Jump to content


OFT and Banks


Lula
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4726 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

ok you Monkeys worried that the OFT may back off from a test case can go and read this thread, it is not bad news depending on if they set a figure and what they set that figure at.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/114045-insight-not-long-go.html

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks juggle fees for going into the red | This is Money

 

HI Guys.

 

Has anyone read this . See what you think.

30-12-2006--Requested statements from Local Halifax.

02-02-2007--Statements Recieved.

18-04-2007--Prelim sent.

20-04-2007--Reply , Thanks , give us 8wks letter.

02-0502007--Sent L.B.A. & Schedule of Charges

11-05-2007--Recieved reply ,still investigating.

17-05-2007--Sent Amended L.B.A. for Contractual Interest this time.

14-06-2007--Received standard Bog Off letter.

13-06-2007--Took N1 to Local Courts.

26-06-2007--Copy of N1 from Court, issued 21-06-2007. to Halifax, Deemed Served 25-06-2007

Have till 09-07-2007 to file Defence.

05-07-2007--Note that Acknowledgment of Service been Filed on 29-06-2007.

Have 28 days from date of Service to File Defence.

07-07-2007--Offer from Halifax.

09-07-2007--Rejection letter sent to Halifax. Next day delivery.

10-07-2007--Money put in Account:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Wednesday 08 October 2008

COURT 73

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Not before 16:30

For Judgment

2007-1186 Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC

 

Judgment will be available on the Court Service website shortly after 4.30.

 

This would usually be "Front Page News"

 

The dubious practice of penalty charges has enriched the banks by around £32 BILLION often taking the money off the most vulnerable members of society.

 

 

 

Banks have additionally gained on interest earned (off the same customers) whilst all the claims have been frozen, pending the outcome of the "Test Case" The banks always knew the court case would take years to settle and they will, no doubt appeal today’s decision and kick it into the long grass of next year before any settlements are paid out.

 

HOW MANY FORCLOSURES MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE UNNESSECERALY IN THIS TIME?

 

(The payouts would have help customers to avoid mortgage arrears)

 

 

 

If the banks returned these "ill gotten gains" it would return money to exactly the right place in society both morally and practically, to offer a life line to the private individuals who have been absolutely "hamstrung" through the banks actions and this has been compounded by the credit crunch caused by??...the banks... mmmmm

 

 

 

Government pressure as SHARE HOLDERS can now be exerted on the banks to "do the right thing"...give back the money...Come on MR Brown your quick enough to bail out the city what about YOUR VOTERS ???

Edited by SPROUTY
too much info !

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson 1802

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, I cant wait for 4.30, but what happens after that, are all our cases re-instated?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question... no easy answer.

 

If you relied on the penalties argument and the historic charges are deemed to be penalties, then you win.

 

If you relied solely on the penalties argument and the historic charges are NOT deemed to be penalties, then you lose.

 

If you relied on the penalties argument and the UTCCR and the historic charges are NOT deemed to be penalties, it's still an open field as even though they're not penalties, you still have the argument they are unfair... but that's still subject to the appeal from the last decision...

 

(is your head hurting yet? lol)

 

Will the courts then un-stay claims en masse? Not on your nelly. I think they will keep things frozen as long as they can, and then strike claims out in bulk or award them in bulk... Unless of course, the banks are told to settle them as fast as they can so as to free dockets as quickly as possible.

 

It took the courts a few weeks to organise themselves when the stays appeared to stop us all in our tracks, I wonder if they'll be better prepared this time.

 

Bear in mind that if they're not penalties, then any claim thrown out on penalties can get a second bite on the UTCCR by complaining to the FOS, who must be bracing themselves for an onslaught as I type this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wanted a million quid and a body like a sex goddess, well 1 out of two aint bad :rolleyes:

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only live in hope, that the banks keep something in reserve for the forecoming pay out :rolleyes: "BEFORE" they start to pay each other massive bonuses to the Captains of the *anking industry:p for leading us down the rocky road to financial chaos.Whats £500 billion+ when after all, its only OUR money!!!:mad: "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read through the judgement it seems to me that "Matron" has come to the rescue of the poor boys in the city. Evidently a spade is not a spade when it comes to the banks. I don't hold out much hope of seeing a plugged nickle from the banks. I certainly feel that this is a slap in the face for the common man and then to add insult to injury our taxes are going to be used to rescue the incompetent bankers so they can continue to fleece us with their punative charges, my hasn't Labour come a long way!!. I never ever thought I would say this but I think we need a revolution to redress the balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

psm. We can never redress the balance because,in that great nose in the trough US of A, if they cant/wont pay their debt re their mortgages and if they throw their keys in, because they cant pay!! end of story, their indebtness stops there!! If we in the EX. great britain throw our keys in because the nose in the trough *ankers have fleeced us/customers of theirs (IMHO) We after the re-possession procedure where we lose EVERYTHING!! and the sharks of the legal profession :p:p trawl every last penny from us and fill their boots with the unfair fees:mad: that have been added to the accounts.WE!!! are still indebted to the *ankers who got us into the sticky stuff in the first place.We are not playing on a level field we are subsidising the great USA $ with our taxes, the sooner we wake up in our country the "BETTER" "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Edited by JGJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Weeeeeelllll............. actually, there's a wee conumdrum for the good people to think on:

 

With the banks now for all intent and purpose nationalised, the state will have a say on how they're run, presumably up to and including the charges.

 

Now, consider the OFT, a govt agency, in the process of both suing the banks and also investigating them on the fairness aspect of their charging structure and levels.

 

If - as leaked memos and past performance on the credit cards lead us to believe - the OFT finds that the charges are unfair and too high, they will then be in a great position to impose compliance on their colleagues at Banks'R'Us... And the new govt run banks should therefore be in an ideal position 1) to lower the charges to a fair level, 2) to force the processing of the charges refunds to the poor customers who got squeezed for years without forcing them to jump through hoops.

 

Over-optimistic, me? Maybe. But wouldn't it be nice if it did happen the way it should? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...