Renegotiation, if I am a gatekeeper then can you tell me what my agenda is(cos I clearly don't know)?

Can you explain the gatekeeper comment because I do not understand the definition you have for the word?

Renegotiation, what is the current amount of support you have on that thread? Less than 100??? Even the petitions on here get over 400 so clearly I'll look at it and give you some pointers where I think you need to go.

Bookworm can answer the french question cos je ne se pas por quoi(apologies to bookworm but unfortunately my GCSE French is not as good as my degree level Spanish is, sadly). Regeneration, the thread stopped dead in December 2009 then had one post from yourself in January 2010 to which no one has responded. You need aims, you need support, a venue, media attention, mass appeal message, and a date. At the moment, I will look at that thread again(as I have only just found it today since no link to it even on your signature meant that I assumed it was CARO's thread you were on about). For info: Caro has a link on her signature which means people will look there so a tip for you might be to do the same so others view the thread when they see your posts. Hope that makes sense

I was trying to work out whether you were making a xenophobic jibe at Bookworm(which I thought you were doing) or whether it was something else. Thankfully, I think it was something else. I am always concerned if xenophobia is the only argument someone has against a valid point being made by someone who has taken many hours out of their life to post on an internet forum.

Why are you asking the hypothetical situation which is irrelevant to this thread which involves UK not French law, which involves UK contracts not French contracts, and is quite frankly IRRELEVANT?

comments withdrawn as BankFodder has given advice

Can you post up the respons you got because at the moment many banks are simply dismissing out of hand any letters they receive? Furthermore, there are some light at the end of the tunnel and some strike outs by the banks have been fought successfully and amended POC's are going in. The fat lady is definitely not singing on this one.

Rofl

Can you explain that comment since the UK Supreme Court decision is not binding on the French?

You have what is called a packaged account. I have seen this reclaimed however you would need to look at the benefits you would have gained against those you actually used. I would explain the Roadside assistance thing ie you paid for it unnecessarily so it was not a benefit to you. See if they will refund some of the charges based on what you could have benefitted from, what you were ineligible for and how much you did benefit from it(excluding the RAC cos you paid for it).

not really, they are punitive but it hasnt been tested in court (could be wrong so happy to be corrected with the case law) The OFT have said they believe them to be penalty charges, and also that they consider they would be found ''highly unfair'' under the UTCCR.

The YB claimant who was in court this afternoon defending a strike out attempt by yorkshire bank got 6 weeks to amend POC's.

she got 6 weeks to amend POCs (has to pay application fee) but nonetheless wasnt struck out. thought u would like to know

renegotiation, there are case that are currently going through the legal process, live cases not words on a page like we are doing. Those cases will determine the approach we will have on the future cases. Have you read Bookworm's post which explains to you that the LEVEL of the charges as an argument is no longer valid on individual claims? If not then you try hunting for it on the threads(for helpful advice: it was made today). At the moment, i would say to be cautious because Rome wasn't built in a day and we have got to be clear on how to argue the case than rush in and simply say "you morons are corrupt". Those same morons will be the ones who will decide if claimants win or lose.

have found a copy of the case summary from YB. http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk/showthread.php?54844-Help-required-I-m-behind-on-developements&p=464972#post464972 - plus that thread worth keeping an eye in as shes in court this afternoon.

It's back up there now. no further news though as yet.

I'm not aware of any cases where Abbey have applied for a strike out for court claims.

Abbey ones are showing a date of December 2009 and are being sent out. Having clarified with them, their letters are 8 weeks from 31st December 2009.

No because a court would have to determine if it was penal. The High Court judgement did not say that it was penal.

At the moment, the banks are sending out rejection letters for all claims on their books(even some where they have paid out in full and settled the cases). However, there are things ongoing across all the forums so I would expect there to be some news before they get to the end of their long list

"Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims!" Paragraph 61 of SC Judgement: "As it is, if the Banks succeed on the narrow issue, this will not close the door on the OFT’s investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges." What did they mean by this if this did not involve the "myriad of cases that are currently stayed"?

It's the banks that are rejecting them and a further note to mention is that the Govan law Centre templates ARE UK WIDE and not just for Scotland as they have clarified on their blog so game on for banks and FOS claims. Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges: free help to amend existing complaint letters

They have posted on their blog this in reply to someone: "the points concerning Reg 5, UTCCR and section 140A of the CCA apply across the UK generally. So yes. The information provided is not specific to Scotland."

Originally Posted by renegotiation Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims! It does and it doesn't to be honest. It does in one sense because we all thought regulation 5(1) of UTCCR 1999 would be tested in court and in fact, UTCCR 1999 6.2(b) was tested. Furthermore, penalties in law doctrine went out on the first judgement of Justice Smith. It was only in relation to the power of the OFT to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law! Why is your local County Court referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the powers of the OFT when it has absolutely nothing to do with your case? It would have had an effect if the case had been successful for all claimants in that charges in the future would be assessable for fairness and the level of them would come into the equation. From what I know they orignally stayed the cases, 'supposedly', because the courts were getting a little bogged down. Cases were stayed because the test case was supposedly going to resolve the issues of penalties in law and UTCCR 1999 once and for all. In fact it didn't resolve the latter whatsoever. I know the real reason and i'm sure everyone else does too. It was assumed that if the OFT won, then all cases could get resolved en masse. Now the OFT has lost it should be back to the courts with individual cases then. How it has been twisted to mean that the OFT losing means everyone has lost their indiviual cases is completely beyond me. I completely agree with you and we have lost the media battle at the moment. We may not lose the war but the biggest battle so far has been lost and we are kinda regathering the troops and seeing where we go from here. ***You need to send a letter to your County Court advising them of this and warn them of their responsibilities. You are under no obligation to refer to the Supreme Court decision in applying to remove your stay whatsoever! They should have written to you and simply stated that you were free to proceed. Ask them to explain their logic to you! They will not be able to!*** Have you done this yourself and have you received a response yet? Please do not advise this if you haven't since their response would be ideal so that others know what to expect. Furthermore, it is also beyond me as to why the POC needs to be changed either. Again, your POC has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement. You are all being royally rogered. WAKE UP!!! Mate, have you taken your own advice and what is the outcome? If you haven't can you bell the cat and do it and then write on here or your own thread what the result was because words on a page are futile if you are doing it yourself. I can't do that for obvious reasons but have can do that?