Suspend Appeals but Keep on Charging?

ben500

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

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.

If you think he has posted anything factually incorrect then by all means challenge it, to request his posts be deleted and declaring him a menace smacks a little of the schoolyard don't you think, try a more grown up approach and debate the issues you dispute.

Nathan_Spleen

Of course they should be deleted. What he is posting is dangerous to the people who come here for advice.

Are you saying he got facts right?

ben500

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Of course they should be deleted. What he is posting is dangerous to the people who come here for advice.

Are you saying he got facts right?

No, I'm saying that if he has them wrong you should demonstrate so, not carry on like some spoilt child. I think the term "dangerous" a tad emotive too.

Nathan_Spleen

I've already told him to read the judgment. I can't read it for him.

If you think ''dangerous'' is emotive then fine. We're entitled to our opinions.

ben500

Your'e the one doing all the protesting yet have put nothing forward to substantiate it.

dunstonh

I dont see anything wrong with what I have posted and it reflects the opinions of many. The banks threatening the end of free banking is seen by many to be an attempt to scaremonger.

Plus, the court case has yet to determine if the charges are unlawful. Please can you provide facts that show that the charges have been deemed unlawful.

Nathan_Spleen

I haven't said the charges have been deemed unlawful.

Please can you provide evidence that:

a) ''The court case is not going to put an end to fees. It is just going to stop penalty charges (if the banks lose). The packaging of service charges gets round that.''

b) ''Thats because they are classified as penalty charges.''

dunstonh

Please can you provide evidence that:

a) ''The court case IS going to put an end to fees. It is just going to stop penalty charges (if the banks lose). The packaging of service charges gets round that.''

If you take the past investigations and review of the OFT, say the credit card charges, it ruled that £12 was a fairer penalty charge. So, it could carry that through to the banks. Meaning a reduction in charges in that area but not a removal.

b) ''Thats because they are classified as penalty charges.''

Its because penalties on consumer agreements have to reflect the costs. Admin and service charges do not. However, admin and service charges could be considered under the UTCCR but it doesnt mean they are unfair.

Nathan_Spleen

''The court case is not going to put an end to fees'' Dunstonh 10.47

''The court case IS going to put an end to fees'' Dunstonh 2.08pm


My head is in my hands.

I'm gibbing out and leaving you to argue with yourself.

dunstonh

I'm gibbing out and leaving you to argue with yourself.

Probably a good idea as you cant read.