I was just going over my court bundle and found this section in my 1st witness statement. Do I need to change my POC or can I proceed with the letter to the district judge? 33. Further under the UTCCR, Regulation 5 provides: "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.” Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as: (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract; (j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract; (m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract." 34. It is submitted that the charges are unfair under regulation 5 because contrary to the requirement of good faith they cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the banking contract. The charges are most likely to penalise those customers with little or no credit and the charges could be imposed repeatedly with interest levied on top at the higher rate. The cumulative effect is therefore to substantially increase the debt burden on the customer who incurs the charges making it increasingly likely that further and repeated charges and interest would be charged. 35. The defendant is a powerful multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any part of the contract. 36. The cost of the Defendant's charges have increased substantially and indiscriminately during the period in which my account has been in operation, neither time was I given the opportunity to negotiate, or even notified of this increase. This means the bank, a powerful financial institution, has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my significant detriment, and to their advantage. 37. It is submitted that the account contract is within the ambit of the Regulation 5 as it was not individually negotiated. The requirement of good faith was described by Lord Bingham in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank[2001] UKHL 52 [exhibit SPM07] as: "Good faith in this context is not an artificial or technical concept... It looks to good standards of commercial morality and practice. It lays down a composite test, covering both the making and the substance of the contract, and must be applied bearing clearly in mind the objective which the regulations are designed to promote. Fair dealing requires that a supplier should not, whether deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the consumer's necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position" 38. The Claimant submits that the charging regime operated by the Defendant by charging those who can least afford it to subsidise free banking of other customers takes advantage of the Claimant’s necessity indigence and weak bargaining power. The objectives which the Regulations are designed to promote include the protection of Consumers from commercial entities. 39. The Defendant may assert that the charges are within the requirement of good faith as they were in the published terms and conditions and the Claimant was aware of them. However, this is a purely procedural argument and according to Lord Steyn in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank: "Any purely procedural or even predominantly procedural interpretation of the requirement of good faith must be rejected." 40. I thus assert that the substance of the clause is of paramount importance in looking at the requirement of good faith also the way it was packaged so as to deceive the consumer into believing it was a legitimate charge to compensate loss.

failure to do so would render the claim invalid

You all need to check the wording on your stays, i am sure the onus was with us to progress the claim in a limited amount of time once a descision was finally made

my son is big on swp and revolution i used to argue against him. no more i will be joining him on the next demo

if brown wants to save his arse he needs to act to overturn this travisty

we need to mobilise, glue up the locks on bank doors. Yet again great british jutice supports the few privilaged over the plebs

some money would be handy, having to bail out my daughter at uni coz of the student loans company fiasco

I will have to check my Stay documentation, I think the onus was on me to contact the court once a descision was made

if you read my thread it will explain everything.

Can anyone explain to me what happened regarding the Abbey "Breach of conract defence" and what was the verdict regarding historical T&C's?

No matter what emphasis you put on your statement I still find it smug, simplistic and downright offensive. Best you just concentrate on your job at the bank.

If you have read my thread you will be in little doubt that I am more than a little cynical regarding our chances of getting justice in the UK when taking on an institution like the British banking system. However "the jury is out" on this latest twist. From my understanding the banks had 8 weeks to put their arguements to the Law Lords, on past record they would have waited 7 weeks 6 days 23 hours and 59 minutes before submitting, they would be hoping that the process would then take sufficient time that no decsion would have been made before the Lords summer recess. We would then not have a decision untill October at the earliest, yet more time wasted. What the Law Lords have done is blow the whistle on the banks time wasting antics. They have stipulated that the petition of appeal be lodged by 15 April. How long it will take for the hearing to be listed remains to be seen but I hope that it will be listed quickly to be heard before the Lords summer break. I believe that we have to get this hurdle out the way so that, if/when the banks lose their appeal they will take the it to the European Law courts enabling us to get a final decission sometime in 2010. Then again we will see the closing of ranks and not see a plugged nickle.

it took a heart attack to make me give up. in the first few weeks i was telling people i am giving up smoking, I also counted the days. Then it dawned on me that a) by counting the days i was thinking about smoking. b) By keep using the term giving up, I was reminding myself i was depriving myself of something which brought it into sharper focus. If you are seriously giving up smoking you are a NON SMOKER now, no need to count days or describe yourself as someone who is giving up. It is all in the mind.

Hi all I have a quick query, following the High Court ruling that refused the banks leave to appeal, how long do they have to petition the House of Lords to be allowed an appeal to them?

how sad are we to allow this to happen, our vote seems worthless, they (the bankers) seem to do what they want when they want with impunity and prosper into the bargain

Having read through the judgement it seems to me that "Matron" has come to the rescue of the poor boys in the city. Evidently a spade is not a spade when it comes to the banks. I don't hold out much hope of seeing a plugged nickle from the banks. I certainly feel that this is a slap in the face for the common man and then to add insult to injury our taxes are going to be used to rescue the incompetent bankers so they can continue to fleece us with their punative charges, my hasn't Labour come a long way!!. I never ever thought I would say this but I think we need a revolution to redress the balance.

Having read through the judgement it seems to me that "Matron" has come to the rescue of the poor boys in the city. Evidently a spade is not a spade when it comes to the banks. I don't hold out much hope of seeing a plugged nickle from the banks. I certainly feel that this is a slap in the face for the common man and then to add insult to injury our taxes are going to be used to rescue the incompetent bankers so they can continue to fleece us with their punative charges, my hasn't Labour come a long way!!. I never ever thought I would say this but I think we need a revolution to redress the balance.

Basically we have to wait till the 21st May to find out if the banks are going to appeal. If they are not going to appeal we have to wait for the OFT to decide if the bank charges are fair or not, after that the OFT and Banks have to settle on what is a fair rate of charge. I imagine that if the banks are not going to appeal we will be able to go to court to get the stays lifted, however I doubt very much that any judge will want to decide a case until the OFT has finished its investigations. No doubt someone out there will correct me if i am wrong.

I havn't had the time or inclination to plough through the whole of the 119 pages of the judgement and there is no index, so my question is " is there anywhere in this judgement that relates to the Abbey National's historic T&C's and in particular their reference to a "Breach of contract" between the bank and the customer.

can anyone remember when the banks did give you a service? When every branch had a manager that would look at your account and employ good old fashioned common sense before stopping a payment. They would see that your pay came in regularly on a date and decide to pay the DD or SO allowing you to go overdrawn in the knowledge that you would be paid shortly. Ok you would get a letter, that you would be charged for, but you were getting a good service. I still remember a classic letter i received one xmas from my Midland Bank manager a Mr Weston which went as follows " Now is the time of christmas cheer as is evident by the state of your account, please do not draw any more cheques until you have the funds to cover them, having said that have a Merry Christmas" When the banks got rid of the branch managers they should have adjusted the charges accordingly but they were greedy and should now be made to pay.

I recollect that a Lord Justice Bick-Moor wrote to DJ's stating that all non listed cases should be stayed and that listed cases should be dealt with on a case by case basis. It is probably the case that DJ's at individual courts saw the opportunity to clear a major case backlog by staying all listed cases as well IMHO.

It is apparent that some people contibuting to this thread had the benifit of having their claims settled before the OFT case was announced, they have not been subjected to the pressure the banks have placed upon claimants who have had to attend court to be confronted by a local solicitor with no papers save those required to apply for a stay. The judges have allowed the banks to flagrantly disregard court directions, stay application procedures and for that matter any other court protocol the banks felt like flouting. My case was taken up by CAG as a test case I was represented by a QC who was supported by a local solicitor. We failed because the Abbey, having unsucessfyully aplied for two stays previously, were granted one on the third time of asking. They were allowed to change a defense that did not exist, having been struck out, adopt a defense that in effect stated that the "Breach of Contract" T&Cs were not properly constructed and they didn't mean them to say that but were in fact service charges. Thus convieniently fitting the "Test case" remit. Is it any wonder that the general public have little faith in any institution that is constituted to protect them. We were brought up to believe that there is justice for the common man unfortunately events that have unfolded over the last 6 months have plainly shaken those beliefs to their foundations.

Wild Billy, have the banks provided information on how they calculate their charges? I very much doubt it. The OFT unwittingly came to the rescue of the banks by bringing this action in the first place, otherwise they would still be settling claims on the court steps. The choice of venue is highly unfortunate and it is understandsable that people are suspicious considering the contempt the banks have already shown to its customers and our legal system. I for one have little faith in this action, far too much money is at stake. The banks can afford the very finest legal representation, who do the OFT have?

The upshot of the pantomime was that Cinders (inga) and the ugly sisters (her support staff) can go to the Ball (OFT test case) although her ballgown is a bit ropey on account of the strips being torn off it by the almost fairy godmother (DJ Backhouse) we can only hope that Baron Hardup (Abbey) will be even more hardup once the Ball is over and that a happy ending will be awaiting the rest of us mere commoners. Oh by the way cinders (inga) buttons (GaryH) is behind you.....oh no he isn't.....oh yes he is......You can guess who we all wish to turn into a pumpkin on the stroke of midnight!!!

Of course!