H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[kennyh]

So unless a miracle occurs (Doubt very much that it'll be in my lifetime) we'll be back to "show and tell" in court; paralleling what we currently do with the cc charges - yes?

[InformedSearcher]

LOL Page 88 is 'next' (even yjough maybe unused as of yet.....

 

Anyhow in my moments of unemployed solace I've been thinking about all these things that have happened in a total nutshell.

The OFT say the charges are unfair and the Banks disagree.

Let's deal with this legally says the OFT (this is a moment you think of all those gangsters and why it was so simple back then).

Let's string this out say the banks because no one will settle for £12 a throw like the cards and anyway we say these charges are fair and legally informed.

There starts the legal battle that has amazingly 'not' been reported on that much. You see enough comment on smoking and alcohol, the governments back door cash cow and yet the NHS need them or they'll have redundancies. Funny that there's no proof that passive smoking is harmful at all and inhaling vehicle exhaust fumes is proved potentially fatal - certainly no mention on that because of the other government 'tax' incentive.

The facts are that if a media company wants to report they need people. We all have our reasons why we went overdrawn and for reporting purposes they need a story like 'bad banks penalise poor consumers' but with 'bite' and alas that's not easy to come by.

Michael

[yourbank]

:DNot wanting to break the rules on here by going massivley off topic. But.

 

I agree with Bank Fodder we need a civil war if thats the only way to get an elected government.

 

Can I have the link to this post?

[yourbank]

Just testing, shows 88 pages, but I cannot get to 88, I suppose it will sort itself out.

GuidoT, surely you know(or maybe not) that there are unapproved posts on this thread which is why you couldn't get to page 88 or the next page cos those posts are still on the forum but not visible to normal users(only site team and admin).

[car2403]

GuidoT, surely you know(or maybe not) that there are unapproved posts on this thread which is why you couldn't get to page 88 or the next page cos those posts are still on the forum but not visible to normal users(only site team and admin).

 

Correct.

 

Page 88 is like Room 101, somewhere from whence you shall never return.

 

(Lets stop talking about it, or the Aliens might come and get us - I'm hoping y'all are wearing your tin foil hats while typing, also!)

 

:-D:-D

[Bigmac versus]

By the banks actions of appeal on appeal it is fairly obvious they will stop ONLY when there are no further routes to take, they have stalled at every chance they have and will do nothing to speed this whole saga up. If they lose HOL and possibly EC they will fight, stall, and argue whatever amount the OFT say is fair, i wouldnt have believed at the start this would have taken so long and still with no end in sight. Surely with ALL that has been ruled on so far they expect to lose, surely they have been told so by their own legal team its a losing cause and it would be in the banks interest to pay now rather than risk further interest on these claims and that is the part I cant get my head round!

Why continue when that exact route will cost so much more in the end, is there a twist to come regarding all of this, it really wouldnt surprise me in the least. I would love this resolved this year with no deals behind closed doors but im waiting for it. The timescales and protection the banks have been given via the waiver have been scandolous, its a public enquiry thats needed to see whats been going on in all of this.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Bigmac versus

[Bookworm]

Hey, BM, long time no see!

 

I think that maybe a lot of people who are waiting until it is all sorted to do their claims will see their charges fall behind the 6 yrs. Let's face it, if the banks can drag it for another 3 yrs (2 up your way!), then a lot of people are going to find an awful lot of their claim will be behind the veil...

 

That alone should save them a good few bobs. Then there's them who will die, move, become incapable for a reason or another to claim... Ok, so it may seem peanuts in comparison, but when has that stopped them? Sledgehammer to crack a nut has always been their approach, so why not do damage limitation one at the time?

 

I also think they are simply incapable to accept defeat once and for all. For years and years, they arrogantly thought they were untouchable and it doesn't come easy to this type of characters to change attitude (look at Goodwin!).

[Bigmac versus]

I also think they are simply incapable to accept defeat once and for all. For years and years, they arrogantly thought they were untouchable and it doesn't come easy to this type of characters to change attitude (look at Goodwin!).

 

Thats a giver however the only people who will lose due to limitations are those who HAVENT either filed at court, started a compliant with the FOS or indeed had their complaint registered with their bank as for these people time will stand still in respect of limitations, (thats a giver) I cant imagine that there are so many people out there with significant amount of charges who havent done anything, that is to say to make it that worthwhile for the banks to continue in this manner, it just dosent make sense.

 

 

Hiya been fed up with the whole bloody thing TBH.

[patrickq1]

it makes theslightest difference as to how much it cost how long it takes,we are not dealing with honest bankers any more,we are dealing with b******s who take risks with other peoples money they are gamblers and not bankers city men with eyes for the big bucks ...time we had some common sense brought back into the banking industry ...

it really is upto the goverment to withdraw the deeds that they now control and brought transparency back into banking

[Bookworm]

Thats a giver however the only people who will lose due to limitations are those who HAVENT either filed at court, started a compliant with the FOS or indeed had their complaint registered with their bank as for these people time will stand still in respect of limitations, (thats a giver) I cant imagine that there are so many people out there with significant amount of charges who havent done anything, that is to say to make it that worthwhile for the banks to continue in this manner, it just dosent make sense.

 

 

Hiya been fed up with the whole bloody thing TBH.

You'd be surprised... My sis-in-law hasn't, first because she didn't want to "p*** off the bank", then because she wants to see how it all turns out... She has been charged thousands... Deep in debt, and if she got it back, all her financial worries would disappear just like that... But she doesn't want to "take the risk". I'm sure there are more than we can imagine just like her out there.

 

Ah well, onwards and upwards, hey?

[beachcomber60]

You'd be surprised... My sis-in-law hasn't, first because she didn't want to "p*** off the bank", then because she wants to see how it all turns out... She has been charged thousands... Deep in debt, and if she got it back, all her financial worries would disappear just like that... But she doesn't want to "take the risk". I'm sure there are more than we can imagine just like her out there.

 

Ah well, onwards and upwards, hey?

 

 

Just like to say we are in the position of not wanting to take the risk of P'ing off the bank, just cant take the risk of them closing our account, through no fault of ours we've been plunged into severe financial difficulties & will not be able to get another bank account both private & business.

 

Have about 2 years grace on the 6 year limitation before any charges start dropping off.

 

Have about £1700 on private account & approx £700 on my business account to reclaim.

[yourbank]

By the banks actions of appeal on appeal it is fairly obvious they will stop ONLY when there are no further routes to take, they have stalled at every chance they have and will do nothing to speed this whole saga up.

Banks' have every right to appeal at every stage. I don't understand why that is unfair for them to do so if it creates certainty in law for consumers. A person on death row will appeal until they have no avenue of appeal.

 

 

If they lose HOL and possibly EC they will fight, stall, and argue whatever amount the OFT say is fair, i wouldnt have believed at the start this would have taken so long and still with no end in sight. Surely with ALL that has been ruled on so far they expect to lose, surely they have been told so by their own legal team its a losing cause and it would be in the banks interest to pay now rather than risk further interest on these claims and that is the part I cant get my head round!

I doubt they have been told they will lose and I doubt claims against them have any bearing in that matter as the amount they will owe is significantly less than their assets. Remember debts can also be assets.

 

Why continue when that exact route will cost so much more in the end, is there a twist to come regarding all of this, it really wouldnt surprise me in the least. I would love this resolved this year with no deals behind closed doors but im waiting for it. The timescales and protection the banks have been given via the waiver have been scandolous, its a public enquiry thats needed to see whats been going on in all of this.

 

There is no twist or turns. The FSA Waiver itself in spite of clear tweaks during its renewal is IMHO not working for people in genuine financial hardship because again the definition is too wide still. Furthermore, there is no pressure or dialogue being made to the FSA from sites such as this to make the FSA improve the waiver. It will be renewed again in July and yet the soundbites here is to criticise the organisation then to work with it to make improvements in spite of people's obvious frustration.

[yourbank]

Hey, BM, long time no see!

 

I think that maybe a lot of people who are waiting until it is all sorted to do their claims will see their charges fall behind the 6 yrs. Let's face it, if the banks can drag it for another 3 yrs (2 up your way!), then a lot of people are going to find an awful lot of their claim will be behind the veil...

I think it was yourself that has stated the view that is obvious, if a term is unfair then it has not existed and that any charges made as a result would have a basis in law with the limitation act, ie concealment since the term would have existed more than 6 years(potentially).

That alone should save them a good few bobs. Then there's them who will die, move, become incapable for a reason or another to claim... Ok, so it may seem peanuts in comparison, but when has that stopped them? Sledgehammer to crack a nut has always been their approach, so why not do damage limitation one at the time?

I see what you mean.

 

I also think they are simply incapable to accept defeat once and for all. For years and years, they arrogantly thought they were untouchable and it doesn't come easy to this type of characters to change attitude (look at Goodwin!).

I liked Sir Fred Goodwin and thankfully never had shares in RBS Group......one of my more sensible decisions.

[yourbank]

You'd be surprised... My sis-in-law hasn't, first because she didn't want to "p*** off the bank", then because she wants to see how it all turns out... She has been charged thousands... Deep in debt, and if she got it back, all her financial worries would disappear just like that... But she doesn't want to "take the risk". I'm sure there are more than we can imagine just like her out there.

 

Ah well, onwards and upwards, hey?

Bookie, you need to use the argument that banks are paying out and that they only see customers as a number and not a person. Local branches aren't told if someone is claiming, and that if she is in hardship she might get some money that is non returnable to ease hardship. Otherwise just give her a slap albeit it doesn't work with my sister either

[Bookworm]

I think it was yourself that has stated the view that is obvious, if a term is unfair then it has not existed and that any charges made as a result would have a basis in law with the limitation act, ie concealment since the term would have existed more than 6 years(potentially).

Nah, not me, I am not that smart, lol. I also don't believe it's fair to say "it hasn't existed", it exists but is non-enforceable in its entirety. It's not just semantics either, think of the debt industry and the difference between a debt that is written off and one which is non-enforceable. Looking into the future, maybe we should start thinking on how the banks could retaliate with registering adverse info with the CRAs. Could they, would they, how would it work? I don't know, it's just trying to think ahead of them and that's not always easy as you know.

 

As for s.32, hmmm... I -potentially, lol- agree with you, but there are various issues to be considered:

- (and I am sorry to say, this is largely due to the media and the likes of MSE Martin) the public at large has been repeatedly told: "you can only go back 6 years". Let's not kid ourselves: even though this site is the largest of its kind and has managed to reach a huge audience, in comparison to the media, it is a drop in the ocean. So for everyone 1 CAGger who argues s.32, there'll be 10 Joe Average who won't.

- s.32 itself is no walk in the park and I do believe the banks will go to court to argue that one, as the effects would be devastating for them if people were to successfully go back for as long as they can. I believe that the argument is there to be won. The banks have been shredding historical data for the last 3 yrs where they used to archive things for as long as they reasonably could, and that tells me they are afraid of s.32 big time. In the very early days, we found out Abbey (I think) had some data going back to the 1920s. Not anymore, I bet you. Now they destroy it as soon as it reaches the 6 yrs, which means that people who haven't got the info won' tbe able to go beyond anyway.

 

What of s.32 itself? Well, concealment is one thing, but the banks will argue that they didn't hide their charges, they always were "fair and transparent" (excuse me while I try to keep a straight face). I personally think that victory may lie in the "relief of a mistake" part of LA 1980.

 

There's also the idea that you can only go back 6 yrs from when you file at court. Not so, you have 6 years to file from when you became aware of the cause that gave rise to the action. That's when the clock starts ticking, IMO. If the bank has acknowledged the debt in any form or shape (and you servicing your overdraft would do that), then the clock hasn't started ticking on limitation. After all, if all those years you were successfully hoodwinked by the bank and only just found out, why shouldn't you be able to go back for as long as they swindled you? OTOH, of you find out today and let 6 yrs go before doing anything about it, THEN the LA1980 would kick in successfully. THis is after all what a lot of DCAs do, buying a near statute-barred debt, then attempting to get the clock restarted on it.

[Bookworm]

Bookie, you need to use the argument that banks are paying out and that they only see customers as a number and not a person. Local branches aren't told if someone is claiming, and that if she is in hardship she might get some money that is non returnable to ease hardship. Otherwise just give her a slap albeit it doesn't work with my sister either

Nattie, don't you think I have TRIED? This is me we're talking about! I have done it with friends, I have done it FOR friends come to think of it, myself, my DH, my DD, you name it... But that one, I have given up on, lol.

[yourbank]

Nah, not me, I am not that smart, lol. I also don't believe it's fair to say "it hasn't existed", it exists but is non-enforceable in its entirety. It's not just semantics either, think of the debt industry and the difference between a debt that is written off and one which is non-enforceable.

Not sure I am gonna get into into the written off or non enforceable debt argument cos I don't understand it enough. I have a loan, and AFAIK its my responsibility to pay it whether the agreement is enforceable or not. That is merely my personal view and I have had loans, have got a loan outstanding and am paying it back so I haven't walked in other people's shoes on that one.

 

Looking into the future, maybe we should start thinking on how the banks could retaliate with registering adverse info with the CRAs. Could they, would they, how would it work? I don't know, it's just trying to think ahead of them and that's not always easy as you know.

 

As for s.32, hmmm... I -potentially, lol- agree with you, but there are various issues to be considered:

- (and I am sorry to say, this is largely due to the media and the likes of MSE Martin) the public at large has been repeatedly told: "you can only go back 6 years".

FWIW, I have already argued the point on Limitations on FSA Waiver and template letter, it is now stating July 2001. The basis of 6 years is the Statute of Limitations argument, however, due to the OFT test case I think s.32 is an argument live and kicking. We will see.

 

 

Let's not kid ourselves: even though this site is the largest of its kind and has managed to reach a huge audience, in comparison to the media, it is a drop in the ocean. So for everyone 1 CAGger who argues s.32, there'll be 10 Joe Average who won't.

Not sure I can go into the argument over who's site is bigger in number since MSE shows members being nearly 500,000 and CAG is under 250,000. Plus a few of us have multiple usernames(I think from memory I had half a dozen). I do understand what you mean re s.32 however, we are getting closer to the point when I think it will become more clearer to being able to understand and argue s.32.

- s.32 itself is no walk in the park and I do believe the banks will go to court to argue that one,

They cannot argue s.32 if UTCCR and the term in question goes against them. If the term doesn't exist then all monies paid under that term have to be repaid. However, there has to be a point where it was a fair charge but that is for the Substantive Issues rather than the current Preliminary Issues before the HoL.

as the effects would be devastating for them if people were to successfully go back for as long as they can. I believe that the argument is there to be won. The banks have been shredding historical data for the last 3 yrs where they used to archive things for as long as they reasonably could, and that tells me they are afraid of s.32 big time.

There is no prescribed term for keeping data. I know we talk of 6 years re Statute of Limitations but the ICO have no set of prescribed date line. If you ask specifically for copy statement from a bank for as far back as possible, many can go back 10 years or more. However, we have as you said earlier in your post, seen that Subject Access Request has shown only to be 6 years statements. I don't subscribe to that at all and I know they can go back further.

 

In the very early days, we found out Abbey (I think) had some data going back to the 1920s. Not anymore, I bet you. Now they destroy it as soon as it reaches the 6 yrs, which means that people who haven't got the info won' tbe able to go beyond anyway.

I repeat, there is not prescribed 6 years for shredding data. There are rules and regulations, for example, tax rules for the destruction of closed loan agreements, 6 years after the closure of the loan. There was the Crowther Report in 1971 which indicated 6 years to be reasonable but data is data.

What of s.32 itself? Well, concealment is one thing, but the banks will argue that they didn't hide their charges, they always were "fair and transparent" (excuse me while I try to keep a straight face). I personally think that victory may lie in the "relief of a mistake" part of LA 1980.

hmmm, I think you are right s.32 1© is where it would be.

There's also the idea that you can only go back 6 yrs from when you file at court. Not so, you have 6 years to file from when you became aware of the cause that gave rise to the action. That's when the clock starts ticking, IMO. If the bank has acknowledged the debt in any form or shape (and you servicing your overdraft would do that), then the clock hasn't started ticking on limitation. After all, if all those years you were successfully hoodwinked by the bank and only just found out, why shouldn't you be able to go back for as long as they swindled you? OTOH, of you find out today and let 6 yrs go before doing anything about it, THEN the LA1980 would kick in successfully. THis is after all what a lot of DCAs do, buying a near statute-barred debt, then attempting to get the clock restarted on it.

 

I personally think s.32 on "mistake" begins once the term has been deemed to be unfair. That is where the media do have a part to play in bringing it to the publics attention. There will no doubt be an area in which some will not claim, or may not be aware they can claim, ie overseas student/living overseas, etc,etc,. definitely agree with you s.32 1© though.

[yourbank]

Nattie, don't you think I have TRIED? This is me we're talking about! I have done it with friends, I have done it FOR friends come to think of it, myself, my DH, my DD, you name it... But that one, I have given up on, lol.

 

I do understand. I once gave my brother advice about dealing with his bank. You know the score, didn't take it, completely ignored it and believed the spiel that the bank told him. Needless to say, I was not particularly impressed with the bank OR my brother. I could have killed him and I mean literally

[JonCris]

Did anyone see the news RBS are claiming money from one of the demonstrators who broke their (or should I our) windows - she can always argue (assuming she's is or was a tax payer) that either it was her window to do with as she wished or that as she's already made a substantial payment to RBS for it's upkeep including Fred's pension they can deduct the cost from that

[InformedSearcher]

You know with this 'financial hardship' thing, one should remember that there is no obligation on any bank to give out anything - It a voluntary code! In my case they wizzed to telling me of who to get financial help from. I was also reminded that after 6 months of my loan account being in arrears that people can contact me by phone, letter or in person. In fact their primary concern is in 'not' paying out anything period. They will crutinise your account to find the most absurd reasons for not paying out.

If you would all like to have a laugh, my late mother left me a (very) small sum with a note to gamble it away for her. I did and because that fell into the 3 months calculating period they considered that wholly unacceptable. Mind you their letter mentioned 'Tesco's' as another reason for speculative spending too!

Michael

[Bookworm]

YB, sorry if I was unclear. I know that the data has no prescribed form, BUT I also know that the banks have taken it upon themselves to make sure they don't have anything that goes beyond 6 yrs and now shred things so that you can't get data that goes beyond that. People who asked for their whole data more and more got the reply: "sorry we don't keep more than 6 yrs" which they didn't use to say when we first started on this. I think the media created a self-made prediction on that one.

I personally think s.32 on "mistake" begins once the term has been deemed to be unfair.

Hmmm, that's an interesting concept. not sure how it would work though... Let's say that the terms get deemed unfair on, for the sake of argument January 1st 2010 (if only!). You are living in Papua New Guinea and return to the UK for the first time in April 2016, you catch up with 6 yrs worth of news and lo and behold, you now discover the terms were found unfair 6 yrs and 4 mths ago. Shouldn't you be able to still claim? :-?

 

Just thinking aloud here, not shooting you down, by the way. ;-)

[HSBCrusher]

personally I think that they have not shredded everything 6 years and older... I think they have kept it all.

 

However, they wont let us know they have it, and we cant get hold of it. Much the same as they have sold our mortgages to third parties without telling us, and without telling the land registry.

[Bookworm]

Go wash your mouth with soap, HSBCrusher, surely you are not saying that the banks would LIE to us?

[JonCris]

HB I do believe your correct - reason! money laundering

 

If they should claim to have disposed of it you should ask for a copy of the certificate stating when, where & how it was disposed of together with a statement of truth from someone who was present at the time - they'll soon get fed up with all that malarkey & just start coughing up as they should:)

[yourbank]

YB, sorry if I was unclear. I know that the data has no prescribed form, BUT I also know that the banks have taken it upon themselves to make sure they don't have anything that goes beyond 6 yrs and now shred things so that you can't get data that goes beyond that.

That is paper records and not data records. I have no doubt since the first day I walked into a bank that paper records had a 6 year lifespan. Data records on the other hand does not.

 

People who asked for their whole data more and more got the reply: "sorry we don't keep more than 6 yrs" which they didn't use to say when we first started on this. I think the media created a self-made prediction on that one.

I know that the media did, however, at the moment with a few things I am doing, I won't tell you why I am certain they did. I have given up telling people that a SAR is not bank statements cos they won't believe me. Furthermore, as you being a natwest person, will know that you can get 7 years of transactional information ONLINE so let's perhaps get away from the 6 year destroying of data argument that is total tosh.

Hmmm, that's an interesting concept. not sure how it would work though... Let's say that the terms get deemed unfair on, for the sake of argument January 1st 2010 (if only!). You are living in Papua New Guinea and return to the UK for the first time in April 2016, you catch up with 6 yrs worth of news and lo and behold, you now discover the terms were found unfair 6 yrs and 4 mths ago. Shouldn't you be able to still claim? :-?

The answer is yes from 2010 backwards, since the new charging regime that should come in is legally fair under the law. If there is legally that route then Mr Papua New Guinea man can do that. I suspect his account might be dormant though

Just thinking aloud here, not shooting you down, by the way. ;-) Am enjoying the discussion to be honest which is nice to have here

 

We don't want to go down that road of how long banks keep statement information do we?? Bookworm naughty naughty for going down that route