Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[rdm2006]

is it your own case with a result dougal16t or one of the others ???

[caro]

For the record I am not aware that any of the site team know any more about the GLC cases, than they have posted on their website.

 

Dougal - I look forward to hearing your news. I believe that you are not located in Scotland, so would I be right in thinking that you are not one of those being represented by GLC?

 

Personally, I'm as frustrated as everyone else at the lack of more news, but I guess there are good reasons for this. I just hope that people have not agreed to confidentiality.

[Dougal16T]

Evening all,

 

You are right, I don't live in Scotland, but I am Scottish by descent.

 

It is my own case which I am referring to.

 

Best wishes all

 

Dougal

[jdes26]

Dougal

 

The man of mystery

 

I hope u have missiles to rain down on the banks

That will cause them misery

We wait with hope

[Bigdebtor]

I note the big post 1319 refers to AMENDING current small claims. In my own case I just complained to the Bank and they told me "no dice" - follwoed by FOS who supported the bank - so I was waiting on the SC judgement - so I never raised any case that could now be amended.

 

If the arguments in post 1319 do prove successful are they only relevant to those with a claim already made - or can we make fresh claims on the grounds we would have done so earlier but were misled by the Banks as to our actual legal position?

 

On that point if the banks did mislead us - are they not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation? At a minimum their misleading info caused us to "take a transactional decision we would otherwise not have done - so surely against CPUTR?

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

For the record I am not aware that any of the site team know any more about the GLC cases, than they have posted on their website.

 

Personally, I'm as frustrated as everyone else at the lack of more news, but I guess there are good reasons for this. I just hope that people have not agreed to confidentiality.

 

 

I totally agree - but as someone said earlier, whilst the actual "cake" might be hidden in a confidentiality agreement, surely the "recipe" can be reproduced? If so then we'll be back to the position where every claim is met "as a goodwill gesture" as it used to be before the OFT stuck its oar in and let the Banks win in the SC on a technicality.

 

Is there any way we could summon any Sheriff who was involved in a case that went confidential as a witness to give evidence as to what he would have ruled had the case progressed to a conclusion and the rug not been pulled from under him? After all, if it was now clear to the Sheriff the banks should lose (and thus the public win) then surely it's in the public interest not to allow them to hide behind any such confidentiality agreements?

 

BD

 

PS - I've just realised - I'm falling back into the trap of trying to apply moral judgements and common sense to THE LAW (sigh!!!).

[rebel11]

Thats dated 2009, there is like to be an update soon.

 

I note the big post 1319 refers to AMENDING current small claims. In my own case I just complained to the Bank and they told me "no dice" - follwoed by FOS who supported the bank - so I was waiting on the SC judgement - so I never raised any case that could now be amended.

 

If the arguments in post 1319 do prove successful are they only relevant to those with a claim already made - or can we make fresh claims on the grounds we would have done so earlier but were misled by the Banks as to our actual legal position?

 

On that point if the banks did mislead us - are they not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation? At a minimum their misleading info caused us to "take a transactional decision we would otherwise not have done - so surely against CPUTR?

 

BD

[Crazy Diamond]

At a minimum their misleading info caused us to "take a transactional decision we would otherwise not have done - so surely against CPUTR?

 

BD

 

That may be so, but there's nothing we as LIPs can do about that, CPUTR are a tool for the OFT, not open to us individuals.

[kennyh]

1st request to Dougal

some time yet.

 

in #1316 - anything further?

2nd Noomill, I realise your post #1319 is centred on Scotland - I really do- but is anyone able to put an English slant on the matters contained therein?

[Dougal16T]

Good morning kennyh and all,

 

Nothing to add at present. Case continuing at this moment in time. Apologies for lack of further information, there is a good reason for this - which I hope will become apparent.

 

Thanks to everyone, and best wishes to you all.

 

Dougal

[kennyh]

Thanks Dougal

[rdm2006]

OK, HSBC using stalling tactics, now that is new (not). Don't let the buggers grind you down

[Old Cogger]

Dougal

 

The man of mystery

 

I hope u have missiles to rain down on the banks

That will cause them misery

We wait with hope

 

Try this one:-

[Ford]

just some info in the scots news

 

'....The lawyer said recent years had seen lots of cases where bank customers had disputed charges in the sheriff courts – but that sheriffs often took widely different views on the interpretation of the law.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said it intended to introduce a class action procedure in Scotland within the life of the current parliament.

“The introduction of a class action procedure is a recommendation of Lord Gill’s Scottish Civil Courts review. The Government agrees with that recommendation and will introduce legislation in the lifetime of the current Parliament to allow that to happen.” '

 

http://www.scotsman.com/business/personal-finance/calls-for-individuals-to-band-together-to-take-on-big-firms-1-2291333

[kennyh]

So - a 'class action procedure' does exist in England; anyone - is it appropriate to our requirements?

And Dougle - any news yet? Pleeeeese!!

[Ford]

So - a 'class action procedure' does exist in England; anyone - is it appropriate to our requirements?

..

 

the oft tried it on behalf, and lost to a certain extent but not completely due to the mandate! but, maybe different in scotland?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Ford

[Bigdebtor]

just some info in the scots news

 

'....The lawyer said recent years had seen lots of cases where bank customers had disputed charges in the sheriff courts – but that sheriffs often took widely different views on the interpretation of the law.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said it intended to introduce a class action procedure in Scotland within the life of the current parliament.

“The introduction of a class action procedure is a recommendation of Lord Gill’s Scottish Civil Courts review. The Government agrees with that recommendation and will introduce legislation in the lifetime of the current Parliament to allow that to happen.” '

 

http://www.scotsman.com/business/personal-finance/calls-for-individuals-to-band-together-to-take-on-big-firms-1-2291333

 

I fear we might be heading to another OFT SLC debacle if this sees the light of day! I would prefer to put my faith in Mike Dailly and GLC on this.

 

I have been following this - and many other now lapsed thresads for a very long time - I think the Banks want to use our mortality to keep this saga going until we are all dead! However I have very determined sons and now a grandson who will keep my fight alive on this issue!

 

One thing I remember from earlier threads is that the Banks used to claim that the £39 (or whatever) charge was simply "to cover our costs".

 

Surely the whole issue would just go away if the banks simply produced their evidence to back up these claims? Surely the banks wouldn't have been lying - and therefore can actually substantiate these claims?

 

BD

 

PS For some reason I can't get a sarcastic smilie - or any smilie to come up here - but for the avoidance of doubt I was being sarcastic and DID NOT MEAN the above!!!!

[car2403]

PS For some reason I can't get a sarcastic smilie - or any smilie to come up here - but for the avoidance of doubt I was being sarcastic and DID NOT MEAN the above!!!!

 

Spoil my fun, already?!

[Dougal16T]

So - a 'class action procedure' does exist in England; anyone - is it appropriate to our requirements?

And Dougle - any news yet? Pleeeeese!!

 

 

Morning all,

Just a very limited update I am afraid, for reasons which will become apparent. The latest is that matters are proceeding.

 

As soon as I am able to release any further information I will do so, the reason for this reticence is that this is for everyone's benefit, and I have no wish to make a dog's oojit of it all now!

 

I thank everyone on CAG and those OTR who have all provided valuable input.........

 

Best wishes to all,

 

Dougal

[rebel11]

Hi Dougal

 

Many Thanks for the update.

[rdm2006]

strange there is nothing from mike daily tho - the hearing was weeks ago?????

[rebel11]

RM

 

The best thing to do is just wait:!:

 

strange there is nothing from mike daily tho - the hearing was weeks ago?????

[rdm2006]

oh I am waiting lol

[car2403]

I don't like Christmas, or surpises, for this very reason!

[rdm2006]

Patience is a virtue

 

 

Give it to me NOW LOL