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

[hicskis]

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

What the government should have done is when helping banks in trouble they should have taken more shares to be resold later...that would be understandable business practice.

In other words the banks and their personnel should not profit from such arrangements - and the tax payer should not loose out.

That would be fair - but then it wouldn't give us campaigners anything to do..... so here we are.....

[EXC]

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

From OFT Board minutes 3 December:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/boa...4/Dec-2009.pdf

Item 4: Update on bank charges investigation and the Supreme Court
judgment

The team is now considering the options after the Supreme Court judgment. The
team summarised progress to date against objectives. Transparency and switching
have improved, and banks' revenue from charges may have declined. The OFT has
committed to make an announcement of our next steps during December.

The basis for and scope of the investigation has been affected by the judgment but
the team is currently assessing potential options for next steps, including
legislation. The Board agreed with the OFT’s current view that priority should be
given to establishing the “forward solution” for charging structures.

The Board wished to be consulted if it is proposed to continue litigation and agreed
that the decision on how to proceed can be made by the CEO in consultation with
ExCo.

[hicskis]

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

From "Yes Prime Minister" - THE SMOKE SCREEN

"Any unwelcome initiative from a minister can be delayed until after the next election by the Civil Service 12-stage delaying process:

1. Informal discussions
2. Draft proposal
3. Preliminary study
4. Discussion document
5. In-depth study
6. Revised proposal
7. Policy statement
8. Strategy proposal
9. Discussion of strategy
10. Implementation plan circulated
11. Revised implementation plans
12. Cabinet agreement"

[Amethyst]

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

For info Updated Response to the PCA Report - Feb 2010 - Legal Beagles has been submitted to OFT following meeting early Feb.

[EXC]

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

Another FOI request on the test case (I think was made by someone on MSE) although not a very good one as all the answers to the 3 questions were public knowledge at the point the request was made. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/fre...FOIA-76649.pdf

[Amethyst]

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

Some interesting figures from Gingerbread (have just come across while doing some work for uni) http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/portal...ame=550175.PDF

[EXC]

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

This is Bob Egerton's post meeting submission to the OFT.

[Amethyst]

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

Angrybank (for those who have been keeping an eye) has successfully pooped on HBOS submissions to disallow the previously allowed amended claim (ie incidental application hearing last month suceeded, bank read it again, defended original claim and said they didnt want to accept the amended claim - Sheriff said hard nuts (in so many words anyway) so they have to defend ) Next hearing 15th April.


this is HBOS's '' Note of opposition by the defender to the pursuers incidental application to amend his statement of claim ''

The pursuers incidental application to amend his statement of claim is opposed in respect that:-

1. No satisfactory explanation is tendered as to why the pursuer did not include in his original statement of claim his new claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or his expanded claim under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. This action was raised prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in OFT v Abbey National and others (2009) UKSC 6. It is submitted that the pursuer should not be allowed to amend his case to proceed on a different basis in law simply in order to sidestep the findings of the Supreme Court.
   
   
2. The defender would be prejudiced by the allowance of the proposed amendment in respect that it will incur further irrecoverable expense in the determination of the pursuers claim. Under the small claims procedure that prejudice cannot be satisfactorily ameliorated by an award of expenses against the pursuer as a condition of allowing the amendment.
   
   
3. The defender would further be prejudiced by allowance of the proposed amendment in respect that determination of this action would be delayed. Allowing the amendment would increase the prospect that the action could not be disposed of at the diet of debate fixed for 5 March 2010. In particular, in the event that the pursuer is permitted to amend his pleadings to include a claim under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it would not be possible to determine the matter at the said diet of debate, rather, an evidential hearing would be required.

[hicskis]

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

Here is a link to Govan Law Centre's Amended Statement of Claim (Scotland) - don't forget this has the knowledge and advices of Raymond Cox QC, and MSE behind it.

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/02/...s-amended.html

[natweststaffmember]

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

Here is a link to Govan Law Centre's Amended Statement of Claim (Scotland) - don't forget this has the knowledge and advices of Raymond Cox QC, and MSE behind it.

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/02/...s-amended.html

I didn't think Ray Cox was involved in the GLC case but will read the link now in case he did get involved in this one.

[hicskis]

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

Let me clarify - he reviewed the Superior Court Judgment for MSE and Govan Law - he might not be directly involved per se - but he still would have reported his views - therefore they are most likely acting on his advices.....

That's why i chose my wording carefully.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Let me clarify - he reviewed the Superior Court Judgment for MSE and Govan Law - he might not be directly involved per se - but he still would have reported his views - therefore they are most likely acting on his advices.....

That's why i chose my wording carefully.

The article makes no reference to Ray Cox, QC, and the source says GLC. I think an email to GLC to clarify might be worth your while.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Let's play spot the obvious mistake:

Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hicskis]

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

Hey Nattie - i get my info from many many sources, and have done for a long period of time - the essence in what i am saying though is however right. It matters not that Raymond Cox is officially acting for Govan Law which i doubt very much because of the costs, and if he were then his name would appear all over it - and it does not.

He did however look at the SCJ for MSE & Govan Law and that is well documented.

It is possible then to take a leap of faith - when i say that they will be acting on what he advised.

Originally by me:

...don't forget this has the knowledge and advices of Raymond Cox QC, and MSE behind it.

Choice of words Nattie, choice of words...

[natweststaffmember]

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

He looked at it for MSE because he was instructed by them to do so and NOT Govan Law Centre. I'm sorry, but accuracy is important.

I don't take leap of faiths, I prefer factual information rather than assumption.

[Amethyst]

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

Facts: MSE instructed Raymond Cox through Mike Dailly of Govan Law - this is because a QC has to be instructed by a solicitor and isn't usually instructed directly.

MSE and Mike Dailly have copies of Ray Cox's Opinion but the actual Opinion is restricted and not available to be made public (only the instructing solicitor (Mike) and his clients (MSE) have access to the Opinion).

The POC's and Letters on Govan Law and MSE are based on the Opinion.

MSE funded the Opinion.

Raymond Cox QC was chosen because he has been involved in previous instruction for bank charges cases, as indeed has Mike Dailly - previously for CAG and PC, and at the time the SCoJ Judgment was announced Stephen from PC was in contact with him on another (related) matter.

So yes, if we are being picky on words, it can be said that Mike of Govan Law is acting on the Opinion received from Raymond Cox QC.

As we do not know the content fully of the Opinion we can only hope that they have interpreted it correctly.