Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[008139]

Thanks Aequitas. Bookworm was asking for some case law yesterday.

 

Mulvey v. Secretary of State for Social Security

Basically said that deductions to income support made by the social fund for repayment of a social fund loan would continue after bankruptcy as they were never received by the benefits claimant. Therefore, once benefits hit your account they are yours and lose the protection of the SSA.

( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldjudgmt/jd970313/mulv01.htm )

 

 

North Lanarkshire Council v Crossan

Sheriff Court of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway at Airdrie July 2007

I agree with counsel for the pursuers' submission that payments alimentary in nature may lose that character. The obligation to account for alimentary payments owed by the Department of Work and Pensions to the common debtor was discharged. The funds were paid into the bank and were available for the common debtor's use. She chose, for whatever reason, not to use them. They remained in her bank account and I do not accept the submission for the common debtor that the fact that they were not in-mixed with other funds makes any difference in this case. Once the funds were deposited in the common debtor's bank account she was vested in them. The nature of the relationship between customer and banker is then the relevant one to determine this issue.

.....

The funds then, once paid in my view cease to he protected in terms of the legislation. The legislation in the modern statutes is clear and in my opinion the intention of Parliament was to protect what could be termed as the initial relationship being the obligation which existed between the payer and the payee. Once the situation moves to what is really the secondary relationship between banker and customer the protection is lost. The funds held by the bank are then arrestable and the common debtor's argument fails.

Edited July 24, 2010 by 008139

[Bookworm]

Oh sh*te. I was just finishing a long post about these and hit the wrong key, and it's all gone.

 

I'll re-do it later, but for now, in brief, IMO: case no1 is irrelevant, as it deals with Social Fund, one of the few things which can be deducted from IS.

 

Case no2 is relevant, but only up to a point, and the most relevant to our situation with the bank is this one sentence: "The nature of the relationship between customer and banker is then the relevant one to determine this issue. " More anon.

 

*goes to bang head hard against the wall*

[Aequitas]

I was just finishing a long post about these and hit the wrong key, and it's all gone.

 

This has happened to me on more than one occasion. To see ones carefully worded response disappear into the ether is very disheartening.

 

Anyway, I cannot help feeling that you are on a loser on this one. Best not to dig yourself further in the hole.

[Bookworm]

No hole being dug at all. You miss the point of why I post on here: it's not "win" any argument. I get ideas, I toss them around for people to examine, think of something else more relevant, discard, tear apart if need be, if something good comes out of it for everyone, good, if not, back to the drawing board.

 

In the same way that in a sales contract, the moment a contract is deemed concluded is all important when issue arise (like in mis-prices for example), I feel that the issue here of relevance is the one I have highlighted above. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right... In my head, it's starting to gell together with the conflict of interest angle, etc... but for obvious reasons, I am not yet ready to discuss these in the open. If anything, the above caselaw is giving me another angle of thinking which is quite interesting. ;-)

[Aequitas]

 

Same for me, but I tend to get a different reaction!

[jd22]

Is there any news on this one? I have a case (the POC was based on this sites original draftings including the sec 5 pleadings) in an English Court where the Bank (in my absence in May 2010) obtained an order to strike out my claim but I have subsequently managed to have that set aside and my application (to have the earlier Stay lifted) has been listed for hearing in September.

 

Is there any advice I can take on board?

[bazaar]

Is there any news on this one? I have a case (the POC was based on this sites original draftings including the sec 5 pleadings) in an English Court where the Bank (in my absence in May 2010) obtained an order to strike out my claim but I have subsequently managed to have that set aside and my application (to have the earlier Stay lifted) has been listed for hearing in September.

 

Is there any advice I can take on board?

 

JD have you started your thread? If not, you should get one started so you'll get the right help

[008139]

Why has the QC's Opinion been taken down ?

[Bookworm]

*waits for conspiracy theorists to start*

[elsinore]

I thought that might happen, so I have a copy if anybody wants one.

 

Els

[rebel11]

This is 'catcher in the Rye' all over again:D

[Carningli]

Dear All,

Yes why has the QC's opinion been taken down, this was the most informative and pertinent posting about the present situation for quite some time? Anyone intending to submit a new claim to the Courts, would have been well advised to read the excellent opinion given, prior to submitting their own claim.

 

Carningli

[johnnymitch]

Would anyone like to answer this one.........please ?

[kennyh]

c'mon Booky, it's a fair question.

[srfrench]

Why give your enemy the ammunition with which to shoot you? Enough said I think 8)

[Bookworm]

c'mon Booky, it's a fair question.

It may be, but does the answer really matter except to satisfy curiosity? ;-)

 

Random reasons I can think of:

 

copyright issues, out of date info, mistaken info, correct info but giving to much ammo to the other side as to tactics, info may be correct but at odds with someone else's, post/thread need cleaning up, link has been moved, etc, etc...

 

What people don't seem to get is that there isn't someone constantly on the site to do things, so it could be that it got taken down and the person who's done it will be doing whatever when they get back, not even thinking that people will notice. Next thing you know, someone does notice and start asking questions... and here we are. Like I said, I don't know, but I know that things on this site often take longer to be taken care of that us bystanders would like to. ;-)

[kennyh]

I consider my a*** to be suitably accommodated in a sling!

[locutus]

Well... Bookies is suitably accommodated in a thong (something about the catapult effect I believe)

[rebel11]

Have you seen a doctor?

 

I consider my a*** to be suitably accommodated in a sling!

[bustthematrix]

Hi Bookie

 

Were you not once part of the site team? When did that change?

[bustthematrix]

I thought that might happen, so I have a copy if anybody wants one.

 

Els

 

....Please....

[Bookworm]

Hi Bookie

 

Were you not once part of the site team? When did that change?

Errr... I had to go look for the thread where it was discussed to check, and would you believe it, just over 2 years ago! Boy, doesn't time fly when you're having fun?

[rdm2006]

Errr... I had to go look for the thread where it was discussed to check, and would you believe it, just over 2 years ago! Boy, doesn't time fly when you're having fun?

 

 

Is it Really that long ago ?????

[Tell Me More]

I thought that might happen, so I have a copy if anybody wants one.

 

Els

 

I have a bank charges case in the County Court which Nationwide were ordered to repay £18,000 2 weeks before the 'stay' came into force and Nationwide applied to the court for a stay in this matter.

 

I am not sure about how to change my Particulars of Claim. Can anyone help?

 

Also, could I get a copy please Elsinore.

[kennyh]

I've been 'ploughing' back through the thread but the date of the hearing for the SharpvBOS case escapes my, less than eagle like, scrutiny. Any ideas folks??