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

[PocketTheDifference]

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

I thought we wern't writing to banks yet? I think my claim got as far as a bank and possibly a letter saying they are in court speak to you when they can be botherd.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Two more Questions for you, How bad a situation do you have to be in to get hardship? and if Dougal16T

Was to Accept the £1k for it would that be the end of your claim, or can you try get the rest aswell?
I feel like in hardship but am probably not..?

[Amethyst]

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

I have 2 POC's Abbey & Nat West. THey are both different ( Don't know why,maybe from 2 different forums) Will they need changing?
Thanks

4. The Claimant contends that:
a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not genuine pre-estimates of costs incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.
b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of
the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 particularly but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1 e); and
ii); the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2 and;
iii) the common law and Case Law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts.
AND

4. The Claimant contends that:
a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

they are really old POCs including penalty charge arguments and section 6 - but they dont limit the claim to those parts so I think its okay - although at the moment, sit tight x

I know we're asking for a lot of trust at the moment, as are all the consumer forums, and yes things could quite easily go the other way where we have to accept defeat, I'm by no means pretending things are still rosy, BUT we are working on it and have some brilliant minds on the case, if there is a way forward (which looks positive at the minute) then we will take it.

[Dougal16T]

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

They are affected in the same way as all standard claims.

No you do not need to do anything as yet.

You will not have to repay the gesture of goodwill payment.

Is your claim stayed in the courts system too or simply in the banks complaints system ?

Good morning everyone,

Thanks for the input, Amethyst. My claim is stayed in the County Court at present.

As ever
Dougal

[Amethyst]

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

I thought we wern't writing to banks yet? I think my claim got as far as a bank and possibly a letter saying they are in court speak to you when they can be botherd.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Two more Questions for you, How bad a situation do you have to be in to get hardship? and if Dougal16T

Was to Accept the £1k for it would that be the end of your claim, or can you try get the rest aswell?
I feel like in hardship but am probably not..?

Lol if you feel like you are in hardship but are waivering then you most likely arent. Hardship is basically more than 2 months arrears on mortgage/repossession proceedings begun, unable to meet essential bills - council tax/utilties - unable to afford a basic living standard in terms of food and heating etc.

The bars were lower for during the waiver as all attention was on them, however now the banks just have to 'treat customers sympathetically' and sympathy doesnt come from a bank unless you are in a cardboard box at deaths door (exagerating slightly there but you get the idea)

[borgbaiter]

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)

hi

my stay (southend county court)


"IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.This claom be stayed until determination of the proceedings in the High Court
2. Liberty to either party to apply on notice under CPR 23 to lift the stay
3.The hearing of any application to lift the stay be reserved to District Judge Dudley."

no indication of what happens at end of the stay.


Borgbaiter

[Amethyst]

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

Good morning everyone,

Thanks for the input, Amethyst. My claim is stayed in the County Court at present.

As ever
Dougal

Cool. I know that of course ! my minds left my body I think

We already have all your info so just hang tight for a few days.

[Amethyst]

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

hi

my stay (southend county court)


"IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.This claom be stayed until determination of the proceedings in the High Court
2. Liberty to either party to apply on notice under CPR 23 to lift the stay
3.The hearing of any application to lift the stay be reserved to District Judge Dudley."

no indication of what happens at end of the stay.


Borgbaiter

Cool, well the stays not been generally lifted by the courts so it is down to application, so its a hang fire situation at the minute. If you hear anything from the banks/courts let us know immediately, and if you can pm me with contact details regarding the possible next steps that would be greatly appreciated.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Im Not 100% sure if i sent a claim in, if i didnt would you recommend doing so or again sitting tight?

[Yoda]

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

they are really old POCs including penalty charge arguments and section 6 - but they dont limit the claim to those parts so I think its okay - although at the moment, sit tight x

I know we're asking for a lot of trust at the moment, as are all the consumer forums, and yes things could quite easily go the other way where we have to accept defeat, I'm by no means pretending things are still rosy, BUT we are working on it and have some brilliant minds on the case, if there is a way forward (which looks positive at the minute) then we will take it.

Thank you Amethyst.Appreciate your help. I thought I was clear home in June 2007. How wrong can you be?

[PocketTheDifference]

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

I did aswell Yoda I think I was probably a couple of moths late for claiming back, Lucky barstards who got their cash back already

[Amethyst]

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

Im Not 100% sure if i sent a claim in, if i didnt would you recommend doing so or again sitting tight?

I wouldnt recommend anyone enters a claim in court at the present time.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Ok thanks, *Wonders when movement will be made* I'm Impatient but I can wait for good news!

[TANZARELLI]

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

I decided against filing at court my LSTB charges claim (Part 2) when the test case started and am glad at this stage I did decide to do this. My reasoning was to wait and see what happened first then slap the claim in when it was clearer.

I do fully believe this claim will still get filed at some point in the not to distant future when I have fully got my head around the way forward. My charges were from the beginning of 2007 so I still have time to work on it.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Oh ye has that ban thing lifted that said its on hold so we can claim back further while its at court...so we would be loosing money now waiting around right...(Only Month by Month tho I guess)

[TANZARELLI]

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

not sure what your asking?

Waiver has been lifted yes.