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

[roscodog18]

As for Stat Demands.........very borderline in legal terms.

Burried right at the end is a denial paragraph which will be small and insignificant looking.....the rest of the document is designed to make you panic and not read to the end..........sign the denial and the Stat Demand is dead!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I should also say that when a DCA is onto you that they work to targets and will go for the easy victim in order to reach their targets.

Make yourself take up their time, ask questions, write letters, request CCA's.....legally they must reply in 28 days to every request.........you will flagup on their computer 'diary' daily as the time starts to run out.

If we all wrote letters the entire system would grind to a halt:-)

 

Roscodog

[paulwlton]

As for Stat Demands.........very borderline in legal terms.

 

.........sign the denial and the Stat Demand is dead!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Roscodog

 

Can you explain why just a simple denial would invalidate the demand.

[brown1950]

Banks have lodged petition with HOL for the right to appeal !

[yourbank]

It was lodged yesterday but it really isn't a major shock.

[PGH7447]

What did you expect, they cant afford to let this happen at the moment, I mean they still have to pay their idiot bosses all their bonuses:D

[Baggio]

We live in a sick, sick world.

 

The law is a total ass.

 

What worries me is that the banks are now more or less owned by the Government, therefore all these unlawful charges rebates will come out of the coffers of the Government.

 

So what prevents them passing some bill/act to complete nullify it all?

[yourbank]

We live in a sick, sick world.

 

The law is a total ass.

 

What worries me is that the banks are now more or less owned by the Government, therefore all these unlawful charges rebates will come out of the coffers of the Government.

 

So what prevents them passing some bill/act to complete nullify it all?

 

I would say that would be state intervention of the worst kind. This part of the litigation is merely the half way mark. The decision is 8 weeks from yesterday so that is May 20th. If they had not petitioned the High Court I would have thought they were going soft

[Bookworm]

Well, when 3 appeal judges unanimously tell you not to bother, then of course the arrogance of the banks mean that they have to do it! the Fred Goodwin school of thinking.

 

Bloody disgrace, and a mockery of the "promise to deal with the case in an expeditious manner".

[car2403]

Well, when 3 appeal judges unanimously tell you not to bother, then of course the arrogance of the banks mean that they have to do it! the Fred Goodwin school of thinking.

 

Bloody disgrace, and a mockery of the "promise to deal with the case in an expeditious manner".

 

Let's get the waiver under review on the back of this, I say!

[yourbank]

Well, when 3 appeal judges unanimously tell you not to bother, then of course the arrogance of the banks mean that they have to do it! the Fred Goodwin school of thinking.

Bookworm, they didn't say that

to quote

 

"The Banks’ appeal to the Court of Appeal has now failed and we have now refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal." Where does the judge say no chance, or don't bother? I have looked for the quote and I certainly don't remember that phrase either in High Court. Martin Lewis might have said that on GMTV, perhaps.

Bloody disgrace, and a mockery of the "promise to deal with the case in an expeditious manner".

 

I do agree with you on the bit in bold. This is not exactly "expeditious".

[yourbank]

Let's get the waiver under review on the back of this, I say!

Whilst I agree with Bookworm on the latter point, it can be argued that they are still compliant with that and therefore to quote the high court notes again

 

"We have asked Moore-Bick LJ, as the Deputy Head of Civil Justice to consider the position, and he has decided to send a letter in the following terms to all Designated Civil Judges:

“As you may already know, the Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal in the Bank Charges litigation, holding that the OFT is entitled to investigate the fairness of the terms which provide for the payment of charges for unauthorised overdrawing etc. There was no appeal on the penalty issue on which the Banks won below.

Permission to appeal to the House of Lords has been refused, but the matter does not end there, both because the Banks may petition their Lordships for permission to appeal and because unless the decision of the Court of Appeal is overturned, the OFT will now have to complete its investigation in order to determine whether the charges are unfair or not.

As you will appreciate, apart from knocking out the penalty argument, the proceedings have not yet produced a final answer one way or the other to the claims pending in your courts. You may be faced with applications to lift the stays which are currently in place. Circumstances may differ, but you may think that, insofar as claims turn on whether the terms in question are unfair under the Regulations and therefore unenforceable, there is much to be said for continuing the existing stays pending a decision by the House of Lords and/or the outcome of the investigation by the OFT.”

5. In so far as it is for us to express a view, and without prejudice to any decision which may be made on the facts of a particular case, we entirely agree that that is a sensible approach."

[Bookworm]

I was paraphrasing, YB.

[yourbank]

I was paraphrasing, YB.

I prefer the facts

[Bookworm]

Permission to appeal to the House of Lords has been refused

That reads to me as a "don't bother", wouldn't you say?

 

Of course, they can't stop them from appealing to the HOL as such... but when they themselves say "appeal to the HOL refused", wouldn't you understand it to say: "don't appeal to the HOL"? In what world could it mean: "yes, DO appeal to the HOL"?

 

I think the implicit message is there. The banks of course choose not to hear it, not because they have a chance of succeeding unless the old boys network comes out to play, but because they will resist this to the bitter end regardless of their earlier promises.

[yourbank]

That reads to me as a "don't bother", wouldn't you say?

 

Of course, they can't stop them from appealing to the HOL as such... but when they themselves say "appeal to the HOL refused", wouldn't you understand it to say: "don't appeal to the HOL"? In what world could it mean: "yes, DO appeal to the HOL"?

 

I think the implicit message is there. The banks of course choose not to hear it, not because they have a chance of succeeding unless the old boys network comes out to play, but because they will resist this to the bitter end regardless of their earlier promises.

 

"The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal."

 

They have applied as is their right to do so.

 

 

Personally, I think it is a complete waste of time them appealing. Unless they have something new to bring to the table then I would anticipate that the permission to appeal will be rejected.

[Bookworm]

Well, here's hoping, hey. :-|

[kev2b3]

Are the banks allowed to bring anything new to the table?, i thought that the HOL will decide on the records of the past two court cases.

[yourbank]

Are the banks allowed to bring anything new to the table?, i thought that the HOL will decide on the records of the past two court cases.

 

This might explain how the HoL works(you are right btw on the petition bit).

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofLBpJudicial.pdf

[hilaryfrances]

Hello YB I know we have not spoken before, I was just wondering if you had managed to get another job yet

[yourbank]

Hello YB I know we have not spoken before, I was just wondering if you had managed to get another job yet

Nope, still looking and have another interview coming up. Still applying though.

[roscodog18]

Can you explain why just a simple denial would invalidate the demand.

 

Hi,

a stat demand is simply that.....a very official looking letter.......it is one of the cheaper options used by DCA's ( on the instruction of their client). It has no legal basis......if you deny that the money is owed they then have to decide whether to spend money and take further action.....like I said the denial will be difficult to find and usually right at the end of the letter.

 

Roscodog

[hsbcfiddled]

Well, when 3 appeal judges unanimously tell you not to bother, then of course the arrogance of the banks mean that they have to do it! the Fred Goodwin school of thinking.

 

Bloody disgrace, and a mockery of the "promise to deal with the case in an expeditious manner".

 

 

What a bunch of B********S

 

I hope they are all ill at their parents wedding.

[yourbank]

"3. The Banks’ appeal to the Court of Appeal has now failed and we have now refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal."

 

The high court judges wrote the above. There was not a No chance, or a Don't bother whatsoever.

The banks exercised their right to appeal.

[photoman]

"3. The Banks’ appeal to the Court of Appeal has now failed and we have now refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal."

 

The high court judges wrote the above. There was not a No chance, or a Don't bother whatsoever.

The banks exercised their right to appeal.

 

 

So, in short:

 

They have been refused permission to take an appeal to the House of lords to appeal against the current judgement.

 

However.... they are entitled to appeal to the House of Lords, for a reversal of the decision not to be allowed to appeal to the House of Lords.

 

If the House of Lords then reverse the judges directions that they are not to be allowed to appeal to the HOL

 

.... then they will then be allowed to take to the HOL an appeal against the current judgement.

 

 

...... this is getting more and more like a Monty Python sketch everyday !!

[yourbank]

So, in short:

 

They have been refused permission to take an appeal to the House of lords to appeal against the current judgement.

By the Appeal Court in London.

However.... they are entitled to appeal to the House of Lords, for a reversal of the decision not to be allowed to appeal to the House of Lords.

They are entitled to petition the House of Lords for them to hear an appeal.

 

If the House of Lords then reverse the judges directions that they are not to be allowed to appeal to the HOL

They can refuse leave to appeal and therefore they cannot appeal the decision to the House of Lords.

.... then they will then be allowed to take to the HOL an appeal the current judgement.

If the HOL allows the appeal then the HOL would be able to hear an appeal against the current judgement.

 

...... this is getting more and more like a Monty Python sketch everyday !!

 

They were refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords(by the Appeal Court) however you can petition the House of Lords to appeal the judgement of Justice Smith and the Appeal Courts decision to uphold it. The leaflet about the House of Lords process is posted on this thread above.