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

[Not_Watson]

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

I know how you feel ! I alternate between optimism and pessimism almost daily. I currently feel very pessimistic about it all - on the assumption that if it turns out alright, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I count myself as one of the lucky ones on here - I have previously had a claim paid in full by Lloyds, have a large claim currently stayed with NatWest, and somehow managed to come through the worst of times with my head held up (in no small way, down to advice from sites like LegalBeagles). It sends a horrific shiver down my spine when I think of some of the pain and misery being caused to worthy people by this injustice every single day.

I think that I speak for us all, when I say that "justice" is what we really want - and if we can get some or all of the stolen money back, then that's a huge bonus for us.

I, like many others really appreciate all of the hard work going on behind the scenes and read this thread (and many others) with almost morbid fascination - it's the first thing I do when I get to the computer in the morning, and the last thing I do before I switch it off (also, sometimes in the [early] morning !). It is a massive source of inspiration to be part of a forum with such heavyweight minds contributing, day in, day out. Thanks to all of you.

I wait with baited breath, for the next move.

I also hope it snows !! Season's greetings to you all.

[Smasher]

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

Ame, I guess we all get days like that, but just keep in your mind what has happened over the last 4 years. At one point we all thought there was no way we could take a global financial corporation to court and expect that with all their resources, we could ever have stood a fraction of a chance.
But, gather a few hundred, a few thousand together in the net and just look what at can be achieved!

With all their financial and legal might, they are no closer to seeing the end of it, and the likes of us ain't going away..

[EXC]

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

I don't feel there are much legs in 5(1) of UTCCR or s 140 of the CCA with regards to historical refunds. The rest, misrepresentation etc, I don't know, not feeling overly confident that the powers that be will allow that to happen however true it is/may be.

I really think the best bet is a competition enquiry, a negotiated end to the reclaims so people arent disadvantaged (much as we have spelt out in the report) and concentrating on future charges through new regulation and the pressure from OFT PCA market study.

I'm probably having a down day but I'm tending to lean on the straw clutching side of things - we all know the charges are unfair and have throttled us in the past - I just want to concentrate on making sure they can't in the future and the people in hardship are treated properly and fairly, and making sure that people can come out the otherside of court claims without having lost too much.

I don't want to give up because I have been there, crying my heart out BEGGING some call centre nobody to refund the banks charges so I can pay my mortgage and feed my kids and I will keep fighting but I wont take others down any route I'm not confident in.

Sorry but I'd feel crap if I didn't say that, feel crap for saying it too but there we are, its ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION and a fuzzy emotional one at that so feel free to ignore me.- am off to make a MASSIVE CHOCOLATE CAKE now.

''God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.''

[natweststaffmember]

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

I don't feel there are much legs in 5(1) of UTCCR or s 140 of the CCA with regards to historical refunds. The rest, misrepresentation etc, I don't know, not feeling overly confident that the powers that be will allow that to happen however true it is/may be.

I really think the best bet is a competition enquiry, a negotiated end to the reclaims so people arent disadvantaged (much as we have spelt out in the report) and concentrating on future charges through new regulation and the pressure from OFT PCA market study.

I'm probably having a down day but I'm tending to lean on the straw clutching side of things - we all know the charges are unfair and have throttled us in the past - I just want to concentrate on making sure they can't in the future and the people in hardship are treated properly and fairly, and making sure that people can come out the otherside of court claims without having lost too much.

I don't want to give up because I have been there, crying my heart out BEGGING some call centre nobody to refund the banks charges so I can pay my mortgage and feed my kids and I will keep fighting but I wont take others down any route I'm not confident in.

Sorry but I'd feel crap if I didn't say that, feel crap for saying it too but there we are, its ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION and a fuzzy emotional one at that so feel free to ignore me.- am off to make a MASSIVE CHOCOLATE CAKE now.

I do understand where you are coming from but I guess we must wait and see what the OFT decide to do. Once their thoughts are clear and in the public domain we can decide where we go from there with our hope or our inspiration. At the moment, our job isn't done quite yet. We HAVE to continue to work with what we have and to perhaps looks at the hardship side of things which is the one thing that is lacking on many sites and the onus is now on the customer to do their bit. We need to help on that side.

Once the OFT have given their viewpoint, that is the time for hope or pessimism to sink in.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Can I ask LB since I have asked elsewhere, what is the advice for those people who's cases are due to be heard 28 days after the conclusion of the OFT test case?

Wait and see does not appear to be good enough. There appears to be one court in Plymouth staying cases for 12 months awaiting for the OFT to act, are any other courts following the same approach?

[EXC]

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

There appears to be one court in Plymouth staying cases for 12 months awaiting for the OFT to act

You don't seriously believe that do you?

[natweststaffmember]

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

You don't seriously believe that do you?

I'll confirm this in due course

[EXC]

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

What's there to confirm? You read it on CAG!

A judge staying cases for 12 months on the strength of an OFT announcement due this month?

Think about it.

[Budgie]

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

It was posted up by someone on CAG. ( I of course mean this sarcastically !!!! )

We are taking things a day at a time at the moment Natty.

It would be wrong of us to give any general advice on stayed court claims at the moment.

If individual situations arise we will deal with those on an individual basis.

We are aware of the 28 days deadlines ( for some but not by any means all stayed claims ) and are discussing behind the scenes.

However, at the moment all effort is being focussed on getting the OFT to continue with it's investigations.

[jax007]

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

Originally Posted by Amethyst
I don't feel there are much legs in 5(1) of UTCCR or s 140 of the CCA with regards to historical refunds. The rest, misrepresentation etc, I don't know, not feeling overly confident that the powers that be will allow that to happen however true it is/may be.

I really think the best bet is a competition enquiry, a negotiated end to the reclaims so people arent disadvantaged (much as we have spelt out in the report) and concentrating on future charges through new regulation and the pressure from OFT PCA market study.

I'm probably having a down day but I'm tending to lean on the straw clutching side of things - we all know the charges are unfair and have throttled us in the past - I just want to concentrate on making sure they can't in the future and the people in hardship are treated properly and fairly, and making sure that people can come out the otherside of court claims without having lost too much.

I don't want to give up because I have been there, crying my heart out BEGGING some call centre nobody to refund the banks charges so I can pay my mortgage and feed my kids and I will keep fighting but I wont take others down any route I'm not confident in.

Sorry but I'd feel crap if I didn't say that, feel crap for saying it too but there we are, its ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION and a fuzzy emotional one at that so feel free to ignore me.- am off to make a MASSIVE CHOCOLATE CAKE now.

Hey hey hey Ames ... you need a big ((((((((((((hug)))))))))))) and a :grouphug:one at that!


This is from each and every one of us on LB (sorry guys if I'm being presumptious here) ... we live in hope and die in despair and we are all living (one way or another anyways).

Keep your chin up hun ... you ARE the backbone of this site and you ARE our hope and will ultimately be our salvation. You gotta believe that ... we do!!!!

Stuff the chocolate cake - have a large G&T or two or more.

Love yer
jaxx

[WendyB]

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

Ame, I've said this before to you regarding other threads, and I'm gonna say it again

You can only do what you can do. And you do it to the best you can, over and above the call of duty. You can't do any more than that mate. And we all appreciate everything you do both in public and behind the scenes. No-one can do any more than their best, so don't stress yourself out trying to do more than is humanly possible. Remember you also have a life outside of Beagles and the OFT!!!!
Oh yeah - and leave me a piece of choccie cake please...........

And thanks also to Budgie and Exc and Nats (and all the other legally types who contribute) for all your efforts, you are truly brill!!

[Amethyst]

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

oops sorry guys didn't quite expect replies like that guess I hit a chord with a few :kiss: thank you - onwards and upwards

Re the plymouth thing - easiest thing to do is ring them and ask (and Nats it was just one persion saying a counter clerk said they thought etc' ) Theres going to be so many rumours flying about - easiest thing is to check them out before passing them on.


And the cake was delicious masbeagle

[ed.]

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

Ame, I see where you are coming from but don't forget the strict wording of the pre 06 amendments. I think that's more of a killer as it pertains to breach of CCA, misrep, deception, etc etc loops back to Unfairness under UTCCR than S140 will ever be.

The CCA has stated what these charges are (and even when the banks pay, it implies a term into the contract (ergo not core)) since 1974. Totally sidesteps the Test Case, historically and in the future.

[Amethyst]

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

44-47 of the notes of the 2006 amendments http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006...0060014_en.pdf
?

[ed.]

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

S140 gives the Court two choices basically (and I do think it's retrospective and not culled at 07 from memory - but I could be confusing that with S127(3))

1 - reopen the bargain, reset the price fairly, refund the difference - the account and agreement proceeds as normal apart from that variance to rebalance the fairness.

2 - if the imbalance in fairness is significant enough the entire agreement (????) most certainly the part in question can be deemed unenforceable ergo in charges, the lot would be refunded the add/or new level set would depend on the account being zeroed in those circumstances I imagine.

On the CCA alone I can't see 2 happening really, 1 is far more likely.