Bank Charges case upheld

pdel61 wrote: »

Indeed, I think it is about time that some sort of decission is made about the lawfulness or otherwise of the charges that banks/credit card companies etc. make. Then we might be able to get into a position where all parties know where they stand.

Abuse withdrawn maybe you should have stated this in the first place mate.
Please accept my apology.

chipbeck wrote: »

We'll have to agree to differ then mate. I think abuse is warranted.

Chipbeck this isn't aimed at you but quoted the wrong post when i replied sorry


Any chance you could stay on topic on this one!! This is a very important milestone as far as the banks are concerned and may lead to other people not being able to claim and change everything we are working. So I for one don't want to be ploughing through a load of personally abuse to look for important info that someone else may be able to post. So if you haven't got anything intelligent to post on the subject, my opinion is "please don't bother"

Chrissie

I'm amazed how people seem to be thinking that there will be no impact. True, there is no direct judicial precedent although it will be persuasive in order to ensure consistency but it is the first (of many?) example of Claimants LOSING at trial - and thats without the bank even turning up.

It will not be appealed as the costs will be disproportionate. It would costs thousands to take to appeal and there will be cost implications if the appeal is lost.

I certainly could not recommend issuing proceedings until things settle down a little.

"True, there is no direct judicial precedent although it will be persuasive in order to ensure consistency"

I understand your point, but can you not then reason that the statements issued by a judge yesterday - after awarding in the claiments favour - that he considers this a waste of time and if it carries on he'll award compensation too (for want of the correct word!) will also carry weight amongst over judges. This is one out of thousands, and I'd have to say the other 1000's that have been awarded in the claiments favour must carry so much more weight than this one decision IMO.

I don't understand the ruling. The judge is saying there was a contract and so the charges are legal. The law however says charges are legal as long as they reflect the true cost. Without evidence being submitted of the true cost, all I see is one man's opinion which is going against the letter of the law.
With it being a small court and everything resting on one man, it seems a shaky case once it goes to appeal.

I don't understand where the notion of the judge that the charges are for a service, when they are penalties?

I'm amazed how people seem to be thinking that there will be no impact. True, there is no direct judicial precedent although it will be persuasive in order to ensure consistency but it is the first (of many?) example of Claimants LOSING at trial - and thats without the bank even turning up.

On the other hand, did you not here about another judge's statements yesterday? If banks continue not to turn up to court he will award against them plus costs for wasting the court's time. This is one judge who happily awards in claimant's favour.

If banks do start to defend cases, it will probably only mean a couple of weeks where 90% of cases are won by claimants and 10% by banks, which would cause banks to return to not defending.
And through all of this, banks will still refuse to reveal how much charges actually cost them

BTW, I see more libellous talk from Merton and Hislop every Friday then I have seen in this thread ;-)