Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaims

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

UTCCR is the same in Scotland.

Would Scottish judges merely follow through with the Supreme Court justice decision as they tend not to follow the English Supreme court, so to speak, lol?

[Amethyst]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Angrybanks was heading strongly that way, we'll see if govan's case sheriff does in June.

I think we have made some massive changes and the future will be fairer. I'm happy to call it a day and look forwards rather than backwards.

Good luck to everyone who is continuing the fight for redress.

[hicskis]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Many thanks to Leagle Beagles and all who work for her.

Many thanks for being invited to join in.

This is the right decision.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Could that decision be reviewed should further information become available at a later date(to paraphrase the OFT report of December 22nd)?

Sorry Amethyst, but bus thinking does make me quite wired when I get home, lol!

[Jester]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

As I understand it, Australian Law is based upon the system we have in this country. That's why serving British Police Officers are sought after in Oz (without much retraining) and British Lawyers are able to practice in Oz without any further training (as I recall). The same applies to New Zealand.

Obviously, there will some differences in law, but it is in the main much the same as British Law from what I have been told (by a Police Officer who emigrated there).

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

I have asked Choice btw for the legal issues surrounding their own issues down under

[Smasher]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Credit cards & loans are still penal here hence it not having gone to court - still. They cant get around that or disguise it as part of the price.

Since the SC ruling, I've been wondering why that is..
What is to stop CC & Loan contracts being rewritten to say that a charge is a price for the service of providing extra funds (CC overlimits effectively becoming an overdraft) and disguising a late payment charge as a service of providing an extended credit period or something? All of these charges being part of the price of providing credit?

[thincat]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Hi Everyone,
I'd like to extend my thanks to Amethyst and ALL those who've worked hard on the Bank
Charges issue. I personally don't think we've seen the last of this issue,however I do feel that all those who've worked so hard on this deserve a "well earned" as it were. We'll see.

Thincat

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

I am an eternal optimist so for me, the fat lady might be preparing to get up but she ain't quite singing. Thanks to LB and I appreciate your decision but I guess if he had said there was a 0% chance I would have lost hope.
Will you look at reviewing the advice should the legal conditions change at a later date?

[Amethyst]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Of course durrbrain.

[orc]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Thanks to the Site Team for posting the opinion which relates to UTCCR and the arguments utilised by the OFT in that case.

You will be aware of the Govan case coming on 11 June at Glasgow Sheriff Court which uses the Consumer Credit Act, an amendment in 2006 and UTCCR in the arguments.

Given your seemingly good working relationship with Counsel, is there a possibility of making enquiries to them about their views on CCA/ bank charges and the approach by Govan.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Thanks to the Site Team for posting the opinion which relates to UTCCR and the arguments utilised by the OFT in that case.

You will be aware of the Govan case coming on 11 June at Glasgow Sheriff Court which uses the Consumer Credit Act, an amendment in 2006 and UTCCR in the arguments.

Given your seemingly good working relationship with Counsel, is there a possibility of making enquiries to them about their views on CCA/ bank charges and the approach by Govan.

Orc, you have brought up a point of clarification which may be needed. Here is the instructions given:

22. Those instructing are of the view that there is still scope to challenge the fairness of the charges under Regulations 5(1), and accordingly seek counsel’s advice on the strength and prospects of the following issues:

a. Effect of judgments of the European Court of Justice on the burden of proof in consumer claims of “unfairness” under the 1999 Regulations;(yep, that's in there)

b. Arguments under Regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations;(yep, that is definitely there)

c. Assessment of the Relevant terms and the Relevant charges under s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; (it does not appear as though he has considered this point at all)

d. Any other challenge that may be brought under consumer law; (has he expressed an opinion on this?)

e. A Representative Action.(yep, that is there)


You guys know this opinion pretty clearly but Orc has given us a point which may or may not have been done. The opinion omits points (c) but appears not to give an opinion on (d).

Clarification required please.

EDIT: in fact I think point 22 the instructions are not clear enough imho.

[EXC]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

As I understand it CCA was dropped from the original instruction after consultation with the instructing solicitors and junior counsel. If it was deemed to have had any legs it would have featured in the opinion.

I don't think it would be accepted protocol to expect a view on the approach by Govan before the case has been heard. I wouldn't expect a legal proffessional to comment on the merits of another, albeit a provincial solicitor. But as far as UTCCR goes Scrivener's opinion would indicate that Govan's approach is less than sound.

[orc]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

As I understand it CCA was dropped from the original instruction after consultation with the instructing solicitors and junior counsel.

Thanks EXC.


Thanks Nattie for post and clarification on original instructions above.

If it was deemed to have had any legs it would have featured in the opinion.

Might depend on above which appears unclear. CCA is open to individuals, not a regulated body like the OFT.

I don't think it would be accepted protocol to expect a view on the approach by Govan before the case has been heard.

I can understand that.

I wouldn't expect a legal proffessional to comment on the merits of another, albeit a provincial solicitor.

Ditto, but....

Glasgow is provincial and so is Mike Dailly? I guess its north of Watford though? lol.

He is the leading consumer related issues lawyer in Scotland and might just have something that the original instructing solicitors and counsel did not/ could not investigate. If successful in Glasgow (and later obviously as the banks will not just cave in), it would set a precedent UK wide.

But as far as UTCCR goes Scrivener's opinion would indicate that Govan's approach is less than sound.

Given the timescales, it appears we just have to wait and see what transpires from 11 June onwards.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

Is it possible the junior counsel can explain why they did not feel it strong enough since the opinion published includes the question asked?
Furthermore, I assume(since it is not said) that no other legislation or consumer law was considered?

EDIT: I should say here, I couldn't care less if Govan have included it or not, the question remains that it was discussed on here post test case and was in point 22 of the document yet was never given any form of opinion so did he actually get asked about it and if not why include it in the document?