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

[JOSH_IOU]

Right the way through.

 

I dont think there should be stays on just to see this test case through.

 

This is the point I am trying to make.

[yourbank]

Why not?

[Aequitas]

You are in fact quoting from the 1994 Regulations which have been revoked.

[JOSH_IOU]

The law is clear in this area.

 

There has already been thousands of pounds returned to customers.

 

If the oft win there will be a settlement of how much they can charge.

 

I personally do not think they can say 3 or maybe 6 or even 12 pounds are fair.

 

You know this is going to happen because the oft said they are not going to chase credit card charges under £12.

[JOSH_IOU]

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994

[JOSH_IOU]

They certainly have

 

its now the 2006 regulations

[yourbank]

JOSH IOU---The payments have been made as Gestures of Goodwill and no lability admitted. There has been NO PRECEDENT setting case on Bank Charges. Barwick lost even though no one turned up, thousands of others lost as well by not attending court because they believed a templated MCOL would get them their money back.

[Bookworm]

Barwick lost even though no one turned up, thousands of others lost as well by not attending court because they believed a templated MCOL would get them their money back.

Thousands? :-?

[yourbank]

Yes, HOWEVER hundreds of thousands of people did get their money back.

[Bookworm]

Do you have anything to back up this assertion? Something as alarmist as this really needs some authority (sorry, Josh! ;-)) to back it up, and i would be very interested to see anything to confirm it.

[yourbank]

bookworm, thousands can refer to 2000.....I am looking for a source for verification and at present can only rely on the number of times I have read of people losing by default across all forums. THIS is not evidence though so I withdraw the comment thousands and replace it with hundreds until such time as I can find the source of my assertion.

However, I stand by the fact that no bank has been taken to court and lost on bank charges themselves(excluding OFT test case which has yet to be concluded).

[Aequitas]

Just to get this clear. Are you saying that if a consumer does not individually negotiate the price for goods or services that the contract cannot be enforced in a court of law?

[JOSH_IOU]

:Dwhat kind?

[Bookworm]

However, I stand by the fact that no bank has been taken to court and lost on bank charges themselves.

Beg to differ again. I had the dubious honour to be the first documented win against First National Motor Finance, part of Abbey, in court, with a judge clearly stating that the charges levied were a penalty, back in November 06. Someone called Barcode told us he had won against Egg, but I can't remember when precisely. We've had wins against Citi, especially after they got cocky when they got a win in NI and decided to go to court every time. I could go on and on, but we have a few won cases in court, and I don't just mean by default either.

 

All this which is taking us far from the purpose of this thread, but I thought such worrying comments needed highlighting and querying.

[JOSH_IOU]

 

All this which is taking us far from the purpose of this thread, but I thought such worrying comments needed highlighting and querying.

 

No kidding

[Aequitas]

:Dwhat kind?

 

All contracts to which the Regulations apply.

[JOSH_IOU]

You cant drop it can you?

[Aequitas]

Let's start again.

 

 

You said:

 

 

It does not matter how much they charge us if we were not given the chance to negotiate the price it is an unlawful amount.

 

 

The current Regulations say:

 

 

In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate...to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange

 

 

You have yet to persuade me that what you said is not incompatible with the Regulations.

 

 

But we also need to consider fully the implication of what you say. Let's suppose we are concerned with a hotel booking (what applies to a banking contract must apply to a hotel booking). The price advertised is for a certain amount. You book a room. The price was not individually negotiated. According to you it is an unlawful amount and, moreover, “the contract cannot be enforced in a court of law”. Are you telling me that if you stay in the room when you come to leave there is no obligation to pay?

[yourbank]

Booworm, it wasn't precedent setting which is what I quoted originally in my initial eroneous post 1053.(please post evidence of the precedent setting case on bank charges alone).

To go back on topic, are you guys aware that the FSA are proposing that hardship claims are being defined as £500 worth of charges during the year? I have read this across other forums. The topic is interrelated as the OFT test case was the cause of the FSA waiver in the first place.

[Bookworm]

Booworm, it wasn't precedent setting which is what I quoted originally in my initial eroneous post 1053.(please post evidence of the precedent setting case on bank charges alone).

No, of course, it wasn't. Who said it was? Neither was Berwick (not Barwick) which you mentioned alongside the alleged thousands of lost cases you mentioned in your post.

 

I'm really not sure of where you are going in your reasoning, or even what is your point. First you mention that no case has set precedent in the matter, which I don't think anyone was disputing, you then say thousands lost their cases, then reduced to hundreds, with no evidence whatsoever to back this up (so far anyway), and all this in an attempt to show what?... I really don't know. I know it won't be the first or the last time, but I am confused.

[yourbank]

Bookworm, Josh IOU says he did not agree with the stay on cases. What I have badly done is to state that there are people who have gone to court and lost on the same basis as going to court and won. For example, Barwick went to court on the same premise and thousands of others yet, despite this and the same legal arguments, he lost along with another claimant who did not turn up. The not turning up at civil court is an example, ie they filled in templated MCOL's, assumed the bank would pay out and didn't turn up to court. If the stays are removed then the situation could go the same way with one judge saying claimant wins and another saying claimant loses. The OFT test case will set a precedent. That was the idea I was trying to get across and I appreciate that the manner in which I was trying to explain that was not clear enough. Does my post make more sense now?

[Bookworm]

Ach so . Yes, and thanks for clarifying. ;-)

[JOSH_IOU]

Why only lift the stay on hardship claims?

 

Are the banks saying they will only repay hardship cases?

 

Are you seriously saying one only qualifys as being a so-called hardship case if you have £500 on one claim?

 

You want to see the list of creditors I deal with on a daily basis. Then you will see why I get confused on simple legislation in a thread like this.

 

I rely on the acuracy of people on here to keep me on the right track. I am not just saying that I really do.

 

I might be able to create large posts like this on a thread but thats only because there is creative backround. I am crap at letter writing.

 

Which is where a site like this is extremely useful. I put that in bold to highlight the fact not to shout it.

 

You no its a shame this site was not around when I worked for Northern Rock. Thenmaybe the debt problem might have not goten so big. But lifes a pig and we all need to help each other.

 

;)Reminders here and there are verry helpful as there is alotof info and it is verry easy to get caught in all the hype if you like.

 

I am sure thereare many others with an arm of a list of creditors who they owe dosh to. But my name was mentioned so....

 

I still would love to sit opposite the bank in court and makethem look at the list I have And say look you cintributed to this and you could of done something about it ages ago but you did not.

[yourbank]

I read merely the first two statements you wrote. apologies but will re read the rest of the post now.

Define hardship?

[JOSH_IOU]

Not being able to pay off bills without getting charged.