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

[orc]

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

Or perhaps it might really naff them off. Not a good idea.

The staff are normal Glasgow folk, used to dealing with normal people and very down to earth. They are there to serve the community in Glasgow, have that ethos and are not a city type legal firms.

[natweststaffmember]

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

The staff are normal Glasgow folk, used to dealing with normal people and very down to earth. They are there to serve the community in Glasgow, have that ethos and are not a city type legal firms.

What about us lot having some patience with GLC and let them update it as and when they can?
To be honest, I wouldn't want to hassle them and then get the details wrong. Let's wait and see if either they won, lost, or it was appealed and furthermore, we might not even get a judgement today, maybe(of course I don't understand the procedure up in Scotland so I could of course be completely wrong).

[EXC]

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

The staff are normal Glasgow folk, used to dealing with normal people and very down to earth. They are there to serve the community in Glasgow, have that ethos and are not a city type legal firms.

So does that community include those who you are encouraging to call them then?

Govan is a really busy little law centre. Ask Mike Dailly (and it's Dailly with a double L) and he'll tell you that they are ill-resourced and perpetually under-staffed. The last thing they need is for some irresponsible busy-body to post their telephone number up on an internet forum encouraging all and sundry to badger them about the outcome of one of their cases knowing full well that they've already told you they'll update their site when they have any news.

[Kafka]

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

I'm still not seeing anything there...

[natweststaffmember]

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

Kafka, I had the same problem and then I took my hands away from my eyes and realised the GLC site hadn't been updated either

[stewie082]

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

So does that community include those who you are encouraging to call them then?

Govan is a really busy little law centre. Ask Mike Dailly (and it's Dailly with a double L) and he'll tell you that they are ill-resourced and perpetually under-staffed. The last thing they need is for some irresponsible busy-body to post their telephone number up on an internet forum encouraging all and sundry to badger them about the outcome of one of their cases knowing full well that they've already told you they'll update their site when they have any news.

Its on the website, clear as day. I think this post from you was a bit harsh.

It came across as you know more than anyone else and superior.

Nasty!

[orc]

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

So does that community include those who you are encouraging to call them then?

Govan is a really busy little law centre. Ask Mike Dailly (and it's Dailly with a double L) and he'll tell you that they are ill-resourced and perpetually under-staffed. The last thing they need is for some irresponsible busy-body to post their telephone number up on an internet forum encouraging all and sundry to badger them about the outcome of one of their cases knowing full well that they've already told you they'll update their site when they have any news.

You can just never let things rest EXC, can you. I extended an olive branch some time ago. You persist gnawing away.

If I respond however, I resort to your level. Life is too short.

I will leave my comment at that.

[EXC]

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

Cold calling a law firm under the pretence that you don’t know that they have already been called and stated that any news will be published via their site is verging on deceitful. And to do that with the clear intention of applying pressure on a busy solicitor to post news on the case sooner than he would otherwise want to, for our convenience, is lacking respect, not reasonable or a responsible thing to do. IMO it is not something anyone on this site should promote.

In my experience of working with him on bank charge cases and related issues my clear impression is that he works under a lot of pressure and thus often runs behind. He invariably cites these reasons for not meeting deadlines and responding to calls & e-mails in good time. He doesn’t like to be hassled. That doesn’t make me superior but in my view it does put me in a position to express an opinion on what is a good idea and what isn’t.

[natweststaffmember]

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

I would add to EXC's post that Mike Dailly has given speeches explaining how tight the funding is for law centres in general and some have gone simply because they could not afford to continue.
With regards to the phone number, it is on their website so people can call if they want but to be honest, think about the people who cannot be helped if we are all calling them for an update which will, no doubt, appear in the press prior to their website. We are not to know whether the judgement will be given at a later date either so posting up the details would hardly be fair to the claimant in this case either.

[orc]

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

Its on the website, clear as day. I think this post from you was a bit harsh.

It came across as you know more than anyone else and superior.

Nasty!

In the interests of harmony I have removed the telephone number.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

(and it's Dailly with a double L)

You don't need to remind me of the fact I have a difficulty with spelling. Its something I have always had to put a lot of effort into but despite that effort I do get words wrong.

I suggest you refrain fron commenting on folks spelling mistakes in future because someone else might get upset by your cheap shot. I think you should apologise.

[natweststaffmember]

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

I take it no one has any news on Govan......oh dear, how really really sad and disappointing......I know let's play hang man cos I have a few people I wouldn't mind......

[EXC]

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

You don't need to remind me of the fact I have a difficulty with spelling. Its something I have always had to put a lot of effort into but despite that effort I do get words wrong.

I suggest you refrain fron commenting on folks spelling mistakes in future because someone else might get upset by your cheap shot. I think you should apologise.

Criticising spelling falls outside of forum protocol. Pointing out how to spell someone's name correctly - without criticism - doesn't. Actually I think you're spelling's pretty good but if spelling correctly means that much to you then I have only helped you towards achieving that aim.

Can we shake hands and move on?

[orc]

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

That sounds perfectly OK with me.

Enjoy the match tonight, I hope you managed to get tickets for some of the England games.

[natweststaffmember]

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

It's in South Africa.....so I have the best ticket in town.....HD TV and the Radio Times for who is covering which match

[EXC]

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

The 'Future of Banking' report has been published

Disappointingly it doesn't specifically include changes to the OFT's powers to enforce UTCCR. It does recommend an opt-in to unauthorised overdrafts (as opposed to opting-out) but it doesn't cover unpaid item charges.

There is some good rhetoric in there though.