Suspend Appeals but Keep on Charging?

thmb2000

Hi guys,

Just a quick thought that is bugging me.

Isn't it against the very concept of natural justice and the rule of law to suspend all appeals while continuing to issue punishments? As seems to be the situation at the moment.

Tom.

mar.sorb

I say they should save their TAX PAYER FUNDED BONUSES in an account, let it acumulate some interest (not much with the current rate) in readyness to pay everyone out when they loose the court case.

I can see it coming...
banks go bust in new reccesion due to massive payout to unfair pentalty customers.
tax payers bail them out AGAIN and bank staff get new bonuses

thmb2000

The problem is it is far from inevitable they will lose the test case.

Especially with the current fragility of the banks, there is every chance that the Judges decision may be influenced by policy, and thus find in the banks favour.

dunstonh

Isn't it against the very concept of natural justice and the rule of law to suspend all appeals while continuing to issue punishments? As seems to be the situation at the moment.

Not really. Most of the banks have altered their charging structures to be what is considered compliant with rules. Its the old charging methods that are in question.

So, they end up losing the case but only having to refund charges up to point they introduced the revised charging structures.

thmb2000

dunstonh wrote: »

Not really. Most of the banks have altered their charging structures to be what is considered compliant with rules. Its the old charging methods that are in question.

So, they end up losing the case but only having to refund charges up to point they introduced the revised charging structures.

I'm curious as to what these new structures are?

I have just been charged £30 twice by Nationwide, and have been told that I will be charged, on the charges if I do not add funds to my account to cover them.

In what way are these charges any different to those of the past?

dunstonh

In what way are these charges any different to those of the past?

The ones that have changed have basically packaged them differently. Not so much a penalty, which is the main issue, but a service charge.

You didnt think that charges were going to stop did you? That isnt on the cards.

Nathan_Spleen

dunstonh wrote: »

Not really. Most of the banks have altered their charging structures to be what is considered compliant with rules. Its the old charging methods that are in question.

So, they end up losing the case but only having to refund charges up to point they introduced the revised charging structures.

You're quite wrong.

Why do you think the waiver and stays apply to current charging stuctures ''pending the outcome of the test case''?

Why do you think the BBA are preaching the ''end of free banking'' if they lose the case?

dunstonh

Why do you think the waiver and stays apply to current charging stuctures ''pending the outcome of the test case''?

Because the courts have yet to deterimine if the original charging structures are unlawful. So, splitting between old and new in court would be futile.

Why do you think the BBA are preaching the ''end of free banking'' if they lose the case?

scaremongering.

Nathan_Spleen

dunstonh wrote: »

Because the courts have yet to deterimine if the original charging structures are unlawful. So, splitting between old and new in court would be futile..

Could a Board Guide remove these posts please.

This poster is a menace.

ben500

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Could a Board Guide remove these posts please.

This poster is a menace.

Why? Because he or she doesn't agree with you? What an infantile post.

Nathan_Spleen

It's not a question of ''agreeing'' but a matter of fact.

If you think it's a good idea for this poster to put people off claiming and scarmongering with factually incorrect advice is the mature approach, then I misunderstood the purpose of this forum.