Prime Minister's Website

[jowalshy]

Some people have in the past claimed beyond 6 years and won, but that was quite a while ago. The one that springs to mind is Bong. The banks will still throw the limitations act at you if you try.

[JOSH_IOU]

dont quote me on this.

 

I believe the limitations act prevents you form doing this.

[JOSH_IOU]

2 of us cant be wrong

[jowalshy]

This thread may be of some help:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80486-claiming-beyond-6-yrs-48.html?highlight=6+year+claims

[Penfold92]

Thanks guys,

 

it seem s to me a dirty trick and that is all, they use the statues of limitations and DPA to avoid giving out the statements, however, they sent me them to try to alter my action on another matter therefore they cannot use the same statue to stop me using it in retalitation...LOL they are buggered either way...mind you not if bank charges are not refunded...

 

Do you get my drift on this one?

[JOSH_IOU]

:Dof course

[Penfold92]

OK Day 7 of the test case..."fell into my lap again" so Bookie or anyone who thinks there is confusing stuff in here pray tell and I will edit...Disclaimer - I was not there and did not write this...It is for information purposes only and should not be taken as my view or gospel...

 

I have been forced to remove the contents...sorry, but that is how sad things are when information cannot be shared by people on the same side...

 

 

Hope that helps others get a small picture of what is going on out there...

 

Penfold

[johnnymitch]

Thanks Penfold that is a terrific report........ the judge seems a bit sceptical some of the banks' explanations and that bit about 'you cannot submit inadmissible evidence' was classic! The:) y are certainly not going to pull the wool over his eyes I don't think...........

[Penfold92]

Thanks Penfold that is a terrific report........ the judge seems a bit sceptical some of the banks' explanations and that bit about 'you cannot submit inadmissible evidence' was classic! The:) y are certainly not going to pull the wool over his eyes I don't think...........

 

It seems that way and I truely hope the direction at the end will be for all county courts to proceed with their cases...I'll be straight down the court to apply to apply to set aside the stay...LOL

 

 

OH thanks Johnny...I'm on 4 now!!!!

[Bookworm]

Only one thing, and I know it's not you, Penfold, but whoever reads this, please remember:

 

Breach, not breech. Trust me, they are 2 very different things!

 

OH thanks Johnny...I'm on 4 now!!!!

Well, I tried, but apparently, I did not long ago! ;-)

[Penfold92]

Well, I tried, but apparently, I did not long ago! ;-)

 

Thanks bookie Johnny got me over the 4 blobs mark...

[Castlebest]

Well done Prabs

 

And so to the OFT arguments

 

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT accuses banks over charges

 

pete

[johnnymitch]

Thanks bookie Johnny got me over the 4 blobs mark...

 

You earned it Penfold !

 

congratulations on your 4th , mate! :D

[johnnymitch]

Thanks for your link too, pete - most interesting...... food for thought!

 

Hope you're Ok mate? - as usual it's you just on and me just off LOL!

G'night ,mate ,catch you soon.

[Penfold92]

OK Day 8 falling from the laps of the Gods once more - Again was not there and so disclaimer just a view from someone else -

 

 

I have been forced to remove the contents...sorry, but that is how sad things are when information cannot be shared by people on the same side...

 

So there you have it, by thr sounds of it it was an "off day" for the OFT and their QC, but let's hope day 9 brings better views...

[Guest vortex]

The overview from LB is good but omitted the EU Directive of 1990 that Doctor also went through yesterday. He argued the 1994 regulations with regards to section 6.2 were not wholly compatable with what was meant within the Directive and the 1999 UTCCR were more exact in their wording. He went through the historical context so the the contentious 6.2 (a) and (b) were concise as to their meaning.

 

Interesting part of the afternoon apart from Doctor's apparent complete loss of plot was just before the recess where each barrister seemed to suggest that what had been submitted in writing may have covered 6.2(a) or (b) but oral submission covered the one they had not stated. It was very interesting.

[johnnymitch]

Thanks penfold and vortex - it sounds like the good Doctor needs to sort out his legal team - teach them the meaning of professionalism. It's important that the judge has a clear view of his arguments, not a disjointed set of 'ums' and 'ahs'.

 

As you say, penfold - let's hope day 9 is better..........

[rockinrodders]

Lets hope the OFT case doesn't fall apart because of their incompetent legal team!

[ANDENA]

just caught up on oft case thanks to this dedicated team thanks.

[jowalshy]

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks 'try to dodge regulations'

[Castlebest]

"Your Lordship will have to get a wet towel to help work out the cost," he warned.

 

just wait till he gets out the sonic screwdriver

[johnnymitch]

just wait till he gets out the sonic screwdriver :grin:

 

Laffin! - (now .... who says that ?????????)

 

Evening Pete!

[johnnymitch]

It seems to have flowed a little better today according to Jo's link - what do you reckon Pete?

[Castlebest]

think yesterday was just his team not feeding him as he needed he was answering a number of points the banks QC's had raised so it wouldnt be the prepared section of his submission. It seemed to go ok today from the reports

[Penfold92]

OK the next installment from elsewhere...disclaimer etc...LOL;)

I have been forced to remove the contents...sorry, but that is how sad things are when information cannot be shared by people on the same side...