Sorry - system is automated.

Obviously you will gather that numerous posts have been edited or removed for legal reasons. Whilst we do not consider that the majority of the posts concerned are unlawful, we prefer to err on the side of caution. I would add that some of the posts highlighted to us have not been moderated as we do not consider that there is any valid legal reason for them to be edited or removed. Please could I ask that members stick to the facts, and not name specific individuals unless there is a valid and proportionate reason for doing so. CAG does not like to have to remove or edit posts where a valid dispute exists, and there are consumer based issues that the company needs to be addressing. Unfortunately we are sometimes left with no choice where threads start to deviate towards personal opinion and reports from unverifiable sources. Whilst it is likely that the views expressed are within the bounds of freedom of expression, as I said above, we do have to err on the side of caution.

Hmm - it was sent out. I have emailed to confirm your address etc, and will get another off to you tomorrow.

No that's fine - this is the release:

This is correct, and is what I was eluding to earlier in the thread. From the moment the judgement was announced we have been working with Martin, and several other key campaigners and legal advisers to ensure that we are all able to have the best possible advice on the way forward.

I don't think that it is any coincidence that the OFT and the banks agreed together what would be litigated.

Will look into this further and post something up tomorrow.

As I understand it, and the argument put forward by the OFT was on the price being disproportionate - to which the banks said yes, but look at 6(2)(b). The regulation 5 argument is more based on the fact that the customer was never able to agree these charges individually, and that they create an imbalance in the position of each party which is unfair to the consumer. Although, please bear in mind that I am only just getting to grips with this myself.

As I say, it would be a very foolish approach without first looking at each individual claim to assess whether the judgement relates to the claim. The courts will clearly have a massive amount of work to do relating to this judgement, so it would seem extremely unlikely that they would be in a position for several weeks to entertain such applications. I imagine the courts will also be waiting for instructions themselves before going ahead with a major strikeout binge - remember the OFT could still seek permission to appeal to Europe, and the situation could change again. Of course, even if a claim was struck out without a hearing it would be a fairly simple process to get it reinstated on the basis that the bank were relying on the wrong case-law. If a court decided to hold a mass strike-out of claims then we would have to seriously consider challenging that, and would be seeking advice from counsel on a challenge.

Because the OFT went down a different route to that adopted by CAG, MSE, etc, and failed. A judgement in favour of the OFT would have provided a short-cut, but we are effectively now back at the position we were before the OFT were involved. The judgement is more to do with the powers of the OFT, rather than the fairness, or otherwise, of the contracts we have with the banks. The media gave massive publicity to the banks "victory" because they revel in bad news. You watch over the next few weeks as they start to pick up on the real facts, and again jump on the bandwagon of being the consumer champion.

I think it would be very foolish for the banks to take that approach before they have considered their position, especially where the claim is clearly under Clause 5. The bank could end up with thousands of wasted cost claims if they try getting a claim dismissed on the basis of a judgement on irrelevant case-law. Actually they do not have to do anything other than sit back and hope that the claimants don't bother to seek the lifting of the stay. A few months down the line the courts will no doubt have a tidying up sessions and dismiss those claims that are still on hold, or the banks will apply en bloc. The other thing to remember is that the courts will be unlikely to process any request from the bank within a couple a weeks. It would no doubt have to be referred to a judge, and that will take probably 6-8 weeks minimum.

The suggestion is that claims be put on hold for a couple of weeks while we seek counsel's opinion over the wording of the POCs. Whilst the current POCs/templates do the job, we do think that they can now be strengthened in view of the judges comments, we are also looking into other avenues. Obviously that does not stop anyone from starting the pre-litigation stages, we would just advise waiting before filing at court, or seeking the removal of a stay.

The Consumer Forums - The Fight Goes On As we read further into today's judgement it has become clear that the OFT may have used the wrong part of the UTCCR. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used, and this may lead consumers to consider rewording their claims. Clause 5(1) states that "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer." Any clause allowing a bank to impose repressive charges, and increase and change those charges at its own discretion would be extremely likely to put the bank in a dominant position - and therefore the term should not be allowed to stand. Obviously the judgement is still being analysed, but it would seem that the fight is most certainly not lost.

It is a normal legal process.

I would be inclined to include both as an either/or on the claim.

This may be something that TrueCall needs to look at with the original software. I will pass it on.

It's all done Martin - it is now in the hands of RM.

We are going to be bring this to a conclusion in the next few days, so if we could have any more suggestions asap, and we will then draw up a short-list.

Thread moved.

You need to buy the machine direct from TrueCall for £97.50, and then email a scan of the receipt to admin@consumeractiongroup.co.uk a memory card will then be sent out to you.

You just need to buy the machine for £97.50 - do not buy the memory card from TrueCall. Once you have the receipt, send it to admin@consumeractiongroup.co.uk and a memory card will be sent out to you. If you have any further problems obtaining the machine drop me a PM.

I would agree that you are definitely being short-changed from those figures.

Just as a matter of interest, I am a member of the Derby branch of DW Sports where the changing rooms have just had a much needed refurbishment. HOWEVER, it has become a standing joke amongst members that the spa pool is frequently not working properly, or totally out of use, and generally not a week goes by without something being out of use. Is this a local issue, is it a JJB problem that is now being worked on, or is it the same with other DW clubs?

Excellent - sounds like you have them in a corner on this one.