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

10 yrs isnt so bad


We're trying the Misrepresentation and Mistake angle. Dont think we have any defences in on that argument as yet.

The court judgment 'clarifies' how the charges acted in a material sense regardless of how they were termed. So they are saying (in both penalty judgments and utccr scoj judgment) that the charges are part of the package, not directly (pfffffttt) related to the transactions and even if they were it doesnt matter, and certainly not payable upon a breach.

As I see it the banks either have to say they made a mistake in misrepresenting charges historically, purposefully misrepresented charges historically or they lied to the court. So I guess they'll go for mistake / innocent misrep and we'll have to prove a loss due to the misrep ?

''A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.''

''Innocent misrepresentation occurs when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.[22] Prior to Hedley Byrne, all misrepresentations that were not fraudulent were considered to be innocent. This type of representation primarily allows for a remedy of rescission, the purpose of which is put the parties back into a position as if the contract had never taken place. Section 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967, however, allows for damages to be awarded in lieu of rescission if the court deems it equitable to do so. This is judged on both the nature of the innocent misrepresentation and the losses suffered by the claimant from it.''

Misrepresentation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Smasher]

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

10 yrs isnt so bad

Yeh, its ok, but the statements themselves are not what I'm after. I want all the corrrespondence & anything else that might incriminate them.

As I see it the banks either have to say they made a mistake in misrepresenting charges historically, purposefully misrepresented charges historically or they lied to the court. So I guess they'll go for mistake / innocent misrep and we'll have to prove a loss due to the misrep ?

Screw what they go for! I don't see any reason we can't go for them having lied to us and the court. Even if the judgement does clarify that in a material sense, they acted as a cross subsidy, that only further proves that the terms and the letters they sent us were deliberately deceiptful and htey knowingly lied to us and the court..

[Amethyst]

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

lol yes but perjury is a bit of a biggy for individual claimants to be claiming against such massive organisations with endless funding me thinks, so we have to play the long game and a decent game of chess, narrowing the issues until theres no way out ?

(ummm not insinuating of course that there was any perjury by any of the companys involved)

[PocketTheDifference]

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

(ummm not insinuating of course that there was any perjury by any of the companys involved) --- HAHA Well coverd!

In what wat where they deliberatley false? Im intregued And what did they say that was liying to us and the court. I hope with all this work your looking at it pays of for you guys...(and myself)

[Smasher]

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

In what wat where they deliberatley false? Im intregued And what did they say that was liying to us and the court.

The terms that said charges == cost of dealing with unauth overdraft and the sworn statement in their court defence (particularly Abbey).

If we are saying that the terms were unfair because they were deliberately deceitful under UTCCR 5.1, then with Brennan's discovery of the burden of proof, we wouldn't have to insinuate or prove perjury, all we'd have to do is provide the evidence that shows our statement to be reasonable and correct, evidence which we have in abundance.
It would then be up to them to prove otherwise. In the face of the evidence given, that task would seem impossible, so they'd have to admit it. Surely it'll then be up to the judge to decide what to do with them about that wouldn't it?

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Ok sounds too easy, where does the problem lay here..
is 5.1 what was struck out?
I think its mental that they DONT have to proove anything. I feel like we can never win, government with them and all that.

[Smasher]

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

Ok sounds too easy, where does the problem lay here..
is 5.1 what was struck out?
I think its mental that they DONT have to proove anything. I feel like we can never win, government with them and all that.

6.2 was 'struck out', but we're talking about historics anyway. It is simple, straightforward and makes perfect sense, but unfortunately they've still managed to have us running around in circles with it for 4 years now..

[shooter]

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

Just wondering.....Before what date would all charges be deemed historic
Please excuse my ignorance if it has already been mentioned....

[Smasher]

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

Usually before around September 2007. Whenever your bank altered their terms to present charges as payment for services instead of to cover costs.

[shooter]

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

Well Thats makes all the charges that are included in my stayed court claim, even though I think without looking back I have approx £500 charges after my claim was stayed in Aug 2007. (LLoyds by the way!!!)
Certainly creates a spark of hope for me as I am 100% sure that if anyone can find a way to get our claim back in the courts, Amethyst and co will

[Smasher]

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

Ah, this partuicular argument might not apply to Lloyds (if indeed it has any legs at all anyway) because Lloyds never did describe their charges as to cover costs.

That said, there are still plenty of other good arguments being developed, so there is still hope.

[shooter]

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

Been so busy studying that I've lost the plot a bit on whats actually been happening re LLoyds are they different to the other banks??

I'm sure that their letters used to state "Breach " or something similar when payments bounce and hoping that when we start clearing the loft at the weekend that I will come across some of these letters

Also did I read somewhere that before a certain date they didn't actually have any T&C's??
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Ah, this partuicular argument might not apply to Lloyds (if indeed it has any legs at all anyway) because Lloyds never did describe their charges as to cover costs.
If thats the case why were they still lumped in with the rest??
If for them it isn't a charge to cover costs then what is it?

That said, there are still plenty of other good arguments being developed, so there is still hope.

Sorry for my ignorance

[Smasher]

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

They were lumped together in the same case, but they were examined individually.

Hmm, why do I have it in my head that Lloyds always said charges were services? Cos that's wrong. Maybe it was the Berwick case, or maybe they just never described them as to cover costs? Can anyone confirm?

Anyway, here's their T&Cs from 2004. Definitely confirms broken agreement, but nothing about costs.. Legal Beagles

[Knight_Templar]

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

Sorry all to break the flow but I have received the standard, "after 8 weeks your claim will be dismissed" from HSBC. Nothing from the courts yet regarding strikeout. Are there any template defences for strikeout or change of POCs? Perhaps the defence the success story above used?

[EXC]

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

Sorry all to break the flow but I have received the standard, "after 8 weeks your claim will be dismissed" from HSBC. Nothing from the courts yet regarding strikeout. Are there any template defences for strikeout or change of POCs? Perhaps the defence the success story above used?

If you've had nothing from the court or bank about your court case I would sit tight until you do.

But you will need to respond to the 8 week letter - look here for ideas on how to do so Sample response to Bank to keep complaint in progress.... - Legal Beagles

Back to misrepresentation, although I know little about the law it seems to me that you'd have a tough time proving misrepresentation and that you had relied on it and that it was detrimental as a result.

Contractually I don't think the charges have been misrepresented as they have never been 'presented' at all. They were and still are charges that are incurred on an event.

I can't really see that the issue of charges being described as 'to cover costs' and then being described as payment for the package of services are grounds for a challenge to the charges/contract as neither scenario applied at the point the contract was concluded