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

[Yoda]

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

It isn't a defence, more a please let me keep the claim in court and send in new particulars, so yes a defence to the strike out applications. I have some thoughts on it, but am keeping an eye on Claireh who is in court with it today, so lets see how that goes first.

Any news on this yet Amethyst?

[Kafka]

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

Still waiting...it was due in court at 2:00 for 30 mins.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
She pulls it off
eace:


Well that was an interesting hour and half. They scheduled six cases all to be heard at same time. Only us and one other showed judge struck out first four claims and gave us and other guy six weeks to amended poc. On mobile more info when I get home

[Yoda]

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

Still waiting...it was due in court at 2:00 for 30 mins.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
She pulls it off
eace:


Well that was an interesting hour and half. They scheduled six cases all to be heard at same time. Only us and one other showed judge struck out first four claims and gave us and other guy six weeks to amended poc. On mobile more info when I get home

Fantastic well done!!!

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Sounds a little promisiong hope it is for you. and hope it paves the way for future claims.

[Amethyst]

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

What do you mean by - SOOOOOO better to wait and defend a strike app. Sorry Ame Im increadibly slow ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Im soo slow guys, I'll tell you whats bloody unfair, How can they justfy me putting £2k in my bank (wages) a month and have the cheek to say its worth 0.02p interest, but charge me £35 interest for just missing a D/D
Surely thats unfair charges!!
What im getting at is my £2k is worth 2p to them until... i miss a payment not even worht 1/4 of that but then its instantly worth £35.
I hope you see where im going here...

what i mean is its better to wait till the bank apply to strike then defend, money wise, than apply for a stay lift for new POCs first (as you have to pay an application fee)

now your case - what did the letter from court say ?

[TUTTSI]

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

Looking forward to hearing all the details latter - at least a step in the right direction.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

what i mean is its better to wait till the bank apply to strike then defend, money wise, than apply for a stay lift for new POCs first (as you have to pay an application fee)

now your case - what did the letter from court say ?

I haven't got it on me so i don't know exactly i will find it and type up, but it did say after all decisions taken blah blah, if they don't hear from us within ///14days?? then they will consider this case cloased. I will get finer detail in a little bit. Looking forwards to hearign whats happend in the case above

[orc]

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

Here is a link to the story on Penalty Charges.

Good news and encouraging for everyone in a similar position. Spread the words of encouragement.

http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk...INST-PC-MEMBER

[Amethyst]

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

Being spreaded

[PocketTheDifference]

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

– after using Penalty Charges’s response defence - and then the bank will have 4 weeks to file submissions in reply. This result echoes the few others hearings that have taken place recently, where the county courts are – so far – not prepared to be fooled by the banks into dismissing valid claims

What reply do you suppose they will make and what changes to amend the particulars of claim??

Well done though i hope this paves the way for somthing special. I also Glad to see that the courts aren't taking an easy option out and just agreeing with what has been said in the past, i thought they might to make life easier.

Also sorry to rant on what do you think that they would look at once they have amended the particulars? what can a judge look at the the supreame didn't?

GOOD LUCK!!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


Member fights off strikeout application for bank charges claim.


A member has successfully fought off a strikeout application today, where Yorkshire Bank was asking the court to dismiss the claim for the return of unfair and unlawful bank charges. Member Claire H, from Rotherham, has been managing the claim for a friend and the case was stayed due to the recent Test Case. That case ended in November, with the shock decision by the Supreme Court that the regulator (the OFT) can no longer regulate on the unfair charges using the main features of the statute designed for that purpose. This has left more than a million claims pending, either filed with the courts or as requests for refunds directly to the banks.


Some banks are already applying to have claims struck out, by suggesting to the courts that the claims have “no real prospect of success”, and telling the same story to claimants. This (typically) deceitful claim ignores the clear statement by the Supreme Court that “…this will not close the door on the OFT’s investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges.”


The banks are clearly desperate to win the first strikeout requests and have sent barristers from London - even to these short application hearings – with cost being no object now that they have all the money taken unlawfully and even (in some cases) public subsidies due to their failures. With the OFT no longer bothering to fight for the return of the historic charges (taken at the rate of £2.6bn per year), it now falls to individual consumers and the consumer forums to fight for justice. As the average claim is over £1000, the million+ stayed claims represent more than £1 billion actually in the reclaiming system, yet the Government is doing nothing to support justice or to help consumers recover the money that the banks have taken. One question that must be asked is “What is the Government doing?” All party leaders agree that theses charges are unfair, but no party has taken any direct action to support the return of the countless billions taken unlawfully by these unfair charges. Despite self-congratulatory Government claims and the OFT’s comical quest for ‘voluntary agreements from the banks’, consumers have been abandoned and now have to fight for themselves against the full power and wealth of the discredited banking system.

At today’s hearing in Rotherham, 6 strikeout applications were heard together. Unfortunately 4 claimants did not attend, but after a long hearing, the two claimants in attendance were granted 6 weeks to amend the particulars of claim – after using Penalty Charges’s response defence - and then the bank will have 4 weeks to file submissions in reply. This result echoes the few others hearings that have taken place recently, where the county courts are – so far – not prepared to be fooled by the banks into dismissing valid claims. The battle will now turn on the first full hearings, where the revised claims and defences are examined in court.

Penalty Charges wishes to offer its congratulations to Claire (and the actual claimant) and looks forward to providing ongoing support for the claim.

[Amethyst]

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

THESE Arguments pised... not looked at by supreme court.

1. UTCCR Reg. 5(1) – An imbalance of rights and obligations, contrary to good faith, and to the detriment of the consumer. ( NOT PRICE ISSUES )

2. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 or common law Mistake

3. The Competition Act 1998, Chapter II

4. Undue influence (common law)

5. CCA 1974 (as amended), s140A & 140B – unfair relationship




You found your order yet ?

[PocketTheDifference]

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

You found your order yet ?[/quote]

Not yet, its at home and im in work hehe, Ill type it up tonight, I have a few more claims I can't wait to put in once hopfully these judges let the claims become!
One Biggy from none other than RBS Natwest which i think would net me around £3k - £4k (and its a personal account!!) Thats the one im waiting for my partner has had same letter as me and worth a few bob. so i will type them both up tomorrow so we know where we can go from here, have you got a claim in aimes?!

[Amethyst]

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

I was done and dusted by November 2006 lol

[Amethyst]

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

Okay I have a question (maybe a really obvious one everyone already knows/thinks anyway)

As the court has ruled charges to be a part of the price for the package of services - does this obliterate any common law penalty argument ?

I think it does because the charges are the same which ever law you look at them under so if they are deemed 'a part of the price for a package of services' under UTCCR then they ARE 'part of the price for the package of services ' generally and as such cannot possibly be a breach. They can't be a breach under common law AND 'a part of the price for a package of services' which destroys any hopes of getting ANY of the charges deemed as capable of being penaltys (even those judged to be in Smiths judgment) as the UTCCR ''a part of the price for a package of services' superceeds that.

What do you reckon ?

[Smasher]

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

I get what you're saying and you're probably right, but I still have a hard time accepting that we should now just accept that historic charges were part of the price for a package of services. If you have a claim that is 100% historic charges, then there never were any terms that described them as such.
I'm still totally baffled as to how current terms can cover a dispute over previous terms which were so totally and utterly different.

Whether they could be called a penalty or not shouldn't really be the question imo. Rather, were these terms, the letters we were sent explaining what the charges were for and the written defence the truth? We know that it is impossible for that to be the case.

Quite how to address that legally, I don't know, but if the contract (or T&Cs) contained deliberate misleading terms from which banks knowingly and willingly generated colossal profit by deceit, then surely there is some legislation somewhere that will protect against it?

Perhaps we could say that they were unfair under 5.1 because they were simply not the truth. Here's why I believe this (original terms, the letters, the PCA report, their SC arguments e.t.c.). If I got this right, that should put the burden of proof on them to show otherwise. I guess we can count on it being impossible for them to show that it was in fact the truth and I fail to see how they could argue that these charges were part of the price for a package of services, when the terms that described them as such were not even written until AFTER the claim was made.

BTW, I have received a response from HSBC since my SAR - Surprise surprise, just a bunch of duplicate statements (albit 10 years worth). Sending another letter today for the rest of the data..