Law Lords update

[legalpickle]

My understanding is that it's over for those cases stayed with the Courts and FOS, but not necessarily over for future charges. The OFT could still use alternative by-laws and Parliament could use legislative powers to lower the charges.

 

I'm sure Marc Gander & Martin Lewis will be leading a lobby on this issue.

[SOD'EM]

That is just like saying that the previous courts are not competent at all. There should be an inquiry into them making a wrong decision. Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?

[legalpickle]

That is just like saying that the previous courts are not competent at all. There should be an inquiry into them making a wrong decision. Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?

Whilst I agree with your name, and I don't want to defend the b(w)anks or the "Supreme" Court "Justices" in any way [as I also disagree with the Judgment], I have to disagree with the main part of your post.

 

"Higher" courts often overrule lower court's judgments. It is in no way a statement as to the lower court's competence. Looking at it that way is unrealistic.

 

I do not for even one split second agree with this Judgment in any way, shape, form, method or manner, but I don't agree that this Judgment deems the lower courts as incompetent.

[locutus]

I don't think this is as "Doom and gloom" as people are saying. To be honest I just wish the OFT had kept their noses out of it and left it as it should be, We put our claims to the court, they make a descision.

[legalpickle]

I don't think this is as "Doom and gloom" as people are saying.

What's not doom and gloom in the UK??? Of course it is!!!

 

To be honest I just wish the OFT had kept their noses out of it and left it as it should be, We put our claims to the court, they make a descision.

Me too - but only with the last word spelt as "decision"!!!

[SOD'EM]

Whilst I agree with your name, and I don't want to defend the b(w)anks or the "Supreme" Court "Justices" in any way [as I also disagree with the Judgment], I have to disagree with the main part of your post.

 

"Higher" courts often overrule lower court's judgments. It is in no way a statement as to the lower court's competence. Looking at it that way is unrealistic.

 

I do not for even one split second agree with this Judgment in any way, shape, form, method or manner, but I don't agree that this Judgment deems the lower courts as incompetent.

 

 

Would you agree that it deems the courts to be a complete bunch of time wasting A**EH***S?

[legalpickle]

Would you agree that it deems the courts to be a complete bunch of time wasting A**EH***S?

Nope. Because I've succeeded in enough cases in the courts to know the contrary.

 

I would agree that it deems this case to have been a complete waste of time & money and the OFT to be the Office of eFfed-up Trading!!!

[hilaryfrances]

looks like all is not lost peeps, the OFT used the wrong clause to make a claim

[SOD'EM]

looks like all is not lost peeps, the OFT used the wrong clause to make a claim

 

 

 

Yeah, they used the "Santa Clause".

[Spamalot]

Yeah' date=' they used the "Santa Clause".[/quote']

 

Trust you...

[Dodgy Geezer]

Supreme Court Bank Charges Decision

THE FIGHT GOES ON AS JUDGEMENT SHOWS ANOTHER ROUTE FOR CLAIMS

As we read further into today's judgement it has become clear that the OFT may have used the wrong part of the UTCCR. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used, and this may lead consumers to consider rewording their claims.

 

Clause 5(1) states that "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

 

Any clause allowing a bank to impose repressive charges, and increase and change those charges at its own discretion would be extremely likely to put the bank in a dominant position - and therefore the term should not be allowed to stand.

 

Obviously the judgement is still being analysed, but it would seem that the fight is most certainly not lost.

[Dodgy Geezer]

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : The Bear Garden

[cymruambyth]

As expected a new record and lots of new members.

[ukaviator]

The battle maybe lost, war is still on going.

[kia]

i dont get it so what does a11 this mean uk have we 1ost or has someone screwed up im baff1ed now :confused:xxkia

[ukaviator]

All of your charges Kia are under historic T&Cs which say charges were to cover costs. Today's ruling only says the OFT could not assess the fairness of the prices of a bank's services.Your claim has nothing to do with the price of a service, its a dispute over whether you were being told the truth about how much their costs were. We need to consider whether the door is now open for claims to be made under sections 5 and 8 of the UTCCR 1999.

 

We believe that the Charges term within your bank contract will not be binding under Regulation 8 as Regulation 5 points to terms being unfair if they are not individually negotiated. This causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Once it is established that the term violates Regulation 5, then Regulation 8 negates that term and so the banks will be liable to return all charges. We will be working on the next step with the so many brilliant minds on this forum. I am so proud of how this forum has pulled together some of the most clever and devious minds from around the country, and given the banks and credit card companies such a headache, some of them should train to be solicitors.

[bandonbhoy]

power to the elbow. thank you for this far, but remeber the spider in the wallace cave. we shall overcome

[kia]

All of your charges Kia are under historic T&Cs which say charges were to cover costs. Today's ruling only says the OFT could not assess the fairness of the prices of a bank's services.Your claim has nothing to do with the price of a service, its a dispute over whether you were being told the truth about how much their costs were. We need to consider whether the door is now open for claims to be made under sections 5 and 8 of the UTCCR 1999.

 

We believe that the Charges term within your bank contract will not be binding under Regulation 8 as Regulation 5 points to terms being unfair if they are not individually negotiated. This causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Once it is established that the term violates Regulation 5, then Regulation 8 negates that term and so the banks will be liable to return all charges. We will be working on the next step with the so many brilliant minds on this forum. I am so proud of how this forum has pulled together some of the most clever and devious minds from around the country, and given the banks and credit card companies such a headache, some of them should train to be solicitors.

how true uk thank u for exp1aining it cos my ex seemed to think we had 1ost if it hadnt been for cag i wou1d have be1ieved it now i dont thank u xxxxxxxxkia

[The GodMother]

Excuse me but i seem to be having a problem with the statue law database can somebody post up a link to the UTCCR please. Thanks

 

Also another thing.

 

Regulation 8 and 5. Does this only apply to banks or could this also apply to catalogue companys?

[Dodgy Geezer]

UTCCR

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Dodgy Geezer

[The GodMother]

Thanks DG

 

It does read as tho it could be used in catalogue companys.