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

[EXC]

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

"I'm taking my ball home!"

New POC for Reclaiming Bank Penalty Charges?

Oh no you're not.

CONSUMERS' FORUM (formerly The Penalty Charges Forum) - anyone with Cag.

It did bring a wry smile to my face that JudgeFodder could rubbish the POC so comprehensively but somehow claim credit for them: ''some of the arguments bear a strong resemblance to something that I wrote a couple of years ago.''

[Fortinbras]

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

It wasn't so much the rubbishing EXC, it was more the closing of the thread because some posters had the temerity to disagree with him.

[charitynjw]

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

It wasn't so much the rubbishing EXC, it was more the closing of the thread because some posters had the temerity to disagree with him.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!

[leclerc]

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

It wasn't so much the rubbishing EXC, it was more the closing of the thread because some posters had the temerity to disagree with him.

You cannot disagree with site team, they are not to be argued with. Resistance is futile!!!

[frisp]

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

Banky is such a friendly Teddy Bear, why did he write such rubbish unless its been a while since he saw his name in print and didn't want people to think he was not in charge OTR - that site has lost it big time.

Yes things are difficult, yes its risky, however it is not over. New law is getting made, we've had some significant 'enforceability' victories in court and FSA has won on PPI so all is not lost.

Snipers don't wait in the open for their targets they stay in the shadows and wait for their target to make a mistake. Lets follow their example. Patience

[charitynjw]

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

Just a thought outside the box.

Much as I dislike b*ks (see, can't even say the word!! lol), I can't help wondering what the knock-on effect of another multi-billion climbdown by the b's would have on the UK/EU/world economy.

Signed....er....Pausanius's Messenger

eep:

[EXC]

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

It looks like there's hearing tomorrow in the Govan bank charges case of Sharp v Bank of Scotland

2 JENNIFER SHARP v BANK OF SCOTLAND Dailly & Co - MRD A1924/10
Glasgow Sheriff Court Rolls - 12/08/11

It's listed under a ''Rule 18 Role''. I'm not certain what a rule 18 role hearing is but it appears to be a procedural hearing dealing with further procedure and the question of costs:


At any debate one or other party may appear and move the court to discharge the debate and to continue the case for amendment. In order to avoid being found liable for the expenses of preparation for any debate it is more sensible if the party who has resolved to amend does so well in advance of the debate, by enrolling a written motion seeking leave to amend. Amendment is regulated by OCR 18. Typically a party will enrol a motion seeking:

(a) discharge of a diet of debate;

(b) permission for their minute of amendment to be received;

(c) a period of time for the opponent to answer;

(d) a period of time for the parties to adjust their pleadings in the light of the minute and answers

(e) a Rule 18 hearing at which the court will in the usual course of things allow the record to be opened up and amended in terms of the minute and answers and deal with further procedure as well as expenses of the amendment procedure.

[ncf355]

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

Well spotted

Lets hope things start moving on this case soon

[Dougal16T]

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

Evening all,

Is there a chink of light through the clouds? I really hope so for the sake of all of the good people who have been wrongly deprived by deceit of what is rightly theirs.

Kind regards

Dougal

[Celestine]

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

Fingers crossed for any progress in this area.

I wish Stephen luck with any attempts he makes to move the issues forward. It seems clear his POC comes with suitable warnings of it's experimental nature.

[Gorang]

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

2 JENNIFER SHARP v BANK OF SCOTLAND Dailly & Co - MRD A1924/10
Glasgow Sheriff Court Rolls - 12/08/11

Is this not the case that Mike Daily is handling as I know he was back in court in August but don't know when??

I wish Stephen luck with any attempts he makes to move the issues forward. It seems clear his POC comes with suitable warnings of it's experimental nature.

Anyone know if Mike's arguments are similar to the ones Stephen has posted up in PC??

Think we have all got our fingers crossed for both Mike and Stephen, I know I have, all 20 of them lol

[ncf355]

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

Is this not the case that Mike Daily is handling as I know he was back in court in August but don't know when??

Err, yup!.....thats how the thread got reignited by

It looks like there's hearing tomorrow in the Govan bank charges case of Sharp v Bank of Scotland

2 JENNIFER SHARP v BANK OF SCOTLAND Dailly & Co - MRD A1924/10
Glasgow Sheriff Court Rolls - 12/08/11procedure.

:beagle:

[EXC]

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

Anyone know if Mike's arguments are similar to the ones Stephen has posted up in PC??

Yes pretty much.

They're both relying on the test for fairness in s140a of the Consumer Credit Act and also 5.1 of UTCCR - although there seem to be differences in the way that they're being applied.

And in addition they are both citing the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly provisions in the Banking Conduct of Business rules - which I don't quite understand myself as they are Principles which are well established as not being actionable by a private individual in a court.

[Gorang]

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

although there seem to be differences in the way that they're being applied.

Well all I can say is that I hope both of (or one) them gets a result with it

And in addition they are both citing the FSA's Treating Customers Fairly provisions in the Banking Conduct of Business rules

Be interesting to see if any of them can reginite this in court and for it to be allowed to stand.

Thanks for the replies

[EXC]

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

Be interesting to see if any of them can reginite this in court and for it to be allowed to stand.

I just can't see it myself.

The Financial Services & Markets Act explicitly rules out Principles being actionable and in the BBA Judicial Review judgment the judge upheld it.

I think Stephen's POC acknowledges that and it's just included as a supporting argument but from what I understand Govan seems to be relying on it as a cause of action:




''Last month's High Court defeat of banks on mis-selling payment protection insurance (PPI) may present the catalyst for change that consumers having been waiting for.

This case clarified the precise status of the Financial Services Authority's (FSA) rules. So what does this mean in practice?

Two of the FSA rules which came into force in November 2009, under banking regulations, are potentially powerful.

One requires the bank's service to an individual customer to be 'fair', and the other requires 'appropriate information' about the service to be provided.

The strength of these rules is they are general principles – unlike the rigid UTCCR or CCA – so there is less scope for expensive lawyers to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.''


Guest Comment: Bank charges fight still alive