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

[srfrench]

Sitting on my haunches...wagging one's tail...ears pricked... 10 DAYS TO GO!!!!

[srfrench]

I personally think that once the HoL Judgement is given within a couple of months or sooner? the ECJ has already stated that it is up to the member countries to rule on the unfairness themselves.

 

In a nutshell (IMHO) and please correct me if I'm wrong once the HoL judgement is given, stays should be lifted and that's the end of the road for the Banks!

[srfrench]

Hi Carr

 

To a point I agree with you.

 

However (if) the decision goes the OFT's way following the HoL appeal then that settles the matter regarding the OFT can rule on the UTCCR issue.

 

It would be nonsensical to think that after all this the OFT will find the Bank's T&C's fair!

 

The second stage will happen to determine what level would be deemed fair.

 

On a point of law, the level decided applies from the day it is agreed NOT retrospectively.

 

Thus it goes without saying that the test case is effectively over once the HoL Appeal Judgement is given (if it goes the OFT's way) and claims would have the stay lifted.

 

The Master of the Rolls had already indicated following the Court Of Appeals ruling earlier this year that the Appeal to the HoL would be a pointless and ill-advised adventure. Only he is responsible in determining if the global stays are lifted.

 

I'm sure you may know most if not all I prattle on about, but to those peeps who don't, hopefully this will make it a little clearer.

 

If I am wrong on any substantive issue, please correct me

 

All in all... "If I were a rich man........."

[srfrench]

Good day to you Mr Lex...my fellow pasty munching beach-bum

 

Probably like a lot of people in this forum now... we are slowly waking up from our slumbers, a slumber that's laster 19 months thus far... talk about lie-ins , are getting our heads around the developments and outcomes of this test case and even refreshing our memories on where we stand in our own court submissions.

 

Personally of the 2 claims I still have lodged in the system, I've amemnded the POC in the earlier claim to make it clearer, less ambiguous and legally backed up with recent case law to support my various restitutionary measures.

 

The second claim already had this in it.

 

I wrote to Abbey's Sols to get their consent in a mature way, if they don't then I have to submit an N244 Application Notice with £75 to the Court. A cost that will also be claimed back in it's fullness adding to their total bill.

 

Their deadline is June 22nd...conveniently the same time as the HoL Appeal!

 

Hope you're keeping well Lex and no doubt will hear more from each other and our fellow group members in the days, weeks and a few months ahead

[srfrench]

Robot Roo...... NO!

 

Get your claim in ASAP!

[srfrench]

Thanks Carr and YourBAnk

[srfrench]

LOL....Sorry?....Win again?.....when they did they win the first time?

 

So far they have lost all Court cases and 4 judges have ruled unamimously against them.

 

5 Judges in the House of Lords will be determining whether the original Judgement and it's subsequent appeal is to be upheld. The process for this starts on June 23rd.

 

No-one in the legal circles will ever give you a 100% guarantee that the HoL will rule in our and the OFT's favour... but conservatively it looks a dead cert!

 

You don't have to file your claim now or ASAp , you can just leave it till it's all sorted legally, but all you will officially receive is just the charges...no interest and no restitutionary recompense.

 

That's why you should submit your claim with a claim for S.69 interest in the very least.

[srfrench]

Sick-bag ready just in case and my Lear Jet order on hold!!

[srfrench]

Who cares UK? It's better with us than with the Banks or HMRC!!

[srfrench]

Ohhh...fer goodness sakes....if this is the best argument from the best Barrister in the country, then the Law Lords better have a good supply of Man-Size Kleenex tissues ready for the floodgates to open.

 

So...legally...their argument settles around the same argumment that lost it for them in the Appeal Courts and does nothing but attempt to tug the heart-strings in what can only be titled...Poor Banks...It's not our fault...make the bad consumer go away...

[srfrench]

Sorry bud...incorrect.

 

The UTCCR is capable FROM 1995 regardless of whether you opened your account before or after that date.

 

So basically all charges and restitution can be claimed FROM 1995 onwards and not, say, 1994 or 1990?

 

Hope that clears that up.

[srfrench]

and then it goes all quiet

[srfrench]

A rich tourist arrives at the hotel and requires a room viewing.

 

The hotel proprietor says he can do so but requires a £50 deposit just in case. The tourist leaves a 50 pound note and leaves to see the room.

 

The hotel proprietor takes the 50 pound note and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.

 

The butcher takes the 50 pound note, and runs to pay his debt to the farmer.

 

The farmer takes the 50 pound note, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.

 

The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 50 pound note and runs to pay his debt to the town's prostitute that in these hard times, gave her "services" on credit.

 

The prostitute runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 50 pound note to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.

 

The hotel proprietor then lays the 50 pound note back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.

 

At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his 50 pound note, after saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.

 

No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.

 

 

 

Just a thought to the eventual outcome and a cure to the current and potential defaulters!

Edited July 3, 2009 by srfrench
forgot the first line

[srfrench]

LOL....succinctly put!

[srfrench]

Keeping this on topic.........2 months to go

[srfrench]

I have to say I find that memo deeply suspect. (I don't doubt your friend's honesty.)

 

I think it may refer to the current status quo. If this was in relation to post-House Of Lords ruling if it goes our way, (and let's face it, it can go no other way in reality) then the bank leaves their Directors open to FRAUD and as such would merit the FSA and SFO to investigate and prosecute.

 

Basically all we can do is wait till October I'm afraid guys but and official communique's from the Bank's internal systems would be gratefuklly received.

[srfrench]

Incorrect Paul

 

From that date it comes into force. In other words all those people that have an account opened before that date are still protected as will be those who opened accounts after that date.

 

Basically all this act does is continue to protect everyone on a rolling basis insofar it amends the current legislation to make it more up-to-date and valid whilst continuing to update the previous act.

 

So by all counts the 1995 act replaces the previous act but continues to apply over the period the old act covers...eg from say 1990

[srfrench]

If that's the case Paul then I sit corrected

 

So basically, whether you had an account opened prior or after 1995 then it will apply from 1995.

[srfrench]

I believe so strongly in re-incarnation, that if I die before the Test Case is resolved, I'm leaving everything to me!

 

Oh...and I hope to come back as a Meerkat

[srfrench]

How do you mean?

[srfrench]

If the charges are deemed unfair, then they are unlawful....ipso facto...they must be refunded in full regardless.

 

There won't be a negotiated "agreed" fair fee that will apply retrospectively, only one that applies to all banks from an agreed date in the present or future.

 

The whole idea of the second stage is to establish a "fair" figure that is then set in law and unchallengable unlike what the OFT agree with the Credit Card industry.

[srfrench]

Absolutely...the Banks should be made to pay every penny back plus restitution with no regards to any plea from them in mitigation. They DO NOT have my sympathy at all. Every "normal" person has to abide by the rules and if mistakes or otherwise are made then we are forced to pay back everything plus interest plus costs. WHY are the MP's and Bankers above the Law?

 

If they had acted sensibly and RESPONSIBLY in the first place none of this would have happened. I mean DUH! do they not have legal teams in the Bank's employ whose sole job it is is to ensure their practices and products comply with all laws, statutes and customs of the countries they operate in?

 

Personally, if the Banks are pleading poverty, let them claim back the bonuses from the pillocks that put this in place in the first place and tough breasts if there's a shortfall....sell some of your ill-gotten assetts then!

 

You're right, it does make you feel better having a rant......off for a cuppa now to....

[srfrench]

And 3.5 years since I started my claim!!!!!!!

[srfrench]

Aaaaannnnndddddddddd!!!........why the reason to be so negative?

 

I have noticed a fair few posters on this forum, whilst keeping their feet on solid earth, are not hopeful the HoL/SCoJ will hand down a favourable judgement.

 

Can someone explain why please?

[srfrench]

The pathetic response to MP's complaining complaining that the paybacks should not be retrospective makes me shake my head at the new depths MP's are willing to sink to in the trust stakes!

 

After all........didn't Labour "retrospectively" apply road tax to cars bought a few years before the new road tax banding was implemented.

 

I'm still fuming at that one. Consider this:

 

One buys a "Green" house to comply with the green revolution concerning carbon emissions and efficiency. It costs a fair bit more than a "normal" house. Then without warning the Government then charge you a new tax a few years later based on your new house. Suddenly it makes your house dip in value and/or makes your house less desirable to live in.

 

You end up out of pocket two ways if you keep or sell your house.

 

Is that fair?

 

So my message to the MP's and Banks.........start playing fair and start acting responsibly. No-one begrdges taxes or bonuses, so long as they are fair and gained through honest, responsible, lawful hard work!