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

[kennyh]

there is ample evidence of the banks acting in bad faith in respect of their explanations to their customers about the reason and purpose of bank charges.

 

I pray this is so - I pray even more that I will be able to understand it!

the evidence the banks gave to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges were calculated was contradictory to what they told the court in the OFT test case. Is this not admissible as evidence?

Thanks YB - my sentiment on the subject still holds.

Let's hope!

Edited December 10, 2009 by kennyh
left a bit out

[Sammythebest]

Just to go off point quickly, something I have been meaning to say.

 

After finding out OH had incurred bank charges ..a lot...transfered all her stuff to my account and left her account with the overdraft they had created.

 

Now dealing with everything in my accouunt I have to spend at least half an hour a day checking everything, available balance , chqs going through ect so that my account never has a problem. I also do my accounts but half an hour a week should be enough.

 

This is a lot of work everyday just to check that the bank cannot steal off us.

 

Is this what they call a service ? 4 Hrs work a week to check that they cannot find an exuse to steal from us?

[bobbyh99]

getting emails from other forums asking for charge letters from banks and replies to prelims etc!

 

Anyone know whats going on?

[hsbcfiddled]

Just to go off point quickly, something I have been meaning to say.

 

After finding out OH had incurred bank charges ..a lot...transfered all her stuff to my account and left her account with the overdraft they had created.

 

Now dealing with everything in my accouunt I have to spend at least half an hour a day checking everything, available balance , chqs going through ect so that my account never has a problem. I also do my accounts but half an hour a week should be enough.

 

This is a lot of work everyday just to check that the bank cannot steal off us.

 

Is this what they call a service ? 4 Hrs work a week to check that they cannot find an exuse to steal from us?

 

ROFLMAO

 

Love it! Send them an invoice at Solicitors rate say £160 an hour X 4 = £640 and add FEES FOR CHECKING MY ACCOUNT - TO ELIMINATE YOUR EXCUSE TO STEAL FROM ME!

[Sammythebest]

ROFLMAO

 

Love it! Send them an invoice at Solicitors rate say £160 an hour X 4 = £640 and add FEES FOR CHECKING MY ACCOUNT - TO ELIMINATE YOUR EXCUSE TO STEAL FROM ME!

 

 

[noomill060]

[sigh]

 

Not in my mind! cos I dont speak latin... can we please please please make these forums a latin free zone unless translations are given.. I'm too lazy to google and half the time the latin gets translated differently each search anyway.

 

[rant over]

 

S.

 

Oh FFS! No one has spoken Latin as a first language since the 8th century. It is a good source of precise, pithy phrases which could take a paragraph of a modern langauge in which to express the same point. Things always sound more polite and acceptable in Latin, even if the subject of the phrase is rude, unpleasent or even obscene.

 

It means "Dont let the b*****ds grind you down!"

 

Its a well known dog Latin phrase - not real Latin, just sounds like it.

 

Nil - none

 

illegitimum - sounds like "illegitimate" (ie: b*****d)

 

carborundum- the stuff grinding discs are made of

 

 

Heres another one- from Caesar- Vini, vidi, vici

 

"I came saw I conquered"

 

Modern usage-

 

Vini vidi, velcro

 

"I came, I saw, I stuck around"

 

Or Vini, vedi, Visa

 

I came, I saw, I did a little shopping

Edited December 10, 2009 by noomill060

[emandcole]

£640 seems very reasonable to me. Why not add an additional service fee of £12,000,000? Not like it has to be a fair representation of your actual costs is it ?

[srfrench]

On the "ImBalance" topic of the banking contacts, then if you go into unauthorised o/d through an accidental mistake or otherwise, then the Bank "charges" you for your breach or misdemeanour.

 

However, if the Bank makes a mistake, then it is up to you to point this out to them and to fight for the return of the funds taken. Usually this will entail a weeks wait or longer whilst they "look into it".

 

They won't acceed to your request for a compensatory of even reciprocal award like £38 they charge you for what appears to be the same mistake but commited by the Bank!!

 

That's another imbalance methinks?

[Sammythebest]

£640 seems very reasonable to me. Why not add an additional service fee of £12,000,000? Not like it has to be a fair representation of your actual costs is it ?

 

I like you and the business like mind you have . I will give them a discount of 2.5% if they pay on time

 

[EricTheRed]

I like you and the business like mind you have . I will give them a discount of 2.5% if they pay on time

 

 

PMSL

 

You are too generous £300,000.00 is a lot of money. Give them a 0.000325% discount (£35 in real money) as that is what they would have charged you. Anyway it’s not about adequacy is it?

[EricTheRed]

On the "ImBalance" topic of the banking contacts, then if you go into unauthorised o/d through an accidental mistake or otherwise, then the Bank "charges" you for your breach or misdemeanour.

 

However, if the Bank makes a mistake, then it is up to you to point this out to them and to fight for the return of the funds taken. Usually this will entail a weeks wait or longer whilst they "look into it".

 

They won't acceed to your request for a compensatory of even reciprocal award like £38 they charge you for what appears to be the same mistake but commited by the Bank!!

 

That's another imbalance methinks?

 

Good point. It should be asked in court.

[hsbcfiddled]

Oh FFS! No one has spoken Latin as a first language since the 8th century. It is a good source of precise, pithy phrases which could take a paragraph of a modern langauge in which to express the same point. Things always sound more polite and acceptable in Latin, even if the subject of the phrase is rude, unpleasent or even obscene.

 

It means "Dont let the b*****ds grind you down!"

 

Its a well known dog Latin phrase - not real Latin, just sounds like it.

 

Nil - none

 

illegitimum - sounds like "illegitimate" (ie: b*****d)

 

carborundum- the stuff grinding discs are made of

 

 

Heres another one- from Caesar- Vini, vidi, vici

 

"I came saw I conquered"

 

Modern usage-

 

Vini vidi, velcro

 

"I came, I saw, I stuck around"

 

Or Vini, vedi, Visa

 

I came, I saw, I did a little shopping

 

Or

Nem anja vidic- I play for c rap team. LOL:lol:-

[Thailand]

Or

Nem anja vidic- I play for c rap team. LOL:lol:-

 

 

'God' bless emoticons.

[Guest wino]

Does anyone know that when we finally get the new wording for our claims can we just ammend our original claims or do we go back 6 years from the new date we are claiming from.

 

My claim was never actually lodged in court as I could not afford to. I don't know if that makes a difference.

[emandcole]

I believe that once any new attack is agreed those who have claims stayed will need permission from the courts to amend their POC's. Clearly they will have an advantage and get to secure the time their claim has been delayed, thus preserving a claim that is in excess of six years.

 

I also believe it was a condition of the FSA claims waiver that limitation is unaffected as the banks could have just dragged it out for ever thus wiping out any claims bit by bit.

 

For anyone issuing a fresh claim it would stand to reason that normal limitation will apply, so 6 years will be the maximum time back that you can claim from the date you issue a claim. I can't imagine any bank failing to use statute bar arguments if and when the next onslaught of claims is commenced.

[srfrench]

The Limitation Act doesn't apply here so long as your claim is from 1995.

 

The LA is a red herring the Banks will use to try get the claims struck out but just quote sect 32,b & c.

[srfrench]

Also, whilst respectfully doing so, I need to correct you.

 

Once the new POC's are "out there", the route would be to write to the Defendants asking them to allow you to submit an amended POC.

 

If they do, which if they are professionals they will do, then that's all that's required to then simply send in the new amended POC to the Court with the Defendants reply letter agreeing to it.

 

Otherwise, if they don't agree to it, then you will have to spend a little dosh (£35-£75 someone will coreect me please) and submit an N244 with the amended POC attached.

 

The Court will always in this case agree to it and the cost then will be the Bank's.

 

I'm sure when the new POC is issued, details of how to submit it will be included to avoid and confusion and brown trouser moments

[Helford]

@Natty (Sorry 'YourBank' Lol)

 

"With regards to the argument on what service is given. The consideration of whether to pay or not pay or increase an overdraft is what was argued in the courts so that is the service provided."

 

My Halifax account is a Cardcash account that is not 'underwritten' and as such does not allow you to go overdrawn, so how come if their are insufficient funds they charge me £39.00 (Laterly £35.00) not to pay an item? If I go to a cashpoint and try and draw funds when there are insufficient funds, 'Computer says no!', but no charge. With a direct debit, the charge always results. No logic here (I don't want to give the *ankers ideas though, they will probably want to introduce a 'Service Fee' on the cashpoints shortly for telling you you have insufficient funds!)

[emandcole]

Thanks srfrench, good to have it all confirmed and sorted. Personally I can't wait to see what happens and to see what the banks come up with next. I'm surprised they haven't started charging us to leave their premises whenever we're daft enough to go and pay money into our accounts.

 

They'd argue we accepted the charge by entering the bank in the first place even though we had no choice but to enter the banks in order to use their great accounts! Give it time, it'll come

 

Strange how many daft similarities there are between bank charge justification and real world scenarios which would actually be downright illegal .

[d1cky]

I think jus leave the ammended poc's by qc and go with some of the posts on this page of the thread, ie the window cleaner argument , and the terminator and rats its so much easier to understand and get across in this context

[d1cky]

Or last page should I say now, how did I know that would happen

[barry_2008]

:)You don't owe them a penny statute says so. The Supreme court suggested it. Start you're claims now get you're money back or if you haven't payed the charges get there money.

[yourbank]

@Natty (Sorry 'YourBank' Lol)

 

"With regards to the argument on what service is given. The consideration of whether to pay or not pay or increase an overdraft is what was argued in the courts so that is the service provided."

 

My Halifax account is a Cardcash account that is not 'underwritten' and as such does not allow you to go overdrawn, so how come if their are insufficient funds they charge me £39.00 (Laterly £35.00) not to pay an item? If I go to a cashpoint and try and draw funds when there are insufficient funds, 'Computer says no!', but no charge. With a direct debit, the charge always results. No logic here (I don't want to give the *ankers ideas though, they will probably want to introduce a 'Service Fee' on the cashpoints shortly for telling you you have insufficient funds!)

 

That is issue I would have, ie if the cash machine will say no to you and not charge you, why does the consideration from others lead to a charge. The problem is that price is out so the obvious thing is how things were presented to the individual. I still can't get price out of my head and that is a big issue for me.

I think ECJ referral on reg 5(1) and the grey list could be the way forward to clarify definitively how it is to be interpreted if price is a no go. I have no exit route to a refund if I use price as the argument.

[srfrench]

Slightly off topic here YB....but I love the way you can't get the price argument out of your head. Solution......try a hypnotist

[barry_2008]

I you want to complain about the way cash machines are advertised maybe you need to complain to the Advertising Standards.

 

Remember this is the OFT taking the complaint not thw AS.

Edited December 10, 2009 by barry_2008
obvious mistake