We should put together a little kit containing: A pair of scissors. A Needle and Thread. Some WonderWeb. A small bag made from fireblanket. A sew on zip with small padlock. And call it the 'Money Matress Deluxe Kit'. Then your money will be safe! That link reiterates pretty much what I and a few others said earlier this afternoon, the indication of other routes.. with effectively the same outcome, but potentially without the long long wait!

But surely if they already paid you back some money they have admitted something was amiss in a roundabout way.. it's all twisted isn't it.

Remember the Fuel blockade of a few years back, that drove home the public feeling of fuel prices. Nicely topical. However for banking needs, what can be done to bring about a similar effect?

Media help in our favour would help that tremendously. Where does one find that sort of cooperation? The Sun, Daily Mail?

Pitchforks, torches and Pikes it is then!

Courtesy of the unique way the BBC is funded! Does the government have any bearing on how the BBC operates I wonder?

If you read my earlier posts from this morning you'll notice I already said about the corruption part.... I'm not defending the ruling, lords or the banks, I am merely saying, deep in there somewhere is some hint at our next move.. and it was given to us (perhaps unwittingly) by the Lords themselves. They gave away that we and the OFT should perhaps try a different route. And I'm sure that's what the OFT et al will be doing too.

This is merely all I am suggesting too..

I think maybe spend a bit of time reassessing your own thoughts. That was my first thoughts, but I thought about it for a while, maybe it was maybe it wasn't, but I wasn't there so can't reliably comment on that. If you look at it in anyway other than doom and gloom, you can see some possibility that this might be a blessing in disguise. After all, all is not lost now. Well you're entitled to your opinion. In all honestly, I would love, absolutely love to see the banks pay. It would be no less than they deserve. they made my life a misery only 6 years ago, treat others as you would have others treat you.. go stomp all over them!

I am definately not a shill, I have no relation to either party in this mornings doings. Well whatever path you were on, it turns out was the wrong path. You might like to think you were on the right path, but the OFT made a mistake, and they were told this. The Lords have clarified this, and no matter how bitter you might feel about it you do now know this and can start to find the alternate paths. You can be bitter if you like, but you'll be getting nowhere. As for being daft, I don't think it is. It's merely a look at the deeper outcome of what has happened today. Some people will only ever look for the dark side.. Another user in the iggy bin..

Well I changed my tune from this morning, I was of the angry opinion this morning afer listening to the news on TV, but then of course they would be sensationialising it for TV. Once I'd read a little further into it I saw that this might be a blessing in a not so big disguise. The important thing is to not let the Banks make you think they won anything, they did not not a thing, the Lords basically sent us the message "Stop! you're wandering down the wrong path, the path you want is over there..." Soo, make sure that you let the banks know you're still on top, and that now they're really in trouble.. if they laugh at you, you know they giving one of those nervous defeated laughs and you can smile broadly. They will be tremendously nervous now they know the stays are lifted... they know the really hard bit is about to come, and it is imperitive that it is made to be as uncomfortable for them as possible, for they deserve no dignity.

Well as the banks themselves have almost admitted guilt/malpractice in the refunds they have already given, and now the stays are lifted, shouldn't this at least in theory make it easier? If so the floodgates are open!

In a funny way the courts did something good.. They did the 'right' thing perhaps in their ruling as it keeps things clean. As said they only judges on the OFT and it's limitations not the fairness of the charges. The Lords said this, but then said the OFT might be able to pursue this in 'other' avenues, to me this sounds like a little wink to the public and the OFT. Kind of like 'You can't get where you want to go using this route... but if you were to go another route.. nudge nudge wink wink..' Soooo, the stays are lifted and we're now looking at other directions on the advice of the Lords.. so parhaps not so bad after all..?

Where?

Yahoo news had something to say about it too: Banks Win Court Battle On Overdraft Charges - Yahoo! Finance

The opinions of the people on this site are just that, their opinions. I don't think people voicing their suspcions is a bad thing, it merely shows how many however rightly or wrongly think of the situation, not all, but many. It certainly does not affect the reputation of this site as at it serves as a platform to communicate and discuss peoples opinions, not just to repeat the same information over without reply, retort or opinion. A forum where you cannot say what you think or feel whether it's right or wrong is not alot of use. There might not be any proof that they are actually corrupt, but it is always a possibility and if you feel they might be, then definately stand up and say so, unless of course you are suggesting that they are above suspicion?

Yeah it did, I had the same, now my posts say they need to be reviewed before they are shown, what happened there then? [EDIT] Now my posts are appearing without the need to be reviewed.. interesting.

I don't dislike the French but I am very proud to be English/Scottish 50:50, however I dislike the way we're pushed about by OUR government, who work for US! We in Britain tend to have a grumble about things and that's as far as we get.. I think we fear standing up and shouting because are scared me might find ourself standing up alone.

I don't have any charges to claim back at the moment anyway, as it happens, but for some it isn't just about that, it's about holding the banks to account for their OWN RULE BREAKING. Vegnomeat is a troll, anyone know of a large billy goat who needs a troll kicking contract?

Is there a way to teach them a proglonged lesson? Is there a workable way to boycott the banking system enough to kick them hard and repeatedly where it hurts the bankers most.. in their pockets? If this had been in France there'd be a strike or riot about now, that would scare the hell outta the government here there'd be brown benches in the houses commons/lords. I suppose that sort of prostest is not really the decent Anglo Saxon thing to do. I'm mid thirties and I am a full time student, and once I finish my degree, I'm outta here!

Let's not forget that the government is a major shareholder in a number of the banks in question... it was never going to go as planned. I expect that the bankers lined the pockets (in the proverbial manner) of the Judges and Ministers, that or they're serious investors in some/all of the said banks, how else can they arrive at this baseless descision? If ever we needed evidence that this country is becomming corrupt, then this is it. You do tend to start seeing suspicious headline judgements in corrupt countries, and now this is starting to show here.. ho hum.

Thanks twofoot, Dangit, but in that link is the reply from GDR and they seem unaware that this might be the case. Now as they don't mention overdraft i wonder if this debt was an agreed bank loan. I will have a look through the statements again. It's odd that the statements they gave me went up to 2001/2 and nothing more recently. And there was no record of my ex-wfies payments to them in 05 either as it goes only to 2001/2. Hmmmmmmmmmm. I need to see what they got on me Right, time for an SAR methinks! Is there a difference between a loan from a loan company, a lump sum into my account from my own bank and an overdraft from a legal point of view?

I have a DCA hounding me for a debt with HSBC. I think the debt would have come from an overdraft back in 2001/02, anyway I asked for my CCA which they responded to as per this post: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/172938-global-debt-management-tricks.html Want I want to know is whether that debt is covered by a CCA? I ask because I don't ever remember signing anything to be given any overdraft, nor do I ever actually remember having this amount of debt but thats something for the unfair charges once I send in my SAR. So I really just want to confirm that the CCA request is valid in the case of a debt that is made up of an overdraft? I'm sorry to ask what is probably a simple question but this legal stuff confuses me somewhat and after I have read a few of the threads on here my head is in a spin.

Even a mild pointer would be most appreciated.

Another question, I also got a letter once I got home today regarding a Southern Water debt with the very same ex wife only £300ish this time... The 6 years is almost up since I left and the water payment if this is correct would be about the same, maybe a little longer. I'm not sure it is my debt. They said on the phone that they knew I left in 2003 but I now have to provide proof... Would this debt also be SB after 6 years?