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

[Ladidi]

I cant believe they actually expect us to believe they did not know where this case was going to be held until the very last minute and also stating that not one person of the public or press will be able to verify the true picture of events from beginning to end due to the size of the room.

 

I believe this a stitch up! The banks have no intention of revealing anything and I for one dont believe the outcome is not going to be for good of the customers who have lost £££'s but for the good of the banks and institutions and alike.

 

What can I say, the ombudsman put out a "stay" on all cases when they could have should been heard and now we are not even going to get the true picture of events!!

 

We as a customer could have and should have had our chances in court and the banks should have been made to reveal their true costs incurred,

that this matter would have been resolved after all not one of the banks intended to argue their case and now they are behind closed doors with limited reporting details of the case.

 

Oh my how they are all rubbing their hands with glee!!!!!

[Ladidi]

The BBC News website have made this interesting reading..

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Key test for bank overdraft fees

[Ladidi]

I wouldn't be surprise one bit if the decision has already been made and that all the relevant people know what is going to come and they are been giving a lengthy amount of time to get their bits and peices together so they are prepared for the "payouts" straightaway or the backlash of it all going wrong.

Lets face it, it is too big a case to be given a short space of time to deliver an answer and then have everyone jumping up and down one way or the other so they have to give the relevant people a chance to get their houses in order so to speak!

Just my opnion.

 

One thing is for deffinite we are going to be the LAST to know!

[Ladidi]

I thought I would update you on a thread I have just read on MSE website. This guy applies for £2500 in bank charges over 2weeks ago from HBOS and they have settled the claim in full. Wonder if that means there is going to be payouts for everyone then espcially as they haven't bothered to argue it or say wait for the judges answers to the test case.

[Ladidi]

Yup, this person made a claim just over 2 weeks ago and won the money back £2500 in total from HBOS.

I would have thought HBOS would have held off and said they are waiting for judges ruling on the case.

[Ladidi]

Yup, begs the question, do the banks know something we dont know????

Are they all repaying now because they now they going to have to at a later date?

[Ladidi]

I have copied and pasted the guys posting..There has to be something in the pipeline that we are not aware of!!!!!

 

Today, 1:01 PM #1 pete0773 vbmenu_register("postmenu_9863869", true);

MoneySaving Newbie

 

Join Date: Mar 2008

Post Count: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

 

 

great success!

Result! From the advice and tips from this site I have just had an offer from HBOS for FULL refund (£2500) on my Bank Charges! Used MSE template, sent letter 17/3/08 so just over 2 weeks.

 

Thank you!!

[Ladidi]

I reckon the guy looked on the site to see what he had to do. Found a template letter he would have to submit, as he may have already bank statements for which he was claiming and hey presto the bank caves in at first hurdle knowing the judge hasn't given the answers to the test case yet. I mean lucky for him that he got is so quickly, as I said begs question does this mean we are in for payouts or are we going to be reading too much into things?????

[Ladidi]

Hmm I see where you are coming from now. Only person who can answer that is person who originally posted. Taking on board what you have said, it has made me more inclined to wait for the Judges decisions and take everyting else that goes on with a pinch of salt!

[Ladidi]

I have just ben chatting with someone else on another forum who began his claim for £3000 back in March 07. He did not file a court claim but the Co-op have recently offered him £2.5k plus £100 compensation for inconvience suffered.

Now there maybe something in the works or maybe they are feeling generous considering he didn't file a court claim which would allow him 8% interest.

Who knows with the banks these days!!!!!!

[Ladidi]

Well this guy is long standing member of another forum and joined the forum in the Feb 07 and began his claim in the March of the same year. So if thats not something I dont know what is...

[Ladidi]

Well the first guy joined MSE and sent off template and got full refund with in 2 weeks so he states as I posted what was said earlier.

The 2nd guy however has been with another forum for the time I stated.

At the end of the day you can only go by what people are now coming out with. If banks are repaying their customers and giving them some offering of compensation as well, well it goes without saying really that they are either up to something or know more than they are letting on.

Hence they could be clearing the way with cases they have on their desks now and getting ready to clear those caught up in the courts by way of the stay.

[Ladidi]

Believe me when I say this....I am in as much of a hurry for anticipated good news myself as well as the next man or woman.

I`m also a firm believer of sharing good news and bad if it means as much to the next person and is waiting and has a lot riding on that same peice of information.

So I reckon I win all round dont you

[Ladidi]

Bank charges ruling due on Thursday | Money | guardian.co.uk

[Ladidi]

Banks are bracing themselves for losses...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7362856.stm

[Ladidi]

Does anyone know if the banks have gone into court and said they are intent with appealing?

[Ladidi]

News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

No firm decisions have been made or appeals lodged as yet but this is what has been discussed thus far so is what is likely to happen.

 

The Banks WILL appeal the UTCCR 1999 Regs.

 

There will be NO APPEAL on the Penalty Charges ruling for PRESENT T&C's

 

The OFT are requesting the right the appeal the PIL judgements subject to the outcome of the appeal on the UTCCR.

 

The OFT and the Banks have agreed that the UTCCR ruling when it is finally made is likely to apply to historical terms as well as present terms, but the Judge is reserving Judgement on this until such time as he has looked at historical terms.

 

Judgement on HISTORICAL TERMS will be handed down on the 6th/7th July 2008.

 

Banks are still submitting historical terms to the court.

 

 

The Judge said he was concerned over the length of time an appeal on PIL would take holding the claims up in the courts for the consumers to get ''THEIR'' money.

[Ladidi]

Information from Legal begals website..

 

News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) - Legal seagulls

 

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Re the last line - will get proper quote at lunch, but yes it does sound pretty hopeful re the Judge being keen to lift the stays - this was a wee phonecall at a 10 min break just before midday. Hope to hear more in depth at lunch.

 

Judge also said something about not wanting to agree UTCCR will apply same to historical terms until he'd looked at the historical terms in full, so probably stays to stay in place until then (July)

[Ladidi]

Legal seagulls

[Ladidi]

It should be l e g a l b e a g a l s..I have copied and pasted the link into here and it shows ok but when I submit it keeps showing disneyworld???

 

I`m so sorry i have tried every which I know how to send the link into here for the site for some strange reason I keep ending up with disneyworld!!!!!!! I dont know how????????????

 

The website I have the information from is on as I said l e g a l b e a g a l s. I dont know how else to get you the links so I will post everything that is put into the site here for you to read..Sorry...no spaces in the word though..it is driving me mad not being able to put the link in without it becoming disneyworld or disneyland..making me sound cuckoo!!! LOL

Edited May 22, 2008 by Ladidi

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Please bear with me while I type this properly

 

 

The banks are DEFINATELY appealing UTCCR 99 and judge has accepted this appeal.

 

Judge was critical of the QC for OFT - the OFT still have no idea when publication of PCA report will be and he couldnt pin it down to being within a year. The QC is taking advice from the OFT on this for this afternoons session - and the Judge seemed keen to put pressure on the OFT to get this report completed.

 

The hold up is the Banks keep changing T&Cs so the OFT keep having to refer back to banks to get info on new T&Cs on 20th May all banks meant to have responded but all but two have asked for extension.

 

7th and 8th july hearing the judge will be making decisions re the penalty issues and utccr 99 on historic terms and basic accounts. This will be a declaration ( handing down of judgement ).

 

the Judge cannot say if Historic terms are subject to UTCCR 99 cause he hasnt looked yet he would be suprised if they were not broadly similar.

 

Penalty charge of historic oft work in last couple weeeks and have issued revised list of terms that the OFT still consider relate to penaltys under common law

 

OFT need till 5th June to submit to court. historic

 

no nationwide terms either present or histroic that considered capable of amounting to penaltys

 

judge wants to consider penalty and utccr at same time

 

questioning how the claims in courts structred are they mentioning specific terms in banks T&Cs or just general POCs...

[Ladidi]

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT pressurised over bank charges

[Ladidi]

The banks are DEFINATELY appealing UTCCR 99 and judge has accepted this appeal.

Judge was critical of the QC for OFT - the OFT still have no idea when publication of PCA report will be and he couldnt pin it down to being within a year. The QC is taking advice from the OFT on this for this afternoons session - and the Judge seemed keen to put pressure on the OFT to get this report completed.

 

The hold up is the Banks keep changing T&Cs so the OFT keep having to refer back to banks to get info on new T&Cs on 20th May all banks meant to have responded but all but two have asked for extension.

 

7th and 8th july hearing the judge will be making decisions re the penalty issues and UTCCR 99 on historic terms and basic accounts. This will be a declaration ( handing down of judgement ).

 

The Judge cannot say if Historic terms are subject to UTCCR 99 cause he hasnt looked yet but he has said he would be suprised if they were not broadly similar.

 

Penalty charge aspect of Historic Terms - OFT have been working in last couple of weeks on a revised list of terms that the OFT still consider relate to penaltys under common law. The have issued these to the banks for their responses, which will be in and submitted to the court by the 5th June.

 

No NATIONWIDE building society terms either present or historic can be considered capable of amounting to penaltys.

Therefore Nationwide customers CAN NOT use the Penalty charges arguments under commmon law to reclaim their charges.

 

The Judge wants to consider penalty and utccr on historic terms at the same time - thus is pushing for the 5th June for the OFTs submission regarding terms in historic agreements it percieves could be deemed as penaltys under common law - in order to make the declaration on the 7/8 July.

 

The Judge was questioning how the claims currently in the county courts system are structured - re are they mentioning specific terms in banks T&Cs or just general claims that the terms are penaltys. He did not appear to have seen any POCs from the thousands of claims currently in the system.

 

He once more expressed his concerns over consumers money being held up in the courts system. He seems quite keen to get the stays lifted as soon as possible.

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

OFT pressurised over bank charges

 

 

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News, High Court

Thursday, 22 May 2008 13:37 UK

 

The High Court has been the seen of the latest legal battle

 

A High Court judge has told the Office of Fair Trading to reveal when it will decide if bank charges are fair or not.

Mr Justice Andrew Smith made his comments as he granted eight banks leave to appeal against his earlier ruling on the issue.

Last month he decided that the OFT had the power under consumer contract regulations to rule if bank overdraft charges were unfair.

Thousands of bank customers will have to wait for their cases to be heard.

'On hold'

An agreement between the OFT and the banks to use the courts to resolve the legal issues at stake has seen all current and new claims put on hold.

It is thought that there could be tens of thousands of bank customers waiting to see if they can pursue their claims.

 

We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims

 

 

Justice Andrew Smith

 

The appeal by the banks against the OFTs jurisdiction in this matter is likely to be held by the Court of Appeal this autumn.

The Judge said uncertainty about the length of the OFT's investigation risked being unfair to people whose refund claims are currently suspended in the courts.

"How long should we hold up the county court litigation?" he asked. "Are we talking months, years or weeks?"

"We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims."

When asked if the OFT would conclude its investigation this year, the regulator's QC said he did not know.

"The investigation is ongoing and substantial further work and consultation with the banks has still to be undertaken," he said.

He explained that recent changes to the terms and conditions of some banks' current accounts had extended the timescale for the OFT investigation.

The OFT has been investigating the fairness of bank charges for more than a year.

[Ladidi]

IMHO I think the Judge should just ask the banks to declare their true costs to avoid any more time wasting and use his Judgements based on the facts they present to him and inform that either the amount should be reduced to £? or all refunds should be given back to the consumer until the OFT & the Banks can come to some resolve on the issue no more monies can be collected from the consumer until a fair and just amount is in proportion to their true costs!!