Why has the QC's Opinion been taken down ?

The hearing to have the stay listed, have you also entered an application to amend your particulars of claim - as that should be heard at the same time ? Can I ask why you are applying now to have the stay lifted - I would tend to think keeping the case stayed would be a good idea at least until after the Sharp v HBOS (govan law) case has been heard ?

Thanks Aequitas. Bookworm was asking for some case law yesterday. Mulvey v. Secretary of State for Social Security Basically said that deductions to income support made by the social fund for repayment of a social fund loan would continue after bankruptcy as they were never received by the benefits claimant. Therefore, once benefits hit your account they are yours and lose the protection of the SSA. ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldjudgmt/jd970313/mulv01.htm ) North Lanarkshire Council v Crossan Sheriff Court of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway at Airdrie July 2007

I really hope you find the niggle as it would be fantastic to have this resolved as the issue has been simmering for a long time, and given me a fair few headaches of my own. Nice to chat with you Bookworm.

(Crossed posts before so in response to post #689) I agree with your view of the ''submissions'' I posted above, however there isn't (so far as I am aware) any statute stating everything that benefits can be used to pay, which would be a little long and complicated, only statute stating what they can't be used for. Bank charges is not one of them. The law is once they are yours (ie paid into the place you wish by the method you wish - however difficult it is to have them paid elsewhere) they can be used as you wish. It does need sorting legislatively, although I can see that type of legislation will be fraught with difficulties. People should have accounts which are JUST for benefit payments if they must have a bank account. Then, I believe, they have more of an argument along the lines you have stated. Maybe have a word with Vince Again, just my opinion.

I don't think it is fair and it is an argument to use under the UTCCR as I stated earlier. There is a case Woods v RBS a fair while back which is agreeable to your view slightly, and Mike Dailly (in 2003) agreed, although there is also this [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Sections187and45 - epetition response | Number10.gov.uk more recently. You need X amount to live on, however by choice (when it comes down to it it IS a choice, however necessary it is) you have chosen to have your money paid into an account (through ease/lack of knowledge/publicity of other methods) and chosen to incur bank charges (whether necessity forced an overdrawn situation or not). I chose to have a POCA, therefore the only person who can use my money is me, unless it is taken at source for a valid reason (benefit sanction/social fund repayment etc) that is not against the SSA 1987. Banks should be treated more as Utilities as they have become an almost essential part of life in this country. The unfairness is the way the banks treat you in financial hardship and force you into cycle of debt, rather than the fact that some or all of the income in the bank account comes from benefits.

First Right of Appropriation / Benefits and Bank Charges Royal Bank of Scotland's view of First Right of Appropriation Off topic a little now for this thread, my apologies.

How benefits and pensions are paid : Directgov - Money, tax and benefits I think there are around 4.3 million POCA's in use (that's a 2006 figure I believe) - this is reducing though with the governments financial ''inclusion'' work and the jobcentres targetted (source Hansard Feb 2nd 2010) marketing of bank accounts over POCA. POCA costs the government 50p to make a payment into whereas Bank Accounts cost the government 1p (source Hansard Feb21st? 2010)

I receive my IS and CTC into a Post Office Card account, however I do agree that it has become very difficult to have benefits paid any other way than into a bank account, and it has also become the most economical way to pay bills, if you exclude charges. Housing Benefit cannot be paid into the Post Office Account - however in certain cases it can be paid direct to your landlord. Added: from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/justice/civob-00.asp

I don't agree that '' just 2 charges per week can take away your total IS AND leave you owing more) is automatically breaking the law '' It may break current lending code guidance but there is no law against bank charges being taken from an individuals account, as far as I am aware. It is basically, in the eyes of the law as it stands, the individuals choice to incur and pay bank charges. It is, I believe, an area being looked at within the LSB and OFT working groups on the future of banking and the opt out of informal overdrafts that we will see reported on, and hopefully implemented, in September. However terms which force consumers into a cycle of debt may be considered unfair under the UTCCR, as well as creating an unfair relationship under the CCA. Individuals can also use their first right of appropriation to set aside money for essential living expenses if they do find they have incurred charges. Whether the banks accept the request or not is ridiculously varied from bank to bank and case to case and the area needs more work. Just my opinion.

Thanks Caro

Doesn't need an email - they have a home page, announcements, sidebars and advertising - I assume they also have facebook, twitter, they also have the ear of the press on occassion. There are also other sites which might assist. But only once a proper action plan is in place and the right people in place to run it - and if necessary the right legal bods on board. It needs to be transparent, well organised and professional, if it is to get off the ground and actually assist the fight against unfair charges. If admin/site team aren't keen then you have to take that as it is and keep battling away from the ground level.

Step 1 should be to decide on a game plan, with Step 4, and with admin/site team, which I don't think has yet been done, without that I can't see the fund getting off the ground. Step 5 could, and should, be being done already. Keep at it Jdes, doing great

Or a number of people, covering all the areas required in a few specific test cases, specifically selected to have cases with a good chance of succeeding.

Okay so you need to state that clearly, and what types of cases it will be used to support - anyone who continues in a bank charges case, or selected cases which are assessed by ?solicitor/site team/barrister etc? as having a good (better than average?) chance of success (remember the arguments are quite individual now). As example -we have seen people putting in claims on the CCA arguments which have no charges after April 2007, or even the account was closed before then... Do you see what I mean? I'm not trying to put any spanners in the works but I think that will be why interest in donating will not be very high, as things stand it is too vague, and you do not appear to have admin behind the idea as yet.

Think you need admin on board then they can do announcements, press and articles if they decide to go for it. Have you spoken with admin? There isn't really a clear idea of what the money is intended for ? Is it to bail a one man band claimant out if he loses ? or for something a bit more organised like a representative action ? To gain the interest it needs spelling out as its all a little vague.

What kind of work are you thinking ?

Think Aequitas was meaning up until the test case the banks still thought there was something in the penalty arguments so stuck to the 'cover costs' line. Once penalties was chucked out by Justice Smith, the banks saw that they no longer needed to claim that and the final argument 'part of the price or a package of services' came about. The transcripts of all the hearings are very useful to read to get your head around how the test case progressed and the arguments changed and strenghtened throughout in favour of the banks.

Yes indeed ... six of one and half dozen of the other

I was going to refer to that but it appears to have gone from the thread ? In agreement ( I think) with Aequitas, in the notes with the Opinion it is suggested that the areas to look at that don't fall foul of 6(2) are I think it was due to consumer pressure that the test case went ahead rather than a competition enquiry like in NI, South Africa and Australia which resulted in lowering charges ?

Months at the very least. In Feb 2010 they had 110,000 cases pending. http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/37C26BF0-EE46-437E-B810-EA900D18D49B/0/ENG_QR.pdf From what Govan were saying though they are using this more to bump the Justice Secretary into reviewing some dropped alterations than to actually go through the entire ECHR process. Possibly?

Govan Law is applying to the EU to bring proceedings against the United Kingdom under article 6(1) of the ECHR, it isn't as far as I can make out, taking the bank charges issue to Europe. From the article on Govan Law ''It is hoped that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will reconsider his refusal to look at a law reform solution to prevent a class of persons, such as the pursuer, being limited in their ability to determine their civil rights before the Scottish courts.'' ( http://govanlc.blogspot.com/ ) Do the government's plans for the consumer redress schemes extend to Scotland ?

Didn't think of uploading it. Thank you SFU. In addition to that attached above, this is the supplement of the Opinion from Anthony Scrivener QC mentioned at paragraph 106. edit: uploaded Opinion as well as it seems to have vanished from seriouslyfedup's previous post. If theres a problem with the PDF's then a text version could be posted as it has been on MSE although it would take up a number of posts. Bankchargesopinion_supplement.pdf Bankchargesopinion.pdf

Not one I am able to post, although it is a public document.

TheyrCriminals - did you get chance to read through Scrivener's Opinion on the UTCCR aspects ?