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

[Amethyst]

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

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...ach/2/9986.pdf

Just thought some peeps might be interested - just confirming that asking the government for inside info on banks because they 'own' them doesnt work.

[jax007]

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

It is a good thing for those people who are brave enough, can risk costs, and have the knowledge to go for it. I know that sounds patronising but it doesnt help the general consumer or the vulnerable. Its going to be an actual FIGHT now to get charges back and will rely much more on individuals circumstances and if they can show the imbalances adversley affected them as individuals.

We have to be the forerunners in this and take the costs risk to sort out the arguments for everyone else and hopefully create precedents in the arguments now being progressed

Perhaps we should have an LB test case of our own and use one person willing to act as a guinea pig for the benefit of others??

Just a thought.

I too would like to wish everyone a wonderful Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year and, as this year comes to a close, to once again thank all you guys who work so hard for and on behalf of the rest of us...with extra special thanks to Amethyst

Very Merry Christmas one and all ............:3560_7606:

[PocketTheDifference]

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

I think we should all rest our minds about it in safe knowladge that there has been an outcome albeit not totally what we want it, then in the new year come back and BRAIN STORM. I hope everybody enjoys their holidays as mucha s they possibly can and that this outcome hasn't hit you all too bad.

HO HO HO MERRRRY Christmasss :santawalk:

[Amethyst]

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

Perhaps we should have an LB test case of our own and use one person willing to act as a guinea pig for the benefit of others??

Yes Budgie pmsl (only joking ish)

[Budgie]

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

Perhaps we should have an LB test case of our own and use one person willing to act as a guinea pig for the benefit of others??

Just a thought.

My own revised POC will be prepared over Xmas hols and submitted to Kingston Upon Thames County Court on 12th January, earlier if possible. ( HALIFAX claim )

Will of course post up full details on site for those who might wish to follow.

Might have to change my avatar though

[borgbaiter]

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

hi


is there a contingency fund if you loose mr budgie/gunea?


Borgbaiter

[Amethyst]

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

Just to back up something I said earlier - this is from the latest CCA test case judgment
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html
Para 185

(2) The fact that the creditor may nonetheless report the debtor to a CRA (which according to McGuffick he can) does not entail an unfair relationship. Nor does the fact that the creditor might yet write to the debtor seeking repayment of the debt; if what the creditor does amounts to harassment, the debtor will of course have remedies elsewhere, and the mere theoretical possibility of such conduct cannot without more constitute an unfair relationship;

and also for my point AGAINST templated POCS/Letters etc

1. I entirely accept Mr Gun Cuninghame's point that I should not strike out the IEA claim simply because CCR has advertised for business in the way described above and has, together with other claims management companies, made claims in their hundreds if not (according to evidence filed in the Yunis strike-out application) thousands against many banks. As it happens, the OFT has already warned against the dangers of misleading credit-card holders as to their rights and their expectations if claims are made (see paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Guidance which also refers to some creditors having apparently not understood their obligations under s78). It has also stated in paragraph 1.7 thereof that the purpose of s78 is "to provide information to the consumer, not to provide a method for the consumers to avoid paying their debts." But what is relevant about the volume litigation and largely standardised claims which have resulted from advertisements of the kind referred to is that there is here a real risk that claims will be insufficiently tailored to the circumstances of the individual debtor relating to the making of his particular agreement. Hence, in this case, the bald assertion of an unfair relationship or an IEA accompanied by what looks like an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. It is that absence of individualised pleading (and evidence) that has led to my answering Issue 3 as "No" and my characterisation of the claim of an IEA in the case of Adris as speculative. So I accept that the IEA claim here is an abuse of process and may be struck out on that basis.

[Budgie]

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

A contingency fund ??

If you mean the situation wrt possible fast tracking and risk of costs. That's the reason why the claim will not be filed until 12th January. It provides time for me to seek legal counsel and ensure that either arguments ( against costs ) or the necessary funding is in place to cover a potential costs risk.

The majority of issues I intend to argue are matters of common law ( established law ) there is no reason for the claim to be allocated to fast track as the County Courts are able to rule on those issues!

[borgbaiter]

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

hi budgie

i know im teaching you to suck eggs :-). but boy scouts are always prepared. you have any support i can give in my own small way.


Borgbaiter

[Amethyst]

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

http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.u...ve_redress.pdf

interesting parts around page 123

[Amethyst]

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

Interesting thing i noticed today, Yorkshire bank have changed their t&c's slightly

returned item used to be charged at Ł35

NOW its charged at Ł34.50 and you pay a 50pence ''NOTIFICATION FEE''

so the 50p is covering the cost of the letter and the Ł34.50 is the consideration/service/charge for having an account

[natweststaffmember]

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.

It doesn't matter which forum it is on and perhaps it is the information that is contained that is what you have to read.

As I said at the time, I was checking it and have an email from Plymouth County Court CONFIRMING 12 month stays

"Further to your e-mail, the current instruction is to stay all claims for a further 12 months and we have had no further guidance regarding the OFT announcement."

I do make additional checks where information is made on the forum.

[Amethyst]

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

Bit of PIL from BERR


Q1. What exactly does the definition of an unfair term mean?

An unfair term is one that creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, contrary to the requirement of good faith.



A term is most likely to cause an imbalance if it has the effect of reducing the consumer’s rights under the ordinary rules of contract or the general law.



For example they either stop consumers from making certain sorts of legal claim against the business which they could otherwise have made, or give the business rights against the consumer that it would not otherwise have had.


But a term causing an imbalance must be capable of causing detriment to consumers. taken together with the other terms in the contract.


The requirement of good faith embodies a general ‘principle of fair and open dealing’.


It does not simply mean that a term should not be used in a deceitful way. Suppliers are expected to respect consumers’ legitimate interests in drafting contracts, as well as negotiating and carrying them out.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

So is everyone looking at their own cases and just going for it, suppose best to get in early doors, like last time left it and missed the stays by 2weeks so missed my claim going through!

[natweststaffmember]

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

So is everyone looking at their own cases and just going for it, suppose best to get in early doors, like last time left it and missed the stays by 2weeks so missed my claim going through!

Is your claim currently stayed in the courts?