Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I just wondering if anyone would offer to tell me what their gut feelings are to the outcome of the appeal to the HOL.

Gut feeling is they will allow the appeal(personally I hope they don't)

[Bankstormer]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

If i were any one of the three judges who heard the High court appeal - I would be very offended if the HOL chose to ignore my views. However, i have to agree with the ex-bankworker and think they will allow it.

Make no mistake - anything that can make this mess last longer will happen!

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Bankstormer, Lawyers and judges think in black and white terms. Its either right or wrong but providing the Law allows it then it is right. I don't think the Master of the Rolls is losing too much sleep over it.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

But then I do not have a limitless supply of cash coming in on a daily basis to fund the case.

The charges coming in every day will pay the banks total legal bill for the whole test case twice over so why wouldn’t they want to "ensure Justice at the highest level"

Also due to the fact that it is bringing in a massive amount of profit to the banks, it is clear to me that the banks are using attrition tactics also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare

[Bankstormer]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Ex~Bankworker, what is right?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Also due to the fact that it is bringing in a massive amount of profit to the banks, it is clear to me that the banks are using attrition tactics also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare

Attrition - great word! I have learnt something new today!

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

For reference, bankstormer, I am known as Nattie(shortened named cos ex bankworker sounds a mouthful). Anyway I digress. The right course of action is what is taking place in spite of whether you like it or dislike or agree with it or diagree with it. It was expected.

[Bankstormer]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Nattie, you do digress - a lot.

The original point i was trying to make is that the banks are taking too much time. Yes i understand that they are allowed it by law, and that does make it right, however, the waiver requires them to move in a more timely fashion (and their morals should too - if they had any) my argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Can you not see that?

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Nattie, you do digress - a lot.

The original point i was trying to make is that the banks are taking too much time. Yes i understand that they are allowed it by law, and that does make it right, however, the waiver requires them to move in a more timely fashion (and their morals should too - if they had any) my argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

Can you not see that?

So what can you do? I mean they had 4 weeks to appeal and they did within that timescale. Remember it was 1 submission which represented all 7 institutions taking part in the case. Now I want to find fault with that. Where is it? Legally where is it cos the law is not the place for morals.

[kev2b3]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

i wonder if the banks would have moved alot quicker if the waiver was'nt so one sided.

[Bankstormer]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

You know as well as i do that they could have submitted their application on day 1, and not waited until day 28. We would have then been 27 days closer to a conclusion than we are now.

Whilst you will not find a legal problem with what they did, if you would care to take your head out of your bottom for a moment you might realise that (as the whole country knows they could and should have submitted their application straight away) the FSA should hold them to account for wasting time. It is clearly set out in the terms of the waiver that both parties should move in a timely fashion. Wasting 27 days, whilst legal, is not timely.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

In my humble opinion there are possibily two reasons they are continuing the case

1) They do believe they have a valid legal argument and wish to make sure they have explored every avenue - which they have every right to do as they are subject to the same legal system as the rest of us. Also technically they owe a duty to the shareholders to protect their profits ( I know the sharrholders have changed and profits are now losses!)
2) During this time of continuing to charge they are making investments of the monies gained by the charges and this will contribute to the refunds if they are made.

The other alternative I think we all wish all claimants had, would be just to close accounts and use credit unions or a suitable alternative banking instiitutions.Then you could still reclaim on a closed account and vote with your feet.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

You know as well as i do that they could have submitted their application on day 1, and not waited until day 28. We would have then been 27 days closer to a conclusion than we are now.

Whilst you will not find a legal problem with what they did, if you would care to take your head out of your bottom for a moment you might realise that (as the whole country knows they could and should have submitted their application straight away) the FSA should hold them to account for wasting time. It is clearly set out in the terms of the waiver that both parties should move in a timely fashion. Wasting 27 days, whilst legal, is not timely.

Or they could have been totally convinced that they would win the case - then it would take them 28 days to prepare the appeal - quite feasible.

[Bankstormer]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Or they could have been totally convinced that they would win the case - then it would take them 28 days to prepare the appeal - quite feasible.

Feasible but very doubtful. They would have prepared the appeal as a contingency plan, similar to the systems they are putting in place to refund everybody when they lose.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I agree they will have to put methods in place and I agree that they will also deny that they are in place when a final ruling is made to delay the matter further - But other than a group action as suggested on this site and keeping up the pressure on the hardship cases we are probably going to accept that fact.

[Bankstormer]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Yes we are, but it doesn't sit well in my stomach!

[WendyB]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Well, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what sits well in your stomach or anyone else's for that matter. The fact remains that the banks have acted within the letter of the law, they had up to 28 days to appeal, they took it. End of. What their reasons or morals are, are neither here nor there. We can speculate on what those reasons/morals are, and the rights and wrongs of them, until we are blue in the face, it won't make a blind bit of difference. What they should (in my/your/our opinion) have done, and what they have/will do/or have done, are possibly/probably/maybe two completely different things. So all this speculation and confrontation amongst ourselves will get us precisely........ Nowhere.

So we might as well just keep the backbiting and bitching for another time, another place.

IMHO