Hello

[markherd]

Hello to all leagl beagles

I have been part of the bank charges saga for many years

I have got as far as court date back before the "Stay" and my case is still pending in the local court.

I have a claim for over £10,000

I have been to ombudsman under the " human sob story" recently with genuine honesty and appeals to common sense fairness, but all that has come back is "the bank has treated you fairly!", they basically are allowing the bank to hide behind the legal position of the supreme court. There is no consideration of ethics or the right and wrong of the issue or the wider issue of cross subsidisation.
I read the supreme Court document, and Lord Manse is quoted as asking the banks if they conducting a reverse robin Hood senario but acknowledges that they were not there to judge the ethics of the issue but rule on a technical piece of law.

Personal i actually feel robbed, and the level of bank charges is just legalised theft.

I can't just accept that the banks can walk away from this now, and want the opportunity to have an attempt to go court on an amendment perhaps using the credit agreement 1974, 0r reg 5. But need to have some guidance on how to recompile the case, and with evidence drawn from legal precendence.

Is there anyone who still cares about this issue with the experience and knowledge to able to put up a good fight.

Mark

[leclerc]

Re: Hello

Hello to all leagl beagles

I have been part of the bank charges saga for many years

I have got as far as court date back before the "Stay" and my case is still pending in the local court.

I have a claim for over £10,000

I have been to ombudsman under the " human sob story" recently with genuine honesty and appeals to common sense fairness, but all that has come back is "the bank has treated you fairly!", they basically are allowing the bank to hide behind the legal position of the supreme court. There is no consideration of ethics or the right and wrong of the issue or the wider issue of cross subsidisation.
I'm not a fan of the cross subsidisation argument because it does not individualise your case, ie the effect of charges on you and you alone.
I read the supreme Court document, and Lord Manse is quoted as asking the banks if they conducting a reverse robin Hood senario but acknowledges that they were not there to judge the ethics of the issue but rule on a technical piece of law.

Personal i actually feel robbed, and the level of bank charges is just legalised theft.

I can't just accept that the banks can walk away from this now, and want the opportunity to have an attempt to go court on an amendment perhaps using the credit agreement 1974, 0r reg 5. But need to have some guidance on how to recompile the case, and with evidence drawn from legal precendence.

Is there anyone who still cares about this issue with the experience and knowledge to able to put up a good fight.

Mark

Mark, there are a lot of us who have been in the bank charges campaign and on consumer sites for years who care about the issue however, the OFT judgement was a bad one which offers little wriggle room at the moment and there is a huge possibility of costs against you being made.
The issue of charges imho can only really be hit at the FOS with genuine financial hardship and that is governed by the Lending code section 9. They do not have to refund even 1p of charges to comply with the code however.
In court they will argue OFT v. Abbey and they will argue for costs against you. If you can wait, then wait because being a martyr in the end may have a cost to you.