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

[davidl]

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

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...m_campaign=box


HERE WE GO AGAIN LOL!!!

[Angry&Informed]

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

So now i'm waiting for the ravens to deliver a letter from Mordor telling me i have no right to a refund. Well I'll tell you now that's not going to do it for me - i refuse to pay for the banking facilities of people much better off than me. I'll fight this all the way, even if i have to come back from Oz to do it. The besuited gits ruined my life for years and I WILL take my revenge.

I want justice, and today there was no justice just the same old same old bourgeoisie b**tards looking after thier own.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
This seems so very true today: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ist_System.gif

[Mochamoo]

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

It is a setback for us but don't forget this is not the end of the war.


There are (unsurprisingly) an awful lot of very upset and angry posts on here and else where don't just get cross and do nothing LEAVE your bank and join a no charge account or a Credit Union. If you have overdrafts or other debts with your bank write to them and set up repayment plans and then open an account else where.

IMO Banks are never going to change unless consumers start demanding change and they(the banks) start losing money because of it.

JMO

[PocketTheDifference]

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

It says it will make a formal announcement next month on what it plans to do next.
Apart from negotiations with the banks, it could abandon its current enquiries into the actual fairness of bank charges and give up.
Or it could publish its detailed conclusions anyway, and possibly devise another legal attack on the way banks levy overdraft fees.
The Supreme Court said the OFT could have another go, if it wished, using another section of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. ----------

SOD IT we've lost anyway, might aswell attack on all fronts!! Hope the banks get screwed for it!! No Sympathy anymore!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Sorry been so angry havnt even asked, Why did we lose exactly? I mean its obvious its unfair to us so on what grounds did the "lord" etc state we DESERVE to have these fees (Tw@s)

[shooter]

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


Firstly I would like to say a BIG thank you to the team for all their help and good advice over the past couple of years. without you I am sure there are loads of us that would have comtemplated bankrupsy or worse with the banks breathing down our necks for the money we owed them without a thought for how it would effect us.

So this judgement has seriously put things in a spin for us all, but as I have read before I am sure that this is not the end of the matter. from My limited knowledge of the law and the legal jargon used I read into what has been said that the supreme court have in a round about way given the OFT a hint as to there being other avenues for them to go down to have the charges reduced or even totally refunded to us all. Guess will just have to wait and see.

I think it is going to take some time for the full implacations of this judgement to become clear so I have just a couple of questions in the interim

So my questions are.....
Firstly...
As Lloyds have stopped my account incurring charges for the last 12 months or so and have been reducing my overdraft by just £3 per month will they now be able to add all the charges that my account would have incurred and ask me to repay my OD in one fell swoop?

They had allowed me this concession after I wrote to them with details of the hardship I was suffering as my case is stayed within the county court system.

Secondly...
Will my case now be actually heard by a judge and if so what do I need to do to prepare for it ?

If they do ask for everything in one go I will have no alternative but to claim bankrupcy.

( will budgie help me? [think there may be lots of us asking for his help in the very near future] as I feel I would just clam up and he seems to be an old hand at arguing and winning at court LOL)

shooter

[davidl]

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

Quick question as natweststaffmember allways says the test case is a leagle case
so why did 2 courts say the oft could investigate the charges and the sup court said they cant?? It does not make sence if its the law its the law? It just makes me wonder....

[Budgie]

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

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...m_campaign=box


HERE WE GO AGAIN LOL!!!

Actually, for once, this article on MSE is a very good and accurate summary of the situation as I see it.

Additionally I also believe that there is a possible argument for resurrecting the penalty argument as the fact that charges are now considered part of the complete package of services supplied by a bank possibly means that the criteria by which Smith decided the penal aspects in the original High Court Test Case have now altered.

There is additionally an argument under the Supply of Goods and Services Act and also under the Misreprentation Act.

So overall the message at the moment is do not panic.
These issues are all being studied by people far better qualified than ourselves and there will no doubt be a wealth of discussion over the next few weeks.

The Legal Beagles Team are aware that many people will be worrying about legal actions that are currently underway against Consumers on behalf of the the Banks. Again, we ask you to bear with us, we are discussing the best advice that we can provide to Consumers on these issues and will be posting up some additional information shortly.

Budgie

[Angry&Informed]

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

Budgie - once again the true voice of reason!

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Is that a Can of worms we've open then, being that NOW its a fact that we are getting charged and are allowed to be, where as before we just were not sure!

[ROBSTER]

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

!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Sorry been so angry havnt even asked, Why did we lose exactly? I mean its obvious its unfair to us so on what grounds did the "lord" etc state we DESERVE to have these fees (Tw@s)

We've lost nothing IMO. OFT lost the right to assess fairness of charges under section 6 of UTCC (not 5) and no referance to CCA.

In other words IF the OFT want to there are plenty of other weapons in their armoury (may be not their weapons of choice... but hey ho).

I do not believe any Banker is prepared to step into a court and divulge exactly how much these charges actually cost them to apply and as such will continue to settle out of court to the few hardy claimants who continue this crusade.

And dont fall victem of Martin Lewis's Headline grabbing rantings about all is lost as he did on the Media earlier today.

Did he hear the same opening comments by Lord Phillips as me

"The Appeal was not about whether bank charges for those who overdraw on current accounts are fair"

How does that translate into his implied advice to the nation to chuck in the towel in the matter of bank charges.

Shame on you Martin.

[Luminol]

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

I agree with Budgie, I am one of the people who has a nasty DCA on thier back and the only way I prised them off was with the 'account in dispute' over bank charges. They have a valid CCA btw. I shall wait and cross whatever bridges one step at a time with the support of the caring people on this site.

As for Shooters comment:

'If they do ask for everything in one go I will have no alternative but to claim bankrupcy.'

I know they feeling! My freind came today and her Bankruptcy was discharged last month after being 250k in debt, and she seems brighter, but its not an easy option, and Im loathed to consider it.

So Im gonna sit and wait, put the heating on, have a glass of something...and try not to worry, took me along time not to be afraid of the postman and Im damned if Im going back!!

Lumi x

[TANZARELLI]

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

We've lost nothing IMO. OFT lost the right to assess fairness of charges under section 6 of UTCC (not 5) and no referance to CCA.

In other words IF the OFT want to there are plenty of other weapons in their armoury (may be not their weapons of choice... but hey ho).

I do not believe any Banker is prepared to step into a court and divulge exactly how much these charges actually cost them to apply and as such will continue to settle out of court to the few hardy claimants who continue this crusade.

And dont fall victem of Martin Lewis's Headline grabbing rantings about all is lost as he did on the Media earlier today.

Did he hear the same opening comments by Lord Phillips as me

"The Appeal was not about whether bank charges for those who overdraw on current accounts are fair"

How does that translate into his implied advice to the nation to chuck in the towel in the matter of bank charges.

Shame on you Martin.

Well put Robster

[philltee]

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

what confuses me is, surely the OFT would have been better off taking the bank to task on grounds of general unfairness (Clause 5) in the first place, rather than arguing whether overdraft charges are in the remit of the UCTRRs? or could they not have used both clause 5 and clause 6 to argue their point? i cant believe it has been 2 and a half years, and we are now back to square one.
I was 28 years old when this all started, i could easily be in my mid 30s by the end of it! I hope the banks are forced to pay back the interest on top of the return of charges!

[Luminol]

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

Is the mist lifting? From what I can gather (and I may be wrong), if my bank declines my claim under section 6, I can type a letter the very next day to claim under section 5, am I correct?

Lumi x

[PocketTheDifference]

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

With You guys but also just concerned Im, Sorry Robster ;p I just want whats mine back, Likge Phil Said couldn't they of argued a few points rather than just the one, the one that lost or did they have to go about it that way, Im with you all the way but another 2years at least hell...thats what makes you want to stop isn't it and the other thing would be the OFT won up until this date and then just lost quickly with no sign of losing they just did....FIXED!