within 7 days! But the chances of that as about as much chance of me winning the Lotto this year!!

 

I also think it is high time our government and MPs should earn their highly inflated salaries and start to put the people of UK first and tell the banks they should either repay without any more moaning or they should simply divuldge exactly what costs they have incurred for dealing with peoples overdrafts and bounced cheques etc and deduct this form what the customer is reclaiming. Cant be that much of a hard thing to do, can it???

 

Ladidi

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladidi: Your right there but, they simply won't listen to us the consumer. What a business banking is, when you get hundreds and thousands of complaints from your customers and now you can simply put 2 fingers up to them all and carry on as normal, any other business you would have to change your strategy or go down.

 

I dont think anyone should have to write to Mr Elithorn or anyone else for that matter. I think it is high time they thought of the consumer as if they had thought it through in the first place before stating they will take on the banks in the high courts blah, blah no one would be in this mess in the first place.

 

The idea was you could use the reply from them to help remove a stay!

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but you have to get clarification he has said this, are we going to get that? I`m not holding my breath or raising my arms in the air just yet. Why? Because they are all the same at the end of the day...OUT FOR THEMSELVES..

 

Mr Elithorn is out to make a name for himself, the banks are out for your money and our very government dont give 2 hoots either, as they need more of it to give free housing and furniture and free money to foreigners!!!

 

So what does that makes us "MUGS" in a word!!!!!

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this case doesnot go through then we have got the banks over a barrel.Because they will have nothing to full back on as regards stays on claims and it will cost them more as there customers jump on the band wagon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats true but, they will then carry on the same route i.e. at each an every turn telling claimants lot's of bull***t about what exactly is going on and why they should accept the offers, why they would lose in court etc...continue forcing litigation and clogging up the courts. None of them have the bottle to hold their hands up and admit they are wrong, pay back the money and move on.

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all and everybody,

Most of the posts are right in what they state, the only thing is, we would be better off writing to the OFT for clarification on mr Elithorn has stated, and maybe he is out to make a name for himself, but maybe with enough of us asking the question to the OFT then maybe WE can determine what type of neme he receives!!;)

 

Remember it's still ongoing and if we push hard enough maybe the courts MAY turn their own decisions around and start recommencing our claims and I think this is a possitive move on our halves to keep persuing.

The banks still have to comply with the relevant letters which were sent to them, the only differences is they don't have to make you an offer! Yet they still have to comply, and if they don't. then we still put the claim into the courts, (it's just a matter of finding a court that is continuing the claims which is the hardest part.:mad:

I have had some positive support from my MEP saying that it is still in the minority with the courts as to who is staying cases and who is continuing!!

I'll check my email from my MEP and confirm the website which tells you where to look for the best courts!

 

oh Mr BM KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKERRRRRRRRRRRRRCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHINNNNNNGGGGGG another £1.26 today in interest cheers!!!!:D

 

stay fresh peeps

 

regards

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm confident of the law, the OFT saying that it believes the unfair terms bit doesn't apply is not my problem, I'm confident of arguing that it does. If it did not apply the the Hull strikeout orders would not have been beaten, one of the lines in the POC's drafted by a QC explicitly states that the charges are not core terms.

 

The only reason I have not pushed more vigorously for my brothers case to be heard is that it is in his interest for the case to be delayed (every day which passes moves him closer to owing the bank 0 pence!).

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing about the OFT going down the service charge argument is that we can still bring cases relying on the former law.

 

I am definately going to put something in about this whenI see my MP.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my when Abbey defended my 3rd claim they stated that I did BREACH MY CONTRACT so they have admitted that it isnt a serive charge at all, i dont understand how they can use a defence that relies on T&C's that have only just come into force.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...