OFT Test Case on Bank Charges ......from House of Lords to Supreme Court

[helpmeclaim]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

"becuase we were greedy enough to want our own money back."

I don't think greedy is the correct word "want our own money back" is better


I don't think it matters what amounts of money is involved in the refunds the test case is about the law as was stated in the HOL hearing. If we took £££££ wrongly we would have to pay it back regardless so that is what the banks should do.

At the end of the day its not going to take the banks long to be running in profit again they will simply charge a monthly fee to everyone. I would imagine all the banks have already got plans in place to start at the push of a button once the test case has finished.

I think you will only get money back if you ask for it maybe similar to endowment mortgages cases will have a timeline to submit claims or they will become statute barred. Even change some of the laws to prevent further legal action. But for the bank charges i think they all know it is inevitable money will get paid back estimates will have been taken into account and future revenue for the charging structure also accounted for no big deal for them.

As for the tax payer paying for it again i don't think this matters when you think how much tax is generated per year its not going to make a big difference to our pay packets even if they are bailed out again.

The right thing should happen and us all get our money back, but this is ENGLAND so anything can happen.

[WendyB]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

"becuase we were greedy enough to want our own money back."

I don't think greedy is the correct word "want our own money back" is better.

errm, I was being sarcastic:tinysmile_grin_t:

[natweststaffmember]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Apologies for speaking out of turn but are we back to this charging for current accounts. Well, you riff raff have financed my free account for years so when you get a refund can I borrow some to pay for my current account???
We are jumping the gun a bit aren't we? The Issue of fairness is currently on the table and the ink has yet to be put in the printer to print the decision and already we are talking restitutionary costs and such like.
I have this revolutionary idea. Shall we wait and see what actually happens with the first part of the case prior to deciding on the second part

[WendyB]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Sorry sir, didn't know I was dealing with a revolutionary. :tinysmile_grin_t: Shall i call you Che from now on?

Nats, its only natural that when discussing possibilities one thing leads to another, a lot of it is speculation, yes, but as long as its not put acros as definites, and everyone realises that thats all it is, then its doing no harm.

And if we all just wait to see what actually happens we might as well shove a big fat closed sign on this thread cos there will be no point in contributing to it will there?

And its MRS Riff Raff to you pmsl

[BOBSCOUSE]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Crap idea Nattie - speculation, conspiracy theories and tittle tattle are the order of the day and I for one applaud those of forthright opinion especially if their ramblings are endorsing conclusion in favour of the masses..........and me!!!

[natweststaffmember]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

In that case, I think I will speculate that the OFT will win and they will lose part of the secondary issues which will make some fees fair
Furthermore, the House of Lords will NOT give out the Judgement and I will soon be able to prove that definitvely

[righty]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I predict that all the bankers will be forced at gun point to climb to the top of the Canary Wharf Tower & jump off

[Guest]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I predict that all the bankers will be forced at gun point to climb to the top of the Canary Wharf Tower & jump off

Hope springs eternal...

[Happyolddog]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I predict that all the bankers will be forced at gun point to climb to the top of the Canary Wharf Tower & jump off

Do you have a gun?

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I am only highlighting the fact that far from being a simple case about justice or legal argument, the political and financial issues are also relevant from a state perspective. The HoL may make their judgement and ignore all these issues, there has been argument put forward that in fact the HoL may take account of the ramifications of their judgement on UK PLC.

Odd then that the 'issue' of the potential consequences did not feature in either Justice Smith's or the Court of Appeal's judgments.

As is their function the House of Lords have been asked to rule on a point of law. In this case 'do the relevent terms fall within the scope of UTCCR'.

They have not been asked, and neither is it their function, to abandon the law and take it upon themselves to micro manage the economy on behalf of UK PLC.

[Guest]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Cetelco

i am not suggesting they should not pay, only that there is a potential issue in respect of the amount they may have to pay if the ruling opens the way for account of profits/unjust enrichment arguments to succeed.

I am only highlighting the fact that far from being a simple case about justice or legal argument, the political and financial issues are also relevant from a state perspective. The HoL may make their judgement and ignore all these issues, there has been argument put forward that in fact the HoL may take account of the ramifications of their judgement on UK PLC.

I'm sorry if it is not what people want to hear, but i do believe that these issues are real and there is no reason for them not to be discussed.

If i have offended anyone sorry, its not my intent.

This is a huge subject.

The judiciary operates under an aspect of the British Constitution termed the rule of law which can be summarised thus. The rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behaviour of authorities; that there can be no punishment unless a court decides there has been a breach of law and; everyone, regardless of position in society, is subject to the law.

Therefore, the rule of law is a legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles of law without the intervention of discretion in their application

Furthermore, we enjoy a separation of powers (albeit an imperfect model, although perhaps slightly less so since the office of Lord Chancellor has been reformed) in the UK and the judiciary fiercely guard their independence, as evidenced in Congreve v Secretary of State for the Home Office [1976] where Lord Denning MR stated “…courts have the authority - and, I would add, the duty - to correct a misuse of power by a Minister or his department, no matter how much he may resent it or warn us of the consequences if we do." Interference in the test case would also violate the accepted constitutional convention that states that where proceedings are before a court, or imminent, Members of Parliament are barred from raising the issues in debate.

Judges in the higher courts have tenure under the Act of Settlement 1700, which protects their independence from both the executive and Parliament. For example, superior judges can only be dismissed by an address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament. To further protect the judiciary, judges enjoy immunity from legal action in relation to their judicial functions and the public interest in the administration of justice requires that judges possess absolute privilege in relation to court proceedings.

The essential function of the separation of powers doctrine is to avoid the over-concentration of power in one institution of the state and therefore, as much as our Government likes to meddle, the political and financial issues from a state perspective cannot feature in any House of Lords judgment.

Having said that, in Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] the House of Lords ruled that compensation was payable to oil companies whose property had been destroyed during war time in order to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. The government quickly proposed and Parliament passed the War Damage Act 1965 which effectively nullified the decision.

[righty]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Cel Your quoting the Bill of Rights unfortunately that's been erroded in that we can now be punished by the state without a court finding. We have lost the right to silence in some cases we've lost the right to trial by jury AND we've lost the right to NOT incriminate ourselves eg If we don't name the unidentifiable driver of our speeding vehicle we will be punished by the court to the same extent if we had been that driver

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Cel Your quoting the Bill of Rights unfortunately that's been erroded in that we can now be punished by the state without a court finding. We have lost the right to silence in some cases we've lost the right to trial by jury AND we've lost the right to NOT incriminate ourselves eg If we don't name the unidentifiable driver of our speeding vehicle we will be punished by the court to the same extent if we had been that driver

the bill of rights may have been erroded, but the banks arguement make their contract quasi contract, therfore the OFT should argue
A quasi contract may afford less recovery than an implied-in-fact contract. A contract implied in fact will construct the whole agreement as the parties intended, so the party seeking the creation of an implied contract may be entitled to expected profits as well as the cost of labor and materials. A quasi contract will be created only to the extent necessary to prevent unjust enrichment. As one court has put it, contracts implied in law are "merely remedies granted by the court to enforce equitable or moral obligations in spite of the lack of assent of the party to be charged" (Gray v. Rankin, 721 F. Supp 115 [S.D. Miss. 1989]). The amount of recovery for an implied-in-law contract usually is limited to the cost of labor and materials because it would be unfair to force a person who did not intend to enter into a contract to pay for profits.
Quasi contracts are made possible by the doctrine of Quantum Meruit (Latin for "as much as is deserved"), which allows courts to imply a contract where none exists. Quantum meruit includes implied-in-fact contracts as well as quasi contracts. Courts also use the term quantum meruit to describe the process of determining how much money the charging party may recover in an implied contract.
IMHO

[righty]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

This is a huge subject.

The judiciary operates under an aspect of the British Constitution termed the rule of law which can be summarised thus. The rights of individuals are determined by legal rules and not the arbitrary behaviour of authorities; that there can be no punishment unless a court decides there has been a breach of law and; everyone, regardless of position in society, is subject to the law.

Therefore, the rule of law is a legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles of law without the intervention of discretion in their application

Furthermore, we enjoy a separation of powers (albeit an imperfect model, although perhaps slightly less so since the office of Lord Chancellor has been reformed) in the UK and the judiciary fiercely guard their independence, as evidenced in Congreve v Secretary of State for the Home Office [1976] where Lord Denning MR stated “…courts have the authority - and, I would add, the duty - to correct a misuse of power by a Minister or his department, no matter how much he may resent it or warn us of the consequences if we do." Interference in the test case would also violate the accepted constitutional convention that states that where proceedings are before a court, or imminent, Members of Parliament are barred from raising the issues in debate.

Judges in the higher courts have tenure under the Act of Settlement 1700, which protects their independence from both the executive and Parliament. For example, superior judges can only be dismissed by an address to the Crown from both Houses of Parliament. To further protect the judiciary, judges enjoy immunity from legal action in relation to their judicial functions and the public interest in the administration of justice requires that judges possess absolute privilege in relation to court proceedings.

The essential function of the separation of powers doctrine is to avoid the over-concentration of power in one institution of the state and therefore, as much as our Government likes to meddle, the political and financial issues from a state perspective cannot feature in any House of Lords judgment.

Having said that, in Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] the House of Lords ruled that compensation was payable to oil companies whose property had been destroyed during war time in order to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. The government quickly proposed and Parliament passed the War Damage Act 1965 which effectively nullified the decision.

As I've already argued 'if the banks lose the government will move the goalposts'

[showergirl]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I really hope that this come to a closure soon as Halifax have taken another £140 this month in charges.

Sometimes I wonder why I go to work when the bank takes most of my money