Suspend Appeals but Keep on Charging?

ben500

The recession will make a difference to the outcome of the courts, if you think otherwise you are misleading yourself.

Smasher

ben500 wrote: »

The recession will make a difference to the outcome of the courts, if you think otherwise you are misleading yourself.

I'm not going to argue otherwise, you might turn out to be right. If you are, then I hope the effect goes in favour of the consumer, but how do you make that statement with such authority? Do you know something we don't or is it purely a guess?

Nathan_Spleen

ben500 wrote: »

The recession will make a difference to the outcome of the courts, if you think otherwise you are misleading yourself.

Ahh yes the recession. I see what you mean now. Yes I'm sure the government will be very keen to block any attempt to have £25b injected directly into the pockets of consumers. I mean that's the last thing you need in a recession isn't it?

Get a grip!

ben500

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Ahh yes the recession. I see what you mean now. Yes I'm sure the government will be very keen to block any attempt to have £25b injected directly into the pockets of consumers. I mean that's the last thing you need in a recession isn't it?

Get a grip!

Bit rich from someone who posts shlte like this

Could a Board Guide remove these posts please.

This poster is a menace.

The reality is Nathan that people will have differing opinions to yours, this is something you will have to come to terms with I'm afraid. Given the choice between giving the money back to the punters or keeping it in the bank coffers {Which they essentially now own or at least in part} I suspect they will lean more towards the latter, and if they can perform that task within the law they almost certainly will.

jay3_2

Well said. Actually I hope the banks win anyway, and keep the money. I'd far rather they had it and didn't start charging me just to manage my current account (which is always in credit because I don't spend what I don't have).

ben500

jay3 wrote: »

Well said. Actually I hope the banks win anyway, and keep the money. I'd far rather they had it and didn't start charging me just to manage my current account (which is always in credit because I don't spend what I don't have).

Your'e not alone there. It's not hard to see why some people have difficulty in managing their finances when they can't even hold a coherrent debate in an adult manner, a common problem on here.


Why did you feel the need to misquote me Nathan?

Bit rich from someone who posts shlte like this
Quote:
Could a Board Guide remove these posts please.

This poster is a menace.
The reality is Nathan that people will have differing opinions to yours, this is something you will have to come to terms with I'm afraid. Given the choice between giving the money back to the punters or keeping it in the bank coffers {Which they essentially now own or at least in part} I suspect they will lean more towards the latter, and if they can perform that task within the law they almost certainly will.

Nathan_Spleen

Where did I misquote you? A clue would be helpful.

Nathan_Spleen

ben500 wrote: »

Your'e not alone there. It's not hard to see why some people have difficulty in managing their finances when they can't even hold a coherrent debate in an adult manner,

I assume you're implying I have difficulty in managing my finances. You'd be seriously mistaken.

natweststaffmember

ben500 wrote: »

The recession will make a difference to the outcome of the courts, if you think otherwise you are misleading yourself.

Ben, the above is a contradiction in terms. It is total and utter nonsense that a decision based on law is actually determined by how the economy is fairing. The likelyhood of this decision is another appeal. This is not the final final decision and will not stop litigation further to issues unresolved by the test case. I don't understand you viewpoint at all and it mirrors a lot of crap that has been on these forums beforehand about the OFT test case.