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

[Mr lex]

Please remember this hearing was only about historic T/C's.

 

It is not the main case, about whether the charges themselves reflect the true cost to the banks.

 

Expect an announcement shortly

[The Phantom]

Please remember this hearing was only about historic T/C's.

 

It is not the main case, about whether the charges themselves reflect the true cost to the banks.

 

Expect an announcement shortly

 

Thanks Mr Lex. I will be waiting for an update/announcement from site admin and will keep checking back.

[Penfold92]

But my point to continue to full hearing rests (albeit hopefully) on

point 108 of the transcript, which states “It is agreed that the conditions I have considered are representative of other conditions used by HSBC in 2001 and thereafter, and the order that I make should reflect this”.

Is it not worth a try?

Penfold

[sillygirl1]

HAs anyone ever thought that the banks actually DONT have the money to defend this any more.... it would be far cheaper for them to pay up (and maybe spark off a spending spree on the results - thereby lifting the GDP considerably......)

 

Worth a thought or two....

[Mr lex]

In a nut shell, It says is that historic terms do not constitute penalties - which is what most people expected it to say.

 

As for claims, it leaves us where we were - waiting for the appeal to be thrown out so that we can get the stays lifted and carry on suing the banks under UTCCR1999.

 

This was always the side act to the main event. More later on the main site.

 

Thanks to Steven4064

[Bookworm]

Yep, just finished reading and the long and short of it is most of them will get a declaration that the historic T&Cs do not contains terms amounting to penalties (ha! ), a couple of them will need to argue it further (but I'll take a bet on the end result ) and goodnight.

 

So there you are: if you ever argued your case on penalties alone, you're screwed. Let's hope that you all used the UTCCR in your claims, hey?

 

Oh, I knew this was likely to be the way it was going to turn out, but I still feel immensely deflated and disappointed tonight.

[HSBCrusher]

Oh, I knew this was likely to be the way it was going to turn out, but I still feel immensely deflated and disappointed tonight.

yeah, me too.

 

[Thailand]

Probably showing just how much all this confuses me, but can't people enter an N244 (If memory serves) and alter POC?

[alanalana]

Josh iou,,

 

I think the Judge is correct to do this. However he should invite opinions from consumer groups.

 

This of course could be highly dangerous and lead to more legal action against CAG:eek:

 

aa

[paulwlton]

Thank god for the UTCCR1999.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

A solicitor has pointed out to me that even if the judgement on the historic terms is that they do not equate to penalties at common law it should not be assumed that business claims now have no legal basis. The solicitor pointed out that the judge hearing the test case has not considered a single business contract or any business terms and conditions during the test case, and so reliance on the judgement would be unjust for business claimants. Any judge would need to consider the contract between the business customer and bank and the business terms and conditions before a fair ruling can be delivered.

 

Any thoughts?

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited October 8, 2008 by TheyrCriminals

[The Phantom]

Thank god for the UTCCR1999.

I think most claims stuck in the County Court system have got both elements in it, penalties and UTCCR, does that make a difference ? Can the claim now be thrown out or are we OK as long as the UTCCR element is in it ?

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Phantom,

 

No you're perfectly safe. Even if one part of your claim fails it doesnt mean the other part will and so your claim is still valid and still a live claim. So long as your claim incorporates the UTCCR's you're fine.

 

Chin up.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited October 8, 2008 by TheyrCriminals

[Thailand]

Just checked the claim I have in for someone, and it also has both....It's so long, I must have got it of CAG. Hope everybody else did.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Here's an interesting BBC link covering the story.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judge rules on overdraft charges

 

TheyrCriminals

[paulwlton]

I think most claims stuck in the County Court system have got both elements in it, penalties and UTCCR, does that make a difference ? Can the claim now be thrown out or are we OK as long as the UTCCR element is in it ?

 

Our claims are fine

[The Phantom]

Just checked the claim I have in for someone, and it also has both....It's so long, I must have got it of CAG. Hope everybody else did.

Yes, I downloaded my POC at the time from here and I ran to whisk out the court paperwork to double check and it also has got both elements in it

 

phew

[determindator]

The judge apears to be giving an opinion and it would not be a final judgement from what i can see.

 

I think the Judge is correct to do this. However he should invite opinions from consumer groups.

 

Lets await the full and final decision well at least the OFT is backing us with there research skills.

 

Saves some time loosing the will to press the next button But of course if you have more than £500 IN charges between the last 3-6 months and you are still drownding in the banks red zone then you can apply for a stay being lifted on Hardship grounds.

 

I am aware Lloyds TSB are settleing cases. I am takeing my next case to court tomorrow.

 

Oh goody!

 

I like the sound of this! I'm going to add up my charges in this period and get a claim in.

[JOSH_IOU]

Determindator as much as I would like to be responsible for you making a claim you have to make sure it is right for you.

 

We have been saying all along there is a risk that the banks will use the 6 year rule to write off some of the bank charges if you dont claim now.

[determindator]

I have a claim on the Moneyclaim on line site for the Courts. I'll have to check out the wording. Yonks since I've been on there. I will do my next claim manually. Apparently I hear you get quite a buzz when you hand it in at the Court:)

[Bookworm]

I have a claim on the Moneyclaim on line site for the Courts. I'll have to check out the wording. Yonks since I've been on there. I will do my next claim manually. Apparently I hear you get quite a buzz when you hand it in at the Court:)

You do, you do.

[determindator]

Hi Josh IOU,

 

My claim would start from a few months ago, so hopefully I could fit into that criteria. Onwards and Upwards!

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

A solicitor has pointed out to me that even if the judgement on the historic terms is that they do not equate to penalties at common law it should not be assumed that business claims now have no legal basis. The solicitor pointed out that the judge hearing the test case has not considered a single business contract or any business terms and conditions during the test case, and so reliance on the judgement would be unjust for business claimants. Any judge would need to consider the contract between the business customer and bank and the business terms and conditions before a fair ruling can be delivered.

 

Any thoughts?

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited October 8, 2008 by TheyrCriminals

[JonCris]

The establishment looking after the establishment I'm afraid & to be expected because the courts have deserted the ordinary citizen over the last few years re plural plaques etc

 

Look at the way the government shovel our money into the coffers of the banks with nothing in return.

 

They aren't even insisting that the banks stop repos. A failure which will result in more former home owners being supported by benefits which are also paid by our taxes.

 

You think someone would join the dots wouldn't you

[adamski]

Dont you think if they stopped repos people just would not pay?