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

[Curlyben]

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

Don't you think you people have a problem with morality

A classic quote..
Of course the mouth piece didn't answer it at all

[Judge mental]

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

In addition to the UTCCR section 5 argument, the banks defence opens two more doors.

First, the ‘penalty’ argument has not been challenged beyond the High Court. The Banks original defence to this was that ‘their charges are a fair reflection of their costs’. This has now of course been blown out of the water by their admitting the charges are an integral part of the services. . . . is it not possible that the OFT legal team have actually been very smart by not appealing that decision? In anticipation that the Banks would have to say things to prove otherwise if they were to be successful in defending the UTCCR argument, so a stronger ‘penalty’ challenge could be brought at a later date if necessary.

Second, the CCA has the ‘unfair relationships’ provisions . . . one person in default is paying for another persons free banking would stand a very good chance of being deemed an ‘unfair relationship’, courts would then have the power to re-write the agreement.

The Sale of Goods Act which applies to services may now come in to play, in addition to a potential referral to the Competitions Commission, it looks like the defence used to get the ruling in the banks favour will now turn around and kick them in the bo**ocks (for want of a better phrase).

[Amethyst]

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

little question - stays from court (as I dont have one and don't recall the exact wording) - in the orders staying the claim does it state contact must be made within 28 days from the conclusion of the test case ? (which is plenty of time btw I'm just wondering)

[ed.]

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

Yes lol

[Budgie]

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

Will check mine tomorrow Ame.

But from memory I think they were mostly different and different depending upon the Court that ordered the stay.

[ed.]

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

All the ones I've seen Bud have been similar to the orders I got in my two cases - I could be wrong however of assumption here. I did just assume it was a stock template issued to each Court after MB sent his letter.

[Not_Watson]

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

My stay says:

"This action is stayed until a date 28 days after the publication of the decision in the test case brought in the High Court by the Office of Fair Trading in July 2007"

I hope that helps.

[Jester]

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

28 days after the ruling is Christmas Day though. Can't see the County Courts working on Christmas Day somehow !!

[natweststaffmember]

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

You know I am picky but it is 23rd of December as it is exactly 4 weeks today(Friday) until Christmas day.

[EXC]

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

The current legal calendar term ends on 17 December but I'm not sure if that applies to County Courts.

From Not-Watson's post it kind of reads to me 'at least 28 days'.

[enaid]

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

The current legal calendar term ends on 17 December but I'm not sure if that applies to County Courts.

From Not-Watson's post it kind of reads to me 'at least 28 days'.

County Court will close @ 4pm on Wednesday 23 December 2009 and will re-open @ 9.30am on Tuesday 29 December 2009.

[Amethyst]

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

Thanks guys, just something to bear in mind over next couple of weeks thats all.

[MrsSkint]

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

Just hung up on HSBC - they keep ringing me! Starting to get worried not sure what to say to them
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
maybe i should just tell them to feck away off

[Sapphire]

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

Mrs Skint

Sorry I'm not up to date with your case so can't advise exactly. Personally I'd prepare an income and expenditure form and make an offer to pay (make sure its affordable though).

[MrsSkint]

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

Hiya Sapphire

Yes, I'm paying £10 per month for overdraft of £600. They won't accept me as hardship case though. Amethyst said to just keep paying them £10 so that's what I'll do, just don't know what to say to them when they ring so keep hanging up on them.

Anyways the can go to hell this weekend - I've got Christmas pressies to buy for the kids!