Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

[EXC]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Do we ever ask/expect/understand that the situation will be that an overdraft will be created by the bank for us - it appears without our written/implied consent?

It's diffivult to argue that we don't consent as it's in all our terms & conditions.

No news from CoA yet? When's the deadine for them to respond to the appeal application?

[gravytrain]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Section 74a cca 2010

(a)

Where there is the possibility that the account-holder may be allowed to overdraw on the current account without a pre-arranged overdraft or exceed a pre-arranged overdraft limit, and

(b)

if the account-holder did so, this would be a regulated consumer credit agreement

[Dougal16T]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

It's diffivult to argue that we don't consent as it's in all our terms & conditions.

No news from CoA yet? When's the deadine for them to respond to the appeal application?

Evening.....

Court in recess at present. Please PM me for further details.

Dougal

[leclerc]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Evening all

I am not familiar with the Maastricht treaty - I just want us to look closer at the Bank's actions.

Do we ever ask/expect/understand that the situation will be that an overdraft will be created by the bank for us - it appears without our written/implied consent? It seems extremely unfair to me and truly the balance of the relationship between the parties seems weighted against the customer
The banks argue that we have requested it because we have authorised payments that we cannot and are unable to meet without that extra overdraft being required.
I agree this was particular case was not tested in the Court and the result was due to Santander not 'getting their act together.'

Best wishes all,

Dougal

Dougal, what EXC is saying is that BCOB's has still to be tested in court or argued in court because this one was won by default. Unless and until BCOB's is argued in court this is a miniscule win with no significance at all.

[Dougal16T]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Evening....
Thanks for that - I see what you mean and agree with you 100 percent.

I still think there are avenues in BCOBS which could/should be explored.

This is separate to Bank charges.

My thoughts are 'why do the bank say we have requested an overdraft by issuing a cheque when we do not have the funds - do the bank not bear some of the blame for charges when they could have refused payment instead?'

It is the customer who is at fault perhaps BUT do we not trust the Banks to look after our money and act in our best interests. Giving some business your money to look after surely invokes a form of trust between the parties. To me the current system seems very one sided!

Best wishes
Dougal

[leclerc]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Evening....
Thanks for that - I see what you mean and agree with you 100 percent.

I still think there are avenues in BCOBS which could/should be explored.

This is separate to Bank charges.

My thoughts are 'why do the bank say we have requested an overdraft by issuing a cheque when we do not have the funds - do the bank not bear some of the blame for charges when they could have refused payment instead?'
With regards to cheques alone I kinda agree with you and there was a prosecution under the Cheque Act which for the life of me, I cannot find. Under either Nattie, NWSM or an incarnation I certainly did post up about that act but I have no idea where.
It is the customer who is at fault perhaps BUT do we not trust the Banks to look after our money and act in our best interests. Giving some business your money to look after surely invokes a form of trust between the parties. To me the current system seems very one sided!

Best wishes
Dougal

The bank may look after our money but do not dictate where we spend that money at all.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

For BankFodder to say that ''This is the first BCOBS judgment. Although it has not been fully argued. it is clear that the judge looked at their proposed arguments and decided that they didn't have a chance'' is complete tosh.

Bankfodder proven to be full of stercus bovi.

In other news, Pope Frankie admits to having been a life-long Papist.

[Amethyst]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Just to conclude this thread properly - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-MINE-**/page8

Well it's over. Santander solicitors came back with another offer to settle my costs and I countered with "just another £100"

We now have a consent agreement if £2500 inclusive of all costs.

They have also agreed to write to both of the payees of my cheques
taking full responsibility.

This together with the BCOBicon's judgement makes for a splendid win

[EXC]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

I don't believe a word of it myself.

He claims to be a ''Vicar of a small rural church'' who is entrusted as the ''public office holder of the church'' but some of the language he uses is remarkably unvicarish:

''I don't f.....ing belioeve it''

''I feel an injunction coming on...''

''Bugger...I've just noticed...''

''I feel this rather groovy blues riff coming on ....''

''The idea of a couple of heavy bailiffs entering my local branch of Santander to seize their property brings a smile to my face''

''Lovely Jubbly''

''Santander's solicitors called this morning essentially saying "WTF?" ''

''Now I got really mad. They f...... queries my postage costs !!!!!!!''

''OK - so tonight the brown excrement hit the oscillating device''

''So I guess its in the post !! Bugger!''


The irony is that the basis of his so-called complaint was the ''damage to the reputation of the church, whose probity must always be and be seen to be, at the highest levels.''

[Amethyst]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

lol, I don't mind vicar's swearing. Not really sure how this can be bandied about as a BCOBS success though considering it was default judgment that the bank messed up by not defending and applying late for the set aside.

[leclerc]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

I don't believe it was a victory of BCOBS but it was a victory based on the case law he quoted in relation to cheques being dishonoured which he also used with BCOBS. It's not a win per se using BCOBS but with the case law for cheques which I think was pretty clear.

[EXC]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

According to Gander's BBC piece it's likely that you can use BCOBs to sue your bank if ''your bank blocks payment of cheques or direct debits and starts adding charges to your account even though you have received no discernible benefit or service from the bank'', thus overturning the Supreme Court bank charges judgment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19511542

Expect his next do-it-yourself item to explain how you can use BCOBs to end global nuclear proliferation and how to reconcile North and South Korea.