That's not the same as the Supreme Court directly ruling on it.

 

They didn't rule on stays and no advice went from the Master of the Rolls(the judge in charge of County courts).

 

I maintain that the Supreme Court ruling was BENT. Like it or lump it.

The Supreme Court ruling had some positives for consumers so if it was so bent it would have closed ALL avenues for reclaiming which clearly it didn't.

 

 

You have just been libellous towards me haven't you? I used the term 'largely inhabited' and you have conflated that with painting them all with the same brush. Not so i'm afraid.

 

I cannot libel you by saying that I believe your post to be libellous because it is an opinion from your words which I take back based on the fact that I misread the post. I still think it is questionable in nature but I take back the potentially libellous bit back on that point.

 

 

It's called 'gatekeeping'. Sending people in the wrong direction and controlling the agenda. Everyone knows the banks have people on this site.

Almost 12 months to the day I was suspended for leaking information to the press from bank documents.

 

You seem to be very pro-Establishment and supposedly ignorant of corruption despite an amoeba being able to see it. I find that bizarre considering you are supposed to be an ex-insider. I find it suspicious.

I do not believe in paranoia which from first hand experience is generally unfounded. Believing that the banks' know more than they do actually know does give them more credit than they deserve. Furthermore, I don't see corruption and I have no idea how you see me as pro establishment when I continue to do things with regards to enabling people to "reclaim their rights" across all forums and that is in spite of those people who continue to say the bank won the OFT test case. You are not the first who does not like the way I post, and I doubt you will be the last but all I would say is that at the end of the day we have the same goal on the bank charges side of things--to make sure people get their money back.

 

 

 

Support and awareness is precisely what I am currently try to gain.

 

As I said elsewhere. I'll take a look.

 

You do live on the same planet as me?

 

Is that a no to evidence?

 

Well ok, but i'm not fussed what it is called.

 

The title is pretty mass market which is why I have said that.

 

 

How on earth can you say that when in the very next paragraph I say the following:

 

 

 

You expect to be taken seriously? Please. I have pushed the issue of writing to the County Courts, which is harmless and not time consuming, but I have not deviated from the line that I am only raising something for discussion here!

 

 

 

 

We all know where that is going to lead though don't we...

yes we have a claimant on penalty charges forum who has fought off a Yorkshire Bank strike out yesterday. They have 6 weeks to amend their POC.

 

 

 

Well that is what the Banks are trying to sell us backed up by the Establishment. I still maintain that the case was supposed to be about the jurisdiction of the OFT and some lines have been blurred along the way.

 

I think even Bookworm would have stated that in her post cos she is not a gatekeeper(now I kinda get it) nor is she pro Establishment.

 

 

They have already decided that i'm afraid. I honestly think you are a 'gatekeeper'. You can argue all you like.

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

I disagree with you. I think he/she is a 'gatekeeper'. I fully stand by my comments, as I saw him/her viewing the said thread before he said he didn't know where it was. In fact, that makes my comments too kind. Save your pluck for the corrupt banks...

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

I'll lay odds of 100 to 1 to anyone that he doesn't. Baron Renog always knows these things you see. You can all trust Baron Renog...

 

Any takers?

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

Because I choose to.

 

Why are you so concerned?

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

What would the French do?

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

First and foremost, I reiterate I am in no doubt that this was a huge Establishment stitch up. I will eat my hat if I see Bankfodder saying any different. He may well be more selective with his vocab though. If anyone doubts that I think they need some sort of psychiatric attention. An amoeba could figure it out. Anyhow, on with the nitty gritty.

 

 

 

 

 

Allowing for the fact that the legal profession is largely inhabited by complete morons infinitiely less intelligent than myself, Lord Phillips included, who are nothing more than well trained parrots - BENT ONES IN THE CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT - I have to admit I am not a legal expert. However, I will say the following. I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court was supposed to be ruling on the jurisdiction of the OFT. The term 'jurisdiction' has been used at different stages during the test case. I believe, as mentioned, that the test case was going to allow for an 'en masse positive outcome', but not a 'negative outcome' for individual cases. Now that it hasn't been resolved the stays should be lifted and the banks obliged to submit a defense as was the case pre-stay. That's my view on it.

 

The wording of the stays themselves dictate what happens next and that is CPR rules. If the claimant chooses to ask for their case to be heard then there is an application cost. Furthermore, I would suggest that the wording you have used for the supreme court is potentially libellous. You have labelled the legal profession(please remember there are members of site team who are in the legal profession and you are calling them morons' as well)

 

Yourbank, you make some fair points here and there, but you strike me as a 'gatekeeper' who is guiding us down the road to ultimate failure.

Explain what I am doing and how am I leading anyone down to ultimate failure?

I notice you haven't yet added your support to the 'March For Fairness' thread. Why not? You are not for a peaceful protest against all this corruption? It's just a few threads down this page if you can't find it.

I haven't yet seen what the March is about, when it is taking place, what time, location. Where it is marching to and who it is against and who is endorsing it.

Can you define support? So far I have given opinions which I continue to give when people want to arrange something mass market, ie media attention and unique selling point. I have dealt with the media to get them interested in various stories and their response is really about what is unique about the story. Currently you need that something where the press say "you cannot but cover it". Again you say "corruption" yet where is the evidence for this since again the statement is potentially libellous to say so. I should add "march for fairness" is a pretty good title for the march.

 

That's a good one and could go in a letter to a County Court. I see no harm whatsoever in pressuring our County Courts with some brief letters. That's just a few minutes of someone's time. My folks had some 'small' unresolved complaints, but nothing in the court system. I am not able to send a letter myself. I am not f**king here for money or personal gain. I am here as a citizen of this country who cares. An alien concept to many of the mofos who rules us.

This is the reason why I have said that if you are not prepared or able to do so yourself then wait until the advice of the site comes up with a solution because suggesting people challenge the logic of the decision could lead to it being seen as an application to lift a stay already in place and that may cost people money. Without doubt, I understand your sentiments but we cannot mess around with other people's money and I do not want to see people losing because we advise them something that is NOT endorsed by site team.

 

 

 

 

 

It means that the door was closed on future OFT investigations, which they knew full well when they read the judgement! However, it does not directly address the current impact of their verdict on individual cases. Why not? For the record, I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone doing anything legally without feedback from the site team who are obviously on our side. In my opinion, something is up for discussion here though. Or are we just going to lie down and be run over? It's all a big childish game and we are being lined up for a checkmate...

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.

Hi

Just returned from court. the bank has appointed a Q.C! As soon as he walked in, one of the other solicitors made a joke about him being in the wrong court and the jury trials were next door.........lol

 

Anyway, the bank requested time to examine the content of the incidental application, so the sheriff has requested that by 28 January, I submit a fuller arguement. The bank has then been given a further 2 weeks to state a defence. I will then have time to rebutt before a full days hearing is convened on 5 March to hear legal argument.

 

The QC for the bank began to outline his argument before being stopped by the sheriif. Eassentially, their argument is that the ruling of the supreme court covers the whole issue of unfair bank charges

 

kind regards

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.

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

How long was that term in operation? Does that mean anyone who was charged when this term was in operation would have a case for getting those charges back?

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

He will be at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London this Sunday, so if you can get there then go there.

Billy Bragg takes RBS bonus battle to Speakers' Corner | News

BTW, ouch on those comments....

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."