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

[JonCris]

I'm not one of them.

 

OO'ER :o very discriminatory remark.

 

What's wrong with wearing glasses BW:cool:

[JonCris]

I have two different claims with two different banks. The financial ombudsman has told me that as the oft test case has not been judged, then banks are legally entitled to chase you for any outstanding charges on your account. This is happening to me, westcot is chasing me for 280 quid, i have got them to look again because my claim is far more than what the abbey is asking for.

 

Usual one sided waffle from the chocolate teapot. In an other matter we already have the abilities & effectiveness of the Information Commissioners Office being questioned by some MP's.

 

I think this bunch need to be next particularly after their very one sided decision to let the banks of the hook whilst letting them continue to impose their appalling charges

 

If they issue proceedings you can counter claim whilst at the same time asking the court to stay the said proceedings.

 

Incidental the court, knowing there are disputed bank charges in the claim, won't be happy with the bank for issuing prior to the OFT Judgment

[JonCris]

Have you told them you have 'proof of signature' if so have you given them a name

 

I know it's the stable door but your experience is a salutary lesson in why it's a very bad idea to send originals.

 

How come they never seem to lose copies:???:

[JonCris]

Ok demand they make a concerted effort to find your papers failing which, as this affects your ability to claim, you will report them for maladministration

[JonCris]

The trouble with basic current accounts, on which you can't request an overdraft, suddenly become overdrafts if you incur penalty charges thereby causing them to fall within the waiver

[JonCris]

Tell the bank that if they issue proceedings you will immediately inform the court that their claim includes bank charges which you intend to reclaim once the OFT v banks is resolved. Consequently you will ask the court to Stay their claim until this happens.

 

Suggest that them being made aware of this will if they continue to harass you may be guilty of criminal conduct & will almost certainly be in breach of the OFT guidelines on debt recovery.

[JonCris]

Of course they can't. In those cases were it's a done deal they will have to live with it

 

As for taking claimants to court for settled penalty charge claims I would remind everyone that they had plenty of opportunity to argue their case with individual claimants but chose not to until finally agreeing this test case

[JonCris]

Hi,

 

can you clarify what it actually says please. Have checked on line, with no success.

 

Perhaps it is to do with the waiver??

 

"The FSA initially granted the Waiver (which allows the banks to put on hold their consideration of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges) for one year; it is due to expire on 26 July 2008."

 

No according to MoS the banks are stating that if they lose they may not have sufficient records with which to calculate the refunds to customers. Yeah right:rolleyes:

 

They are apparently claiming that they may not have records going back beyond 6 years - something we the consumers know is crap:mad: & anyway aren't they going to claim limitation or do they think they will lose that as well - I do hope so:grin:

 

& if the Judge or anyone else believes this they need their head examining - or are employed by the banks:eek:

[JonCris]

Perhaps those of us who have evidence of the banks records going back to long before 6 years should send it to the judge:)

 

I have Abbey obtained in 2006 & going back to 1993!!

[JonCris]

Furthermore, if the OFT win, they will then be able to publish their findings into the overdraft charges, the report having been postponed due to the test case, and fix a maximum charge at ehcih they themselves they will take action the way they did with the credit card charges, effectively capping those charges. I personally think these charges will be closer to the £20 mark. Regardless, these charges will still be challengeable under common law as not being a true pre-estimate of costs and recoverable through the courts.

 

 

You beat me to it BW.

 

Any such 'agreed' charge, like the credit cards & which exceeds their costs will still be able to be challenged in a court of law & if that be the case we will be back to square one

[JonCris]

Bookworm, You make a lot of sense, it really is just a game of wait and see what the judge says isn't it.

 

The Banks havn't revealed the true cost YET , and I really do thing that is what they want to hid. As it will show just how much we have been ripped off.

 

I got told by someone who worked at NatWest it was 45P which included the stamp. As a computer did it not a person.

 

They spent a few weeks working on having refunds ready incase the banks caved in. The person said it was all ready to go but for the push of a button. Which makes sense. The being ready to repay if necessary.

 

They have revealed them. More by mistake than intention

 

In their submissions to the Competition Commission on their investigation into NI bank charges & they are 45p!! & that's for processing a cheque which DOES include manual intervention & must therefore by it's very nature be much more costly than a computer generating decisions & letters

[JonCris]

That was a fantastic achievement. Well done!

 

That's nowt!

 

An insider revealed that Abbey have or did have records in strorage going back to 1928!:o whilst claiming they only went back 6 years

[JonCris]

I didn't hear it I saw the evidence which came to light during the Information Commissioners Office's investigation of the banks claims that their systems where not subject to the Data Protection Act or disclosure

 

The Information Commissioners Office visited their storage facility in Milton Keynes before ruling that the banks systems are subject to the Data Protection Act & the data, even that on microfiche' is to be disclosed to the subject

[JonCris]

It's an old ploy to express concern that a Judgment might leak because if it does the banks can claim innocence

[JonCris]

A newbie on the site in question - I think I'm gonna question that

[JonCris]

Don't want to be a wet blanket & would love it to be true But before swallowing this story I would want to know a little more about the OP

 

Such as how long have they been a member etc Also I'm minded that it was posted in 'April' The month when all the nuts come out of the cupboard

[JonCris]

Of course if true it's great news but I would prefer to wait for one of our own longer standing members, hence known to me, to have a similar result before jumping up & down

[JonCris]

Well the impression I was given by your OP was that he came, he conquered after only using the forum for a short period to use templates during which he hardly posted - is that correct?

 

I would love to be wrong

[JonCris]

ladidi

 

You misunderstand there is no criticism directed at you whatsoever:) .

 

I believe you 100% when you claim this person states they have won & if it does prove to be true & you didn't tell the site & we found out then you really would be in trouble for hogging for yourself such great news - so tails we win - heads you lose

 

I for one am just trying to exercises a little caution just in case it ain't true is all

[JonCris]

We don't disagree:D

[JonCris]

If they win I wonder if they'll terminate their accounts or their employment - or both

 

I can see it now the ET's full of former Abbey employees claiming unfair dismissal cos they got their money - wot fun that would be

[JonCris]

Why do you think Martin, bright as He is, is any better informed than we are:confused:

 

& even if by some miracle he was better informed he's hardly going to say on national TV that he thinks they are all in it together

[JonCris]

No you implied it Why are you assuming that it would only be true if it was on Martins site. It could be true & Martin doesn't have a clue.

 

Like the rest of us it's only supposition based on the evidence around us

[JonCris]

The reason is that they can now afford to reduce their penalty charges as they have had plenty of time afforded by the OFT case to introduce a whole new raft of 'service' charges which more than make up for what they might lose

 

I strongly suspect that these new 'service' charges will produce even bigger profits then the infamous penalty charges ever did.....after all someones gotta pay for their world-wide monumental cock-ups as well as their sheer greed

[JonCris]

this wont happen for the simple fact is the goverment have already made a decision to remove the Freedom of Information Act ACT concerning NORTHERN ROCK and its data as being sensitive information,this will also effect the banks ALL BANKS from revealing sensitive information and since the GOVERMENT DECIDED TO CHANGE THE LAW this will set a precedent concerning the bank providing data in how they arrive at the charges,this has happened right under our noses and without so much as a whimper from joe public

 

imho

patrickq1

 

Good.......no info........they want to hide behind the FoI exemption.......then I'm gonna re-claim a squillion quid & let them prove different............estimated you understand:D

 

Seriously the only reason the Government would want to exempt NR is because it's a nationalised company those that aren't, like the other banks, ain't subject to the FoI