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

[ncf355]

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

Wider public interest: Define that?

I was on MSE yesterday and to be honest on the bank charges reclaims boards, it is very very quiet. Look at other sites and you'll see that it is very very quiet(including here). Bank Charges litigation today is not a matter of wider public interest. No one is winning through the courts and haven't done for a while. Whilst it may be in OUR wider interest, it isn't necessarily the same definition that you may be expecting.

Hi,

lets be fair here, the only reason it is so quiet is due to the media putting across the general impression that the OFT lost, therefore: game over

I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had with friends and colleagues that believe this to be the case

There is quite obviously a general public interest in this and anyone that cannot apply such a basic level of common sense should not be sat on such a board (IMHO)

On more technical issues I can appreciate the board may need it in black and white, but this is quite simple - if there had been no wider public interest the OFT would not have been involved to such a degree.

[EXC]

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

Hi,



There is quite obviously a general public interest in this and anyone that cannot apply such a basic level of common sense should not be sat on such a board (IMHO)

Is the wider public interest best served by risking tens of thousands of pounds of public money on a case run by a solicitor who is apparently incapable of filling out a legal aid application form correctly?

[pompeyfaith]

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

I am a little bewildered here why claimants are not pushing this further with the banks, because the supreme court judge made it clear the avenue the oft took was wrong and claimants had a route via section 5 of the uttcr 1999.

Section 5 is very clear in that charges on a contract have to be individually negotiated as we all know none never are and are written into the contract before we see sight of it if we see it at all.

So why are we not challenging the banks to prove that we agreed to these charges?

Unfair Terms

5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

I may be missing something, so anyone care to explain.

[Amethyst]

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

I think it WAS in the wider public interest, now it isn't. Its been ruled on. Section 140b CCA is VERY individual and unique to every single person/customer and as such, in my view, 140b cannot be in the wider public interest. It is the direct relationship between the bank and the individual customer. If one person has been affected severely and unfairly by the relationship with the bank and the charges incurred directly relating to that relationship, then that does not mean another/everyone has.

Look FORWARDS.

The LAB have said they will reassess the application now Mike has put the right information on the application so we'll wait and see.

Not sure on the issue of insurance against costs if they lose - if the LAB are insuring against loss then if the chances of winning are minimal, then why risk public money on it ? Closure I guess (though I dont think for a minute if Govan did lose people would accept it, it'd be a conspiracy of course)

[Amethyst]

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

POMPEY - Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaims - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[EXC]

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

Section 5 is very clear in that charges on a contract have to be individually negotiated as we all know none never are and are written into the contract before we see sight of it if we see it at all.

This is a common misunderstanding PF.

It is individually negotiated contract terms that are excluded from sec 5 of UTCCR.

[pompeyfaith]

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

This is a common misunderstanding PF.

It is individually negotiated contracts that are excluded from UTCCR.

Thank you for explaining in layman's term

[leclerc]

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

Hi,

lets be fair here, the only reason it is so quiet is due to the media putting across the general impression that the OFT lost, therefore: game over
To be honest, I don't advise people to reclaim bank charges anymore except for one issue; Financial Hardship which is not the same as the mass reclaiming that went on, since FH claims will not usually mean reclaiming 100% of fees but helping someone to either manage money better and to stop a perpetual cycle of charges affecting both their health and their ability to live.
I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had with friends and colleagues that believe this to be the case

There is quite obviously a general public interest in this and anyone that cannot apply such a basic level of common sense should not be sat on such a board (IMHO)
I think Amethyst has kinda answered the question for me ie that it was an issue that WAS in the wider public interest but currently isn't. You have to look at the way forwards on all fronts. We have come a long way since 2006 and changes have happened and are happening to the way overdrafts, credit cards, loans etc,etc, are being done. We need to look forward to what we can do and not what we may not be able to do.
On more technical issues I can appreciate the board may need it in black and white, but this is quite simple - if there had been no wider public interest the OFT would not have been involved to such a degree.

Again, they are looking at the future not the past. If someone does win in court then perhaps we might all re look at the issue of historic bank charges but the issue now has moved on. Yes, I am interested in the GLC case but I rely on others for updates rather than seeking them out myself.

[leclerc]

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

News : Legal Aid Board with access to justice after bank charge case refusal : THE FIRM : SCOTLAND'S INDEPENDENT LAW JOURNAL

Having read this scathing attack on them, I am not surprised they have issued a statement.

[EXC]

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

Having read this scathing attack on them, I am not surprised they have issued a statement.

Indeed and it's not the first time he's managed to naff off the Legal Aid Board:

''Lindsay Montgomery would be meeting with Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre whos incorrect assertions on a change of Board policy had led to the criticisms to discuss the issues which had arisen and correct his view.''

http://www.slab.org.uk/about_us/boar...ARY%202008.pdf

[Amethyst]

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

When Mike said Tactical (on CAG) I thought he meant tactical in the bank charges campaign, but he meant tactical in the get rid of the LAB campaign

Call to scrap Scottish Legal Aid Board to save £40m - The Scotsman

[EXC]

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

When Mike said Tactical (on CAG) I thought he meant tactical in the bank charges campaign, but he meant tactical in the get rid of the LAB campaign

Call to scrap Scottish Legal Aid Board to save £40m - The Scotsman

I thought 'tactical' meant that either he needed LA to try and avoid adverse costs or that if he secured LA for the Sharp case it would set a precedent in securing it for others.

[EXC]

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

Here we go Govan Law Centre: Response to Scottish Legal Aid Board statement re bank charges

[Dougal16T]

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

Evening all,

Well, if I were the CEO of SLAB (what a great name!!), I think I might consider early retirement OR putting matters right. It would depend on how brave I felt (if I were to retire that is), or how proud I would feel knowing that I had done the right 'thing' at the end of the day (by setting matters right.)

We shall see.......

Best Christmas wishes to all

Dougal

:w_nikolaus_187::26:

[ncf355]

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

Get me the popcorn, this is getting VERY interesting