Bank Charges, Decision?????

Pound

I wonder if the financial position of banks will be a factor in the final decision.

DotingDad

Given the collapse of the banks through their own greed and incompetence and the fact that Gordon Brown's government is effectively now financing a substantial part of the banking sector does anybody seriously think the Court of Appeal will support the consumer in this case?

The banks will win and leave to take it to the House of Lords will be refused in my opinion.

At least I got my daughter some of her charges back before the door banged firmly shut.

Thank you Martin for that.

Nathan_Spleen

DotingDad wrote: »

Given the collapse of the banks through their own greed and incompetence and the fact that Gordon Brown's government is effectively now financing a substantial part of the banking sector does anybody seriously think the Court of Appeal will support the consumer in this case?.

The Court of Appeal won't be ''supporting'' anybody. They'll make their judgment based on the law and not some vacuous conspiricy theory.

McKneff

.

Pound wrote: »

I wonder if the financial position of banks will be a factor in the final decision.

I've been thinking that for a while

the trouble is if the banks lose, who gets the banks out of trouble if they lose and have to pay out billions'

The tax payers,?

DotingDad

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

The Court of Appeal won't be ''supporting'' anybody. They'll make their judgment based on the law and not some vacuous conspiricy theory.

Not a "vacuuous conspiracy theory" at all.

Legal precedent is being created here and there will be political pressures to make the "right" decision.

It is naive to think otherwise in my opinion.

Nathan_Spleen

DotingDad wrote: »

Not a "vacuuous conspiracy theory" at all.

Legal precedent is being created here and there will be political pressures to make the "right" decision.

It is naive to think otherwise in my opinion.

Your opinion is devoid of any factual basis whatsover. Please don't call me naive when your theory is not evidence based. Indeed you have yet to provide even a motive. It's easy to make uninformed sweeping statements but rather more difficult to back them up.

DotingDad

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Your opinion is devoid of any factual basis whatsover. Please don't call me naive when your theory is not evidence based. Indeed you have yet to provide even a motive. It's easy to make uninformed sweeping statements but rather more difficult to back them up.

OK Nathan consider this please.

The OFT is a Government Body and back in July 2007 when this "test case" was embarked upon the banks were making huge profits and "fat cat bankers" being rewarded with obscenely large bonuses. At the same time, for the most part, the poorest people in society were paying arguably unfair and excessive bank charges which at best was morally questionable and there was also an arguable case in Contract Law although no precedent existed for this exact situation.

The OFT therefore went to the High Court and won. The Banks unsurprisingly decided to appeal and we waited.

In the meantime, during the wait, the Banking Industry imploded and the Government itself has suddenly found itself funding a substantial part of the banking sector. The dynamics have therefore changed. If the OFT win the case it will not be "fat cat bankers" refunding charges in many cases but effectively the taxpayer. In the present economic circumstances that is politically sensitive and I therefore surmise that subtle pressure will be brought to bear on the Court of Appeal to find in favour of the banks given the changed circumstances.

The question then is whether or not the OFT, also a Government Body remember, will be allowed or if allowed will wish to take it to the House of Lords and then the European Court of Justice.

Yes I am propounding a theory but a highly feasible one in my opinion.

I will be delighted if I am wrong and you are right!

Nathan_Spleen

Well thanks for being honest in at least admitting it's just a theory, which is based on the notion that the court will conspire with the government to ignore the legal merits of the case and swing it in favour of the banks.

In the absence of any factual evidence whatsover in support the theory becomes vacuous, giving us a no-nonsense, grade A, all singing & dancing vacuous conspiricy theory.

McKneff

quote - If the OFT win the case it will not be "fat cat bankers" refunding charges in many cases but effectively the taxpayer. quote

Which is exactly what i said in post 15#

natweststaffmember

anniehanlon wrote: »

.
I've been thinking that for a while

the trouble is if the banks lose, who gets the banks out of trouble if they lose and have to pay out billions'

The tax payers,?

Who says it billions left to pay in the system NOW. Remember, there were a lot of payouts from 2006-2007 and there have been payouts on the grounds of hardship since then. And banks are paying out on PPI reclaiming which is not a small amount. Where is this money coming from? Let's try and stick with what is actually happening in the courts. If the banks have to payout, then they have to payout and if they cannot payout then they are either nationalised or they go bust. They levied the charges when times have been good and when times have been bad. If they have to payout then the timing of that payout is irrelevant to their economic status.