We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Hull County Court discussion
Options
cat_matt
Posts: 55 Forumite
i found this on 'this is money' website im not sure what it means to all of us claiming now"New blow to bank charge claims
This is Money
1 June 2007
A county court judge has threatened to strike out claims by 20 bank customers seeking the refund of overdraft charges, citing the recent case in Birmingham when a customer lost his claim against Lloyds TSB.
District Judge Ian Besford, sitting in Hull, said the claimants were unlikely to succeed because of the Birmingham case. It is the first time a judge in the UK has quoted this case as a precedent.
The BBC reported that several people suing Lloyds TSB, Barclays and HSBC have contacted the broadcaster about Judge Besford's decision. Their cases are due to be heard on July 4.
His order states that he plans to strike out their claims as they disclose 'no reasonable prospect of success in the light of the recent decision' at Birmingham county court.
In that decision Kevin Berwick lost a claim for £2,545 against Lloyds TSB. It was the first time that a judge had examined the legal issues involved.
Consumer Action Group spokesman Marc Gander said: 'Kevin Berwick lost in his case in Birmingham because he didn't supply enough evidence. This judge in Hull seems to be striking out the claims before he has even seen the detailed evidence of each claimant.'
Judge Cooke in Birmingham took the view that the bank's charges were legitimate fees for a package of services and not excessive penalty charges. Country Court judgments do not set a legal precedent but Judge Besford appears to have decided to follow suit.
Barry Hunter, the Hull court's manager, said: 'It is entirely up to each judge to decide for himself if the Birmingham judgement is an interpretation of the law he agrees with.'
A recent claimant in Hull, Nicole Haslam, told the BBC: 'I have recently obtained £5,000 in charges from HSBC and my husband is in the process of taking action to recover around £3,000.' However he has now been told that his case may now be struck out next month.
The claimants in Hull have seven days in which to object. If their objections are unsuccessful they can then appeal to the designated civil judge for the Humber area, Judge Thorn QC. "
This is Money
1 June 2007
A county court judge has threatened to strike out claims by 20 bank customers seeking the refund of overdraft charges, citing the recent case in Birmingham when a customer lost his claim against Lloyds TSB.
District Judge Ian Besford, sitting in Hull, said the claimants were unlikely to succeed because of the Birmingham case. It is the first time a judge in the UK has quoted this case as a precedent.
The BBC reported that several people suing Lloyds TSB, Barclays and HSBC have contacted the broadcaster about Judge Besford's decision. Their cases are due to be heard on July 4.
His order states that he plans to strike out their claims as they disclose 'no reasonable prospect of success in the light of the recent decision' at Birmingham county court.
In that decision Kevin Berwick lost a claim for £2,545 against Lloyds TSB. It was the first time that a judge had examined the legal issues involved.
Consumer Action Group spokesman Marc Gander said: 'Kevin Berwick lost in his case in Birmingham because he didn't supply enough evidence. This judge in Hull seems to be striking out the claims before he has even seen the detailed evidence of each claimant.'
Judge Cooke in Birmingham took the view that the bank's charges were legitimate fees for a package of services and not excessive penalty charges. Country Court judgments do not set a legal precedent but Judge Besford appears to have decided to follow suit.
Barry Hunter, the Hull court's manager, said: 'It is entirely up to each judge to decide for himself if the Birmingham judgement is an interpretation of the law he agrees with.'
A recent claimant in Hull, Nicole Haslam, told the BBC: 'I have recently obtained £5,000 in charges from HSBC and my husband is in the process of taking action to recover around £3,000.' However he has now been told that his case may now be struck out next month.
The claimants in Hull have seven days in which to object. If their objections are unsuccessful they can then appeal to the designated civil judge for the Humber area, Judge Thorn QC. "
0
Comments
-
Please read martin's message here.
They are working on it. Please keep calm.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=467818If you've have not made a mistake, you've made nothing0 -
thankyou for such a quick response..keep up the good work guys!:T0
-
Interestingly, if you read down on this article from the BBC, Rhyl county court judge is thinking the opposite...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/6692559.stm0 -
Martin got a mention on the BBC1 'Look North' news (E Yorks/N Lincs region) at around 6.35pm this evening...........with a brief explanation of the 4th July court session.;)
The reporter said that Martin Lewis is trying to help those affected.10 Dec 2007 - Led Zeppelin - I was there. :j [/COLOR]:cool2: I wear my 50 (gold/red/white) blood donations pin badge with pride. [/SIZE][/COLOR]Give blood, save a life. [/B]0 -
I have just watching Look North (East Yorks and Lincs) on BBC1 and they want anyone who is claiming Bank charges at Hull to contact them a.s.a.p. I am really sorry is this is not allowed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/looknorthhull/ and click on contact us.
Telephone 01482 323232 for BBC Look North
Sorry I am useless with links, and you can watch the full episode if you wish and right at the end of the programme is when they mention the above.0 -
-
lindilou39 wrote: »
Be worth listening in, but I expect he'll say exactly what's in the article, i.e this needs to be sorted out. Which is exactly what most reclaimers have been saying for a long time.0 -
I,d still like to know his comments though! I know another senior Judge has had his views, specially where LLoydsTsb are concerned, but it would still be nice to hear what another senior Judge has had to say, in fact, rather than a suggested oppinion of what he might have said.
Lin0 -
When is a law not a law ? Either there is a law saying XYZ or there is not a law. In a high court, you will often hear a judge remark that whilst the offence is serious he is only empowered to give a certain sentence. IE: For such an offence the law says that you must go to prison for X years. Our limited understanding of the law lays trust in the system. The judge knows the law and he is implementing it.
Why then are County Court judges applying the same English laws allowed to use an interpretation of the law
THE HULL CASE"It is a judicial decision," explained Barry Hunter - Kingston-upon-Hull court's manager, said of the latest order.
"It is entirely up to each judge to decide for himself if the Birmingham judgement is an interpretation of the law he agrees with," he said.
Would a High Court judge say ... well the law says you will go to prison for 5 years but "I'm in a good mood today so I'll give you 60 days community service" OF COURSE NOT
Why then are County Court judges given the freedom to use their own interpretation of the law. This makes a complete Mockery of the law.
The judge in Hull for whatever reason made a wrong decision because he never heard all 20 cases. He never bothered to listen to 20 people and just took a decision based on his fellow judge in Birmingham. This is not in the public interest and shows contempt by the legal system towards the general public.
ARE WE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE WHIM OF A JUDGE OR ARE WE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW AS IT STANDS TODAY ?
Just as banks carefully review comments on this site, one must assume that the OFT, the DTI, the OMB and many other interested parties are doing the same. Nobody can ignore this site.
The simple message is clear ...... the Banks are charging amounts of money that is illegal under UK law. If a County Court judge cannot understand this very simple law, we have a severe problem in this country.
Interpretation of the law is NOT an option.
Regarding the illegal charges ... why not ask your bank manager if they had £35 stolen from their wallet/purse, what would they do ????
The police I suspect.
I applaud Martin for his forthcoming actions together with his legal eyes who are prepared to help. This is not the end, this is just the start of millions of normal people V the few banks and WE WILL WIN.
Do not let your bank harass you over the Hull case. Again there is no precedence just as the Birmingham case. Both judges NEVER allowed the full story to be heard and that is a major flaw in our legal system.
It's not going to be long before these banks are ordered by a higher court to provide full information on these charges. Hang on in, the firework party is soon to explode.The Winner Takes it All0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.4K Spending & Discounts
- 243.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 256.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards