OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

[enaid]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Well done so far Dougal, what a trooper xx

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

When will the judgement be made available on Bailii?

I'm not sure. The claim was initially stayed during the test case then, unbeknown to the claimant, struck out by virtue of the Supreme Court judgment, then reinstated, then struck out again and yesterday was an oral application hearing for permission to appeal the last County Court strike out decision and so I'm not sure a written judgment is issued in these circumstances but I'll find out.

[Dougal16T]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

A very good morning to all,

Sadly, I am unable to report success at the COA. For technical reasons I am unable at this stage to explain the situation fully - but basically it may be the case that a formal complaint will be made to the Master of the Rolls.

More in due course, BUT I can say this - IT IS DEFINITELY NOT OVER YET!

WITH THE FANTASTIC SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE I HAVE RECEIVED, FROM BOTH LEGAL BEAGLES, AND COUNSEL, CONSIDERATION IS NOW BEING GIVEN TO ALTERNATIVE ROUTE(S) TO PROGRESS THIS MATTER IN THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE.........

As the next few weeks pass I should be able to set out the proposed action which will settle all Bank Charges claims.

In the meantime my friends, I wish you well.

Best wishes to everyone,

Dougal

[enaid]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Wishing you well too Dougal, everything that will cross I have crossed for you and your team xx

[oldbloke2013]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

They were not in posession of the same evidence that we have and with claims being tried on an individual basis, we have the opportunity to present everything.

Just take a claim against Abbey for instance, their defence states:


Make your claim armed with the charge notification letters and whatever other supporting docs and it is hard to imagine a judge throwing that argument out. It is a penalty, or it is misrep, it has to be one or the other, their own defence leaves them with that choice.

BTW has anyone had a rejection letter from Abbey yet?

I have tried this argument - I believed that the High Court case dealt only with charges/T&C from 2001-2007 and pre 2001 charges were therefore not covered by judgement: in particular, my understanding of 'historic terms' was not every term ever written but just the non-current terms submitted in the High Court case (every bank submitted its current terms (defined as 'current terms') and also a sample of earlier (post 2001) terms which were defined as 'historic terms'). So a ruling on historic terms only covers post 2001 terms. The judge in my case thought otherwise and that the Supreme Court judgement covered all bank charges from the year dot - even though my bank had previously stated charges=costs and charged on breach of contract, with breach of contract being unpaid item.

I am not happy about this but....

[Dougal16T]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Morning all,

It appears I may not (yet) need a new Passport! There may yet be a further hearing in the UK shortly.............

I may be 'down', but I am certainly not 'out' !

Those who seek to harm us would do well to remember what happened in David and Goliath....I always wanted to be called David....!

Best wishes all, and rest assured that as soon as I have details of the 'next step' ........:tinysmile_grin_t:

Dougal.

[enaid]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

More suspenders, good luck xx

[Dougal16T]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Hello all

If I could say more I would - I just need you all to know it is not 'dead in the water' by a very long chalk!!

Your support is more than just appreciated - it keeps my mind focused.

Best wishes everyone

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Good morning all,

Just a quick note that will bring you up to date....I hope!

The situation is that there were 'Serious Procedural Irregularities' at the Hearing in the Court of Appeal. We are now moving forwards again! An Application has been made to deal with these irregularities...........:tinysmile_aha_t:

My Sincere Thanks to brilliant Counsel and the entire Team at LB, I would not have got this far without you. :beagle:

More in due course, but I did say.....'It is not over until I say so!', and I haven't said that yet.

Best wishes all,

Dougal

[Celestine]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Counsel did a superb job of confronting the 'serious procedural errors'! Thrilled to bits for you Dougal xxx

[Dougal16T]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Counsel did a superb job of confronting the 'serious procedural errors'! Thrilled to bits for you Dougal xxx

Morning all,

I agree 101% with you Celestine - he is an inspired fellow to say the very least!

As much as anyone, he deserves to be successful because of his properly and carefully researched arguments.

Without his assistance and of course the unstinting help of LB I would have been 'dead in the water' (not literally..!!.) some considerable time ago.

Best wishes to everyone involved on LB, and thanks for 'being there'.

Kind regards to all,

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Morning all,

QUOTE:" I have tried this argument - I believed that the High Court case dealt only with charges/T&C from 2001-2007 and pre 2001 charges were therefore not covered by judgement: in particular, my understanding of 'historic terms' was not every term ever written but just the non-current terms submitted in the High Court case (every bank submitted its current terms (defined as 'current terms') and also a sample of earlier (post 2001) terms which were defined as 'historic terms'). So a ruling on historic terms only covers post 2001 terms. The judge in my case thought otherwise and that the Supreme Court judgement covered all bank charges from the year dot - even though my bank had previously stated charges=costs and charged on breach of contract, with breach of contract being unpaid item."

I am not happy about this but...."

Just a quick thought on this sentence in the post by oldbloke2013...."even though my bank had previously stated charges=costs and charged on breach of contract, with breach of contract being unpaid item."

With great respect to all I cannot quite see how a Contract between two parties can be breached in this fashion. This is my reasoning:

A meets with B and they agree that A will deposit money with B.
B pays money out on behalf of A.

In my humble view B breaches the Contract, not A, because:

B has agreed to pay out sums of money for A, on the basis that A will have given B the funds to do so PRIOR to the payment being made by B.

However, A has no money deposited with B to cover any payment, but B still pays out money on behalf of A when a request by a third party for money from A is received, even though A has not deposited money with B.

I say that B creates the breach of contract and not A. Any thoughts anyone??

Best wishes all

Dougal

[andrea82]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Hi everyone,

I'm needing help, so anyone who can give me any advice would be greatly accepted.

First of all the long winded story!!!!!!!!

On Friday I went to Asda to do a shop, my card declined. I went to the cash point as I new I had funds available. When I done a balance I was over my overdraft. I phoned Barclays to be told between 1-6am a loan company had taken six transaction totalling £886. After 8 hours or being passed from pillar to post I had money refunded.

At this point I asked the bank to put a stop on this company collecting any future payments as I was under a DMP, to pay them back. The bank did this.

On Sunday I go to the bank again £886 gone from my account this time the bank refusing to refund the money, stating the date I asked them to refund payments to the company is the date the company requested payment, I don't see how this is possible.

Where do I stand under BCOBS, do I have a case to sue the bank, and if so how do I get the ball rolling

Thanks

Andrea

[andrea82]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

sorry that did not make sense. The date I put the request into the bank for them not to pay this company, is the day the company requested payment from my account.

This has allowed me to go £500 over my overdraft, today payments were due out so now I have got charges on my account.

I feel like im stuck in a hole, as the bank are so unhelpful

Andrea

[TUTTSI]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Write an email to the CEO and explain what has gone on, somewhere someone has not done their job properly.

sorry that did not make sense. The date I put the request into the bank for them not to pay this company, is the day the company requested payment from my account.

This has allowed me to go £500 over my overdraft, today payments were due out so now I have got charges on my account.

I feel like im stuck in a hole, as the bank are so unhelpful

Andrea