I think you will find that just about everyone who has ever had an offer from the banks (before the waiver) was less than the original amount being chased by the claimant. Mailman

I agree with most of the stuff you mention...but have picked out a couple points to discuss abit further. I think you will find the actual reason these guys are charging people to put bags in the hold is to encourage the passengers NOT to put bags in the hold. THis in turn means the plane spends less time turning around at the other end, which means more time in the air, which means more money at the end of the day (as a plane sitting on the ground makes no money). [tangent]Interestingly enough, when Darling was challenge over the new green tax levy over the numbers of people who had STOPPED flying, he said no one had been stopped from flying (ie. numbers had not dropped). The green tax was a cynical money grabbing ploy by the government...just like all airport taxes are! I mean ask yourself, why no taxes for trains or ferrys (especially as the infrastructure required to generate electricity for train travel is about 75% more polluting than air travel today!). [/tangent] Watching a show like Airline opens the eyes to the levels of abuse Easyjet staff get each day (assuming you arent a conspiracist who believes this program is nothing more than Stelios propoganda!). On a side not (interesting or not) I met Stelios at Farnborough a few years ago, introduced myself as the most important person he would meet that day, one of his passengers! Wish I had a rich daddy like him Regards Mailman ps. Sorry if I went off on various tangents in this posting.

The thing that really gets my goat about these stays is that Banks are still allowed to levy charges against our accounts! That seems completely and utterly unfair. If banks are railroading stays through the courts then surely the courts should be directing the banks that they are to stop charging fees against all accounts they have received complaints for. Mailman

IF we have won...it will only be a short term thing while banks come up with other, more ingenious ways of getting money out of us! Mailman

I guess its true, any fool can believe a conspiracy Watch out, the tooth fairy doesnt exist...nor does Santa! Mailman

Well generous isnt a word Id use for explaining banks handing back charges they should never have made in the first place. Mailman

Actually having worked with a number of barristers I doubt they will consider his comments rude...more likely they will nod knowingly in agreement with him. Also I think people should keep in mind that EVERY lawyer, solicitor, barrister has lost cases during their careers. Just because he has lost this one (at this point) does not mean the end of his legal career. If anything this will be water off a ducks. I think in reality the only place where loses are held against barristers is on tv. Mailman

You would have a hell of a time proving this, not because the courts are in the back pockets of the banks BUT because it would be up to you to PROVE the bank knowingly ripped you off. More likely their defence will be that its not bank policy for branch staff to say whether a particular draft is legit or not (you can see why from this situation that a bank would have this particular policy). As people have said, you need to get some real legal advice and go after the crim that ripped you off in the first place. Mailman

Oh for the love of allah...everything is a conspiracy isnt it? Christ, if this case was to kick off on the 1st of April you would be here bleating about this being a aprils fools joke...or if it was 5th of November then no doubt you would be tieing this in to some kind of masonic symbolism and how this relates to bringing down big business (ie. blowing up parliament = bringing down big businesses!) Gee, I dont know where your pessimism comes from BUT if nothing the judges have proven time and time again to be completely independent of Government and big business...but then I guess thats just part of the conspiracy isnt it? Aye? If he does well its because he is part of the conspiracy? And here I thought it came down to ones ability...how naieve of me! :grin: Sorta like how everyone forgot so quickly about credit card charges. Crickey, I reckon you need to get out and smell the daisies my dear friend cause sooner or later you are going to start blaming this all on GW, Oil and the new world order! :grin: Mailman

Do you have one single case where a judge has declared bank charges to be a criminal, instead of civil, case? Maybe if you do you might have a point. Until then you are merely barking up the same tree as those morons who call themselves 9/11 truthers (ie. everything is a conspiracy). Mailman

I think you need to get "real" legal advice on this one. But my gut feeling is that you are screwed as all the cards are in the banks favour. Now Im assuming you have reported this to the police because the crime was committed by the crim who ripped you off. Now the staff in the branches can claim the moon is made of green cheese and ham BUT you really need to get formal legal advice on this one or the bank will take you for a ride like the fraudster took you for a ride with the bankers draft. Mailman

I think some of you should take a bit of a chill pill. Somehow I doubt some of the holier than thou's on here have NEVER in their lives taken a holiday in the middle of something important at work? No, didnt think so Mailman

Well then perhaps the reference to being debared because he lost should be removed completely so that it only says "if he loses he could be bankrupted and as a result of being a bankrupt be unable to practice". The way it was originally spun was that if he lost he would be debarred...not that he would be bankrupted and then not allowed to practice because of bankruptcy. Mailman

I think you are being overly dramatic here. If this were truely the case then we would have very few people in the legal profession simply because they all would have been debarred after losing a court case. The only way I could ever see him being debarred is if his defence was so inadequate or he introduced a lot of evidence that he made up? Mailman

I think you are rooted mate. Good luck in finding a human to talk to at paypal! Maybe your only recourse is that watch dog program? Mailman

What does "cautin you like a policeman" mean? Does it mean, talk to you in the same fashion a police officer would or was the inference merely to the fact the geezer spoke to him advising him of his rights and what would happen as he is considered a fare dodger? Reduk, to be fair to the guy on the train how does he know you wont do a runner? You know you are honest but he doesnt? Its a tough situation but I dont think there is much here for you by the sounds of things...especially since the ticket office was open at the time (even if it had a himalaya-esk type queue). Regards Mailman

Unfortunately for the latent socialists out there, nothing short of handing over 100% of your profits will do. BTW, Im not saying bank charges are good...quite the opposite! However companies should not be punished for being successful. Mailman

Why not the banking ombudsman office or the FSO? After all, arent they there to ensure banks operate within the law? Whats with the personal attacks? If you cannot discuss a point rationally then there is no point in you taking part. Mailman

And what is so wrong with a successful company investing funds overseas? You completely forget that the banks are the biggest employers in the UK and as such they also provide a heck of a lot of "benefits" for their staff. Granted, I doubt they do this because they love their staff but because there are probably tax breaks for doing such a thing? Right about now is the time you should post something that would back your assertion up because as it stands your comment is merely your own personal opinion. Again, please provide something to back your number up. BTW, my own personal company that I used for contracting paid no tax last year because I used, quite successfully, various tax avoidance schemes (most now closed by Gordo). Again, there is nothing wrong with avoiding tax, unless you are from HMRC that is Again, this is nothing new. HMRC has launched a number of programs designed to reduce tax avoidance...heck me as an IT contractor have had to bore the brunt of those "purges". Windfall taxes would not neccesarilly result in banks paying more taxes, that is a massive assumption on your behalf. You tell me, what is so "pathetic" about forcing banks to reopen branches in communities that they abandoned as soon as they could? Do you not agree that Mr and Mrs Average would receive more benefit from having a bank in their local community instead of having to travel to a bigger town to use a bank that is only open between 10am and 2pm Monday to Friday? What you assume is that windfall taxes would actually be used to bolster the NHS etc...when quite frankly that is rather naive of you to assume the money WONT just disappear in to the big black hole that is the Governments accounts! Maybe I’m being cynical but perhaps that is just balancing your naivety? To me its quite simple, force banks to reopen branches, force them to keep free banking and force them to drop their "unlawful" penalty charges. What you are advocating is that banks be punished simply because they are successful (when penalty fees form only a small part of a banks over all profit)...after all, thats the whole point of business...to make money. You know Im all for Socialism and all that, as long as I dont have to pay for it! Mailman

MODS - What happened to my original thread and the reply that was in it???? Anyway, to recap I do not believe windfall taxes are the best way of "dealing" with profits made by the banks...after all, they are no different to any other "successful" company in England. What banks should be forced to do, in my humble opinion, is to reopen all the branches they closed in the 90's, keep free banking and curb excessive penalty fee's. Here is the reply to my original thread; Can you please back this up with evidence? I have no doubt that profit does go over seas (after all, thats were a large number of shareholders live) but I doubt "all" the profit goes overseas. This is 28% of their profit, which seems to be in line with what your own personal tax payment would be after removing NI and taking in to consideration the various bands. Hold the horses there pardner...there is nothing wrong with tax avoidance schemes...well that is unless you are Gordon Brown of course. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and I challenge you to show me a company (any company) that doesnt use tax avoidance schemes to reduce their overall tax payments. I run my own company (IT contractor) and as such I have a duty of responsibility to my shareholders (the wife and myself ) to reduce my exposure to company tax through the use of legitimate tax avoidance schemes. Again, you make it sound like its only banks that use tax avoidance schemes and that its only banks being targeted by HMRC. The relality of the situation is that HMRC is not only tagetting banks BUT everyone who uses legitimate tax avoidance schemes. Banks are no worse than anyone else at using these schemes. As I said, tax avoidance is PERFECTLY legal. There is nothing wrong with reducing your tax exposure, unless of course you are Gordon Brown that is For the records, I have taken HSBC to the small claims court 4 times and won 4 times. I am not a lacky of the banks, I just do not see any point in taxing companies for being successful...especially since we all know that if windfall taxes were applied that money would disappear and never be seen again. Mailman

In the end I agreed to pay the one month outstanding subs and they agreed to wipe everything else after that. Regards Mailman

Bump.

HSBC has filed there defence, as below, so if anyone has any advice for how I counter their defence that would be most appreciated. What I find most interesting is that they do not consider these fee’s default charges? Is that something that needs to be taken in to consideration? Also as part of my rebuttal can I refer the court to my previous county court claim (£160) where HSBC paid out? This claim is for a mere £80. Please note that all spelling and grammar errors are as per the letter I received from the county court J Defence: 1. The claimants account is governed by the defendants personal and or business banking terms and conditions. 2.Pursuant to the Defendants terms and conditions the defendant is entitled to make a charge for its services as set out in the defendants price list, including an overdraft review fee for considering whether to provide and providing and overdraft. 3. The defendant denies that the charges applied to the claimants account amount to penalties at common law and or unfair contract terms for the purposes of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999 (UTCCRs). 4. The charges applied to the claimants account are reasonable and properly and fully disclosed in the defendants terms and conditions and published price list. The charges represent the contractually agreed price for the services provided and the UTCCRs are not applicable to them; alternatively, they are not unfair contrary to the UTCCRs. Further, the charges are not default charges and, accordingly, cannot amount to a penalty. 5. Save as set out above, each and every allegation made by the claimant is denied. For reasons set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Any help or advice would be most appreciated. Regards Mailman

Why dont you just lodge an assault complaint with the police? I mean ffs, this isnt america where everything has to be dealt with via personal law suits! Mailman

I have had so many things not delivered by these clowns its gotten beyond a joke! Mailman