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

[robnfc]

i think it means that you can complain to the fsa but not for historical charges

[Mr lex]

If you have used the POC that quotes Utccr and not penalties, there is no need to ammend your claim. The changes are to small to matter.

 

 

Is your bank charges claim based merely on the fact that the charges are unlawful penalties?

if so, you must amend your claim. Since the High Court judgement last year it is now a most unlikely that a "penalties" argument can succeed.

The correct argument is that the charges are unfair and therefore invalid under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

 

Lex

[missdpd]

If you have used the POC that quotes Utccr and not penalties, there is no need to ammend your claim. The changes are to small to matter.

 

 

 

 

Lex

 

 

Thank you very much

[Mr lex]

Thats the advice thats coming down to me at the moment

[InformedSearcher]

In post #3439 there's mention about costs having to paid by the OFT. I'm sure I read that 'no' costs were awarded against anyone. 8 QC's and juniors galore - ahem, with whose money did they have authority to do that? You know that's a heck of a lot of cash!

 

Michael

[andie_303]

well as Lloyds do not seem to like to publish an email address belonging to customer services I have just sent my LBA direct to the top as I can find the CEO Eric Daniels email address.

 

I trust that he can pass it on lol

[car2403]

well as Lloyds do not seem to like to publish an email address belonging to customer services I have just sent my LBA direct to the top as I can find the CEO Eric Daniels email address.

 

I trust that he can pass it on lol

 

Your LBA should be a letter, send recorded delivery, so you can prove receipt when it comes to Court!

[Bookworm]

In post #3439 there's mention about costs having to paid by the OFT. I'm sure I read that 'no' costs were awarded against anyone. 8 QC's and juniors galore - ahem, with whose money did they have authority to do that? You know that's a heck of a lot of cash!

 

Michael

I should think that's the reporter getting away with his imagination. It is indeed expressly agreed in the original set of the test case that each party would carry their own costs.

[andie_303]

Your LBA should be a letter, send recorded delivery, so you can prove receipt when it comes to Court!

 

A hard copy will go in the post tomorrow but my email was sent from outlook and I attached a delivery report and read receipt - the delivery report has already come back as being succesfully delivered.

[illonavamp]

I'm very sad today, we've all struggled with this at one stage or another.

 

But Lord Philips added that this was not the end of the matter as the OFT could still try to scrutinise bank charges under other parts of the regulations

 

This will not close the door on the OFT's investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed [put on hold] in which customers have challenged the relevant charges," he told the court.

 

 

I'm as shocked as everyone else, truly. But with this little glimmer of hope lets all get behind CAG and help out.

 

What I suggest we can all constructively do is donate a tenner each to the CAG team right now, they're going to have to put their reading heads on BIG TIME to help us all out of this one - so lets help them out.

 

Come on guys we've got this far. Lets lift CAG up above the din right now, we can't give up.

 

 

Chin up peeps, come on we can do it.

 

p.s. CAG helped me do THIS:

 

 

Edited November 25, 2009 by illonavamp

[d1cky]

im about to donate right now, can I have some advise on this thread please? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/75008-hsbc.html thx in advance!

[d1cky]

Donation made

[missdpd]

Made one earlier, you must have read my mind Illonavamp

[Mr lex]

Just a quick thank you to those who have made a donation, please don't give more than you can afford.

[JGJ]

I have TODAY been to my local court in the north East today at 1600hrs Wed. 25th Nov. Where I had a Hearing before the Judge and a Barrister representing Lloyds TSB. This had been listed for many weeks prior to today. (Unfortunately)

 

The Hearing was to amend my particulars of claim to UTCCR 1999 from the Common Law Penalties previously lodged in the court and Limitation Act sec 32 c. re claim beyond 6yrs. This was my first attempt to amend POCs. the Court had decided I had to pay 2x£40 for the privilege.

 

The first action of the Barrister, before we went into court, was to attempt to Intimidate me into "discontinuing the entire claim"

 

 

due to the decision handed down from the Supreme Court.

 

My answer was "Go forth and multiply".

 

Next ploy was to try and intimidate me into paying their Lloyds TSB in his words, the costs for their defence? If I agreed to pay for their costs for their defence? they would no t make a song and dance about the amendments to POC.

 

Upon my questioning as to the actual costs he would be seeking for their defence? he refused to inform me instead he decided to attempt to be disingenuous with the truth before the Judge, as he stated that I had refused the offer from Lloyds, Upon my interjection I informed the DDJ. that I had merely wanted to know the actual costs and for what he was claiming them for because as a LIP there was no way that I could afford the defence costs for Lloyds, however he decided that what he wanted was his costs for the Court appearance £300 x 2 as I had two cases and POCs to amend.

 

As the hearing proceeded it was obvious that the Judge did not know the full decision that was handed down re the test case, fortunately for me I had prior to going to court downloaded the full Supreme Court Decision, press summarys and the fact that the waiver was lifted and was as prepared as I could be as a LIP.

 

I was disgusted as this professional tried to blag his way through the hearing by his disingenuous rantings.

 

The Judge decided that he could not really progress the claim forward or agree to the amended POCs as he was of the opinion that they, the claims are still "STAYED" in the system and adjourned the proceedings, with the proviso that the issue of costs claimed by Lloyds be discussed at another future hearing as and when the County Courts had decided what the next course of action is.

 

The fact that I was a LIP and that it was a first attempt at amending my POCs fell on deaf ears.

 

I await the letter from the Court informing me as they did in 1997 that cases are "Stayed" until 1 month after the final decision and any appeals have been heard.

I would love to hear from anyone else who attended court today and their thoughts as to the future tacticts.

 

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[scared001]

wow, immense responses on this today, is brilliant!! i was saying earlier, that my fin hardship case is with abbey, they called me today to say case is with them for now clearly due to the outcome today....so....do i try and get the money back now or wait for them to call me next week as per my discussion earlier with shabbey? if i do contest it now, what the hell do i say in the email????? all help as always appreciated. xxx

[Camdenite]

The post above and a small piece on the ITN News item earlier (where one of the banks said it would be dealing with hardship cases) made me wonder what is the legal reasoning for this?

 

(This is in no way meant as a slight on anyone claiming under Hardship, of course. I just don't understand why the ruling does not apply to all cases in the eyes of the banks).

[gillypam]

hi all.l put in a claim in 2008 for hardship with natwest and it got nocked back because we did not have any defaults.so 6weeks ago l spoke to someone at natwest about putting in for it again they said they would send me out the forms .never got them (do you thinkthey new something then it makes you wonder dosent it. phone this monday and they said they were going to send them again lets wait and see if they do.also do we have to change are case whats on hold at the bank from penalty charges to something else.

[The Phantom]

If you have used the POC that quotes Utccr and not penalties, there is no need to ammend your claim. The changes are to small to matter.

 

 

 

 

Lex

 

I have a claim stayed at the moment against HSBC (since early 2008) and my POC (downloaded at that time from the site here) state

 

The Bank has debited charges from the Account in respect of unauthorised overdrafts and unpaid items, relying on terms on the Banking Contract which were either

 

(1) a penalty payable on breach of contract and unenforceable at common law and/or

(2) unfair terms within the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations 1999 (The Regulations) and unenforceable

 

Do I need to amend anything ? Will send the template letter to lift the stay tomorrow, but not sure if I need to amend my POCs ?

[InformedSearcher]

'JGJ' if I might say so the costs he reflected as a Barrister are exceptionally low. Heck my local solicitor charges £150 an hour just to chat. There again it's for LloydsTSB legal brief to attempt to 'dislodge' you bearing in mind his experience against anyone who ventures to court against him. Best of luck with your case when it returns to fight another day.

 

Michael

[barry_2008]

this is so shocking. I've been away from this site due to an injury for a couple of months, and when i come back all hell's broke loose! Gotta be able to read up on all this now....

 

I do tend to get a little paranoid that's because I actually am paranoid.

I am not taking it out on the site when I actually am.

 

If that makes sense.

 

Its hard not to belive some of the things the bank say because I used to work for a one. And this thing has taken so long to get this far its unbelievable.

 

I don't understand how some people can exercise restraint.

 

My objection recently to the way things have been played are that the bank had a waiver on and we should of attacked that but its pointless getting uptight about it now.

 

I went to Lloyds TSb and lost my case because I did not do my claim right because I couldn't handle the pressure so I am using a solicitor and reading this site so I don't sound totally stupid when I meet her.

 

Any way I've read the thread Bank Fodder posted and it came in useful talking to my Key worker on the Ward today. And it may help me explain things to the consultant psychiatrist tomorrow before he allows me to proceed.

 

I am pleased Gordon brown Thinks this is a good idea..

[kennyh]

borders on the extortionate.

 

Can someone please advise what the law reckons is either extortionate or usurious?

These words occur with a degree of regularity and it would be good to know just how close to the wind the opposition are sailing in the matter.

Mr Lex, compliments to all concerned in the very rapid template updates - brilliant!!

Edited November 25, 2009 by kennyh
forgot a bit

[newbody]

ok after todays hearing my case has been on hold scince 17th july 2007 when i attended a case hearing at southend court and they were told to pay up in 28 days or we would be attending a full case unfortunatley the stay came into effect before the time span run out .

 

so with todays decison rang the court to ask for my case to re reactivted and move forward to which i was informed all cases are still stayed and will be until the judge has recevied further directions as to what to do from more senior judges. wheni tried to push the point of would that mean the case could be dissmissed she wouldnt allow herself to be forced into making an assertion in either direction.

 

now my questions are these

 

1) if the case is dismissed by the judge out of hand what course of action is it i need to take to get my case back instated or is it a case of starting again

 

2) was todays judgement actually on the right/jurisdiction of OFT being able to investigate the charges for fairness not wheather the charges are a fair costasper liquidated damages

[InformedSearcher]

'barry 2008' - you make my day!

Reminds me of my Counsellor talking to me regarding parking my car. I said I parked in the Supermarket car park. She looked at me in surprise and said it's best to park the car in the Supermarket car park!

 

Just so off topic to make people smile (I hope).

 

Michael

[robnfc]

the judge has ruled that the bank charge issue fell outside the remit of the oft therefore they have no power to rule on the fairness or level of charges.

 

as for charges themselves , the judge ruled that charges cannot be classed as penalties , they are classed as a charge for a service provided by the bank and therefore under certain utccr regs cannot be challenged.

 

However utccr clause 5.1 does allow the charges to be challenged under the idea that terms within the contract can be classed as unfair because they were not negotiated before signing.

 

as for court I assume you change your poc to show the above