Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[bustthematrix]

It can be done and it should be done, and this time, they should ensure the points of law being contested are wide enough to effectively tackle the issue. Still yet to see any decent explanation as to why the OFT did not take this further when the SC clearly said there were other avenues worth exploring.

[Fred_Funk]

Apologies for butting in, but if any of you guys could spare five minutes to take a look at the following thread...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?284829-HELP-How-to-avoid-my-bank-charges-claim-being-struck-out-!(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

... which is not unrelated to this one, I'd be incredibly grateful. Thanks.

[Bigdebtor]

It can be done and it should be done, and this time, they should ensure the points of law being contested are wide enough to effectively tackle the issue. Still yet to see any decent explanation as to why the OFT did not take this further when the SC clearly said there were other avenues worth exploring.

 

I suspect that since by Nov 2009 we now owned 73% of RBS and 41% of LTSB/HBOS that OFT would have been told that any more involvement by them would actually be the Government suing itself - so back off PDQ! This could also explain many creditor-frioendly perverse judgments (like Brandon) made recently!

 

BD

[manchesteruni]

I very much doubt that is the case BD.

 

In reply to busthematrix - the OFT couldnt take it further as the arguments remaining are INDIVIDUAL arguments and look closely at precise circumstances in each individuals relationship with the bank.

 

I don't know if you have read the formal Opinion of Anthony Scrivener QC on the subject but that may give you some positive ideas (it is /was posted on here somewhere)

 

In reply to RDM - if your losses and difficulties are directly attributable to the banks error you are quite within your rights to fight for a larger compensation than the £100 you received...obviously I don't know the minute details of your particular case.

 

However I don't think that arguing for mutuality in banking contracts with regards charging is the right direction to be focussing on, for anyone.

[Carningli]

Hi Manchesteruni,

 

You won't find the Anthony Scrivener QC opinion on site because it has been withdrawn. Though some people have copies of it.

 

The very fact that it has been withdrawn is of concern because there must have been some cogent reason for doing so. Probably because on reflection Scrivener QC felt that the issues claimed were not satisfactory to be used by individuals seeking litigation in respect of Bank Charging.

 

On relection I feel that the Supreme Court ruling could not have done a better job for the government to prevent a run on the banks than the judgement passed down. Issues affecting indiividuals have nevertheless been left entirely in the cold. The ominous silence that ensued since Nov 2009 means that no credible Particulars of Claim have been found. Many with claims in the pipeline have been left high and dry. With all the knowledge of this forum, we should now be looking at other ways to put pressure on the banking system to make them realise that large numbers of the community will eventually fight back in some way and not just roll over. The route at this time would appear to be through the European Courts.

 

Carningli

[rdm2006]

 

In reply to RDM - if your losses and difficulties are directly attributable to the banks error you are quite within your rights to fight for a larger compensation than the £100 you received...obviously I don't know the minute details of your particular case.

 

However I don't think that arguing for mutuality in banking contracts with regards charging is the right direction to be focussing on, for anyone.

 

I am not arguing for mutuality, That was just a real life example on the unfairness of the term. I am arguing to have a term which is clearly one sided either removed or made unenforceable - remember even if they introduced a such a provision in the contract now - for all the time it wasn't there the term would be mute and any charges raised by that term would have been raised unlawfully.

 

This term (and no provision for a reverse situation) is generic to all contracts - so if it were found to be unlawful in my case then it would be unlawful in all others

 

The UTCCR does not say that one party has to have refused the other compensation of an equal amount, it only says there has to be a provision for it.

[Bigdebtor]

Carningli

 

The very existence of this thread - and current actions in Scotland- show WE ARE NOT going to take this lying down. The fight is still on - at least up here.

 

BD

[rdm2006]

Just in case anyone is interested here is a link to a web-page describing the legal powers of "Which?" it may be useful - to someone - some day - perhaps (or maybe not).

[manchesteruni]

You won't find the Anthony Scrivener QC opinion on site because it has been withdrawn. Though some people have copies of it.

 

The very fact that it has been withdrawn is of concern because there must have been some cogent reason for doing so. Probably because on reflection Scrivener QC felt that the issues claimed were not satisfactory to be used by individuals seeking litigation in respect of Bank Charging.

 

On relection I feel that the Supreme Court ruling could not have done a better job for the government to prevent a run on the banks than the judgement passed down. Issues affecting indiividuals have nevertheless been left entirely in the cold. The ominous silence that ensued since Nov 2009 means that no credible Particulars of Claim have been found. Many with claims in the pipeline have been left high and dry. With all the knowledge of this forum, we should now be looking at other ways to put pressure on the banking system to make them realise that large numbers of the community will eventually fight back in some way and not just roll over. The route at this time would appear to be through the European Courts.

 

Carningli

 

 

I believe Scrivener agreeds with you that this should have gone through the ECJ. I think it is only this site who has removed the Opinion for personal reasons, it has not been withdrawn by Scrivener or anyone else (that's what your post seemed to imply, my apologies if I have read it wrong). It is the case that lawyers working on a representative action withdrew following Scriveners Opinion because the chances of success were extremely slim and no ATE insurance could be obtained. It is still a valid document for people pursuing their own claims under 5(1) in conjunction with CCA 140 although personally I would not recommend any one takes bank charges into court at least until after the Govan Law case is resolved.

[disgruntledofcornwall]

So is there a date set for the Scottish hearing? I could mention that the sort of behavior by Santander sending a barrister to a sub 1k fast track case would look very much to me like a breach of our European rights, there is a right to have a case heard without the sort of intimidation.

 

The crux of the problem though is of course people not being careful to submit a robust POC. The only way the new argument works is if you state individual effects of the unfair relationship so to not do so would be fatal to your case.

 

I'm not a conspiricy theorist but it does seem to me that we have all been stiched up by the governments and the banks. They don't care about us at all, they just want the proles to pay up the tax and support the super rich. The OFT and FSA are proof absolute that the system is designed to be unfair.

 

If they had let the banks collapse, something better would have come out of it. The fact they didn't let it go suggests that they will never let them. They would rather have 5 million people with no jobs than let the banks have what was coming to them.

 

A debt jubilee, (mass write off), from the collapsed banks would have sorted out the country quite nicely.

 

I still think the new arguments will win out, but if people keep making half arsed attempts at it then it just undermines those of us who are serious.

 

And we should launch as class action suit against the banks. Let's pick the weakest off first and the rest will run scared for the hills. This is only a matter of time.

 

Oh yes, and remember that the liberals did in fact seek to support us so let's hold them to that. If they let us down then the conspiricy theory is pretty much proven as far as I am concerned.

[bustthematrix]

A knowledgeable contact of mine works in financial services and is a government insider. He did some monetary figurework some time ago and suggested the following idea:-

 

Instead of bailing out the banks, the government could actually have used less funds (than was used to prop up these institutions) to write off the country's entire mortgage debt i.e. every single mortgage debt (I think including both residential and commercial) would have been settled. This alone would have bailed out both the banks and the high street simultaneously by providing liquid funding to the banks and resolving their bad debt problems and improving the balance sheet, cashflow and morale of the public . We'd probably be in the throes of an economic recovery by now.

 

Just an idea, ...haven't given it too much thought but I thought it was interesting...

[manchesteruni]

lol, interesting, but I would expect all the people without debts or mortgages would have a fair few words to say about it.

[disgruntledofcornwall]

Hello all! Any news on this case or has it become vapourware?

[caro]

It's been a while but I think GLC will let us know any news when they can. I can't find anything on their website so let's hope that means it's still going on.

[kennyh]

c'mon Caro,

I well remember when CAG was dynamic with a capital D and I do realise that things do 'go on' behind the scenes that it would be unwise to advertize but I understood that there are numerous cases being pursued both in UK and Europe and we haven't even been appraised of any of the poc; this is a tad restrictive is it not?

At least if we knew what grounds were being explored then others among us could try to exercise even more points of law. Personally I'm a 'wrinkley'; would be prepared to start a 'hare' running and if I lost well - I've no property assets 'they' could go after: in other words 'wot the hell'. I just don't want to appear in court looking a right whalley if the grounds I deploy have already been found wanting.

[caro]

I'm as frustrated by this as you are kenny. I'm making assumptions based on how I've seen things work on CAG. I know one person who has gone all out with a fantastic POC that included every conceivable argument. He fought hard but sadly lost in court. The days of the tried and tested one size fits all POC templates are well and truly over - at least for the forseeable future.

 

I can't honestly see GLC releasing any details that would jeoardise the cases. We can only hope that things are going on because I do think they'd tell us if they'd thrown in the towel. It's not going to be quick or easy though.

 

Barristers have looked at the SC judgment and not found solutions, so unless caggers start getting pro-active again, our best hope for now is GLC, except perhaps in certain circumstances such as hardship, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

The way I see it we need radical changes in the law and the banking system to make a real difference, but I do see a glimmer of hope with GLC.

[Bigdebtor]

Caro

 

The "hardship" card hasn't worked since well before the SC debacle. FOS upheld a claim by HBOS that waiving "future" unfair charges for 3 months (which I wouldn't incur anyway as I had stopped all Direct Debits and SO mandates - only paying by Debit Card or BACS when cleared funds were available) was enough "evidence" they were treating my hardship "sympathetically". At least it cost HBOS £500 to have FOS support them - but I'm still down £5k in unfair HBOS charges.

 

Seeing RBS pay out nearly £1 billion in bonuses while still losing over £1 billion last year shows just how "fair" our Banks want to play.

 

I share your faith in GLC. Their excellent reputation in Glasgow is well deserved - not only in fighting for the "wee men" against the big banks, but also for getting the law changed regarding unscrupulous property factors and slum landlords in Scotland.

 

Keep the faith. Scottish justice tends to have a lot more common sense than the version South of the Border - 5 years (not 6) for SB debts and the creditor CANNOT enforce debts without the original signed agreement - none of this "balance of probablities" guff that big "reputable" institutions just "wouldn't get things wrong". Losing over £24 billion in one year and nearly £30 billion over three years is surely ample proof that big banks can and DO make big mistakes - and compound them with big bonuses and continued unfair charges.

 

Once all the revolutionaries are finished in North Africa, I think the English should invite them over to sort out the Westminster puppet government!

 

BD

[kennyh]

Hi Caro,

Thanks for the indulgence.

I know one person who has gone all out with a fantastic POC that included every conceivable argument.

Which court did he go down in? I should have thought that some of the arguments that can be presented couldn't be dealt with at county.

[caro]

Caro

 

The "hardship" card hasn't worked since well before the SC debacle.

 

In theory hardship is still a possible argument. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/financial-hardship-unaffordable-lending.htm

 

Once all the revolutionaries are finished in North Africa, I think the English should invite them over to sort out the Westminster puppet government!

 

BD

 

Or we could do it ourselves. ;-) http://marchforthealternative.org.uk/

 

Hi Caro,

Thanks for the indulgence.

Which court did he go down in? I should have thought that some of the arguments that can be presented couldn't be dealt with at county.

 

Birmingham.

[manchesteruni]

I know one person who has gone all out with a fantastic POC that included every conceivable argument. He fought hard but sadly lost in court. .

Is this case detailed on the forum ?

[elsinore]

It's getting spiteful

 

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Legal-aid-boss-in-bs.6728156.jp

 

Els

[elsinore]

and

 

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/documents/ResponsetoLSSpressreleaseof7thMarchforWEB.pdf

 

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/documents/LettertoJamieMillarfromLindsayMontgomery.pdf

 

Els

[Dougal16T]

Evening all,

 

The question is is Mike Daily right? (Personally I think he is bang on the money). Like most who cannot do their job properly, it really hurts when they are found out!

 

Best wishes to all

 

Dougal

[Bigdebtor]

I have every confidence in the SLAB being just as effective and efficient :roll:as FSA, FOS, OFT etc. - or given it's got four initials maybe I should modify that to say I expect it to be 133% as effective as these three letter publicly funded outfits.

 

Oh dear I suppose that means it will waste a third more of tax payers money:-x and take a third longer to get nowhere.

 

BD

 

PS - I'm sure Mike was more gainfully employed - like busy working on this case - when he missed the three meetings mentioned.

 

PPS - I hope we can interpret the SLAB outburst as a symptom of the pressure they feel in considering whether to grant Legal Aid in this case OF ENORMOUS PUBLIC INTEREST!

[caro]

Is this case detailed on the forum ?

 

No.