Massive victory for Bank Charge reclaiming News Article Discussion

MrLeeLee

Tozer wrote: »

Can you name one example of when a sitting of 3 (or possibly 5) House of Lords Judges (or Appeal Court Judges for that matter) have ever been influenced by issues other than the evidence and legal principles?

No i can't, and i wasn't trying to make the point that i thought they could be influenced or 'bribed'

I'm just trying not to get myself too overexcited! This does seem like a huge huge step forward for everyone (a lot of that down to MSE) but like everyone else in the back of my mind is a tiny little 'this is too good to be true!'

Fingers crossed though!

marcharrison1979

Sorry to hear about your situation MrLeeLee, i am currently trying to claim because of my financial difficulties too.
Tozer seems very protective of the House of Lords. I don't know much about the British legal system but i am sick of reading about it's flaws everyday in the news. Such as this morning when a woman has been caught claiming over 70k in fraudulent benefits, only to be given 100 years to pay the debt off. This woman is in her 30's. !!!!!!?

justinjp

TBH... I think It will be in the interest of the UK economy for Mr Joe public to win...

Reimbursed of lost funds = Spending in the high street = A economy Boom = More Jobs. Well maybe...


All the best with the cases though. And big thaks to Martin and the Team!:money:

Tozer

There is a difference between cautious optimism and accusing the UK's top judiciary who only got to where they are on the basis of being extremely good lawyers.

Its funny isn't it? EVERY court case could go one way or the other. There is never a draw. So there has to be a winner and a loser. To suggest Courts of corruption each time a decision goes against you (and expecially when it has gone in your favour but may be subject to appeal) is really rather naive.

For what it is worth, the HL is likely to agree with the CA and High Court. The CA Judges are not on work experience and would have analysed this point of law with an extremely fine toothed comb.

Tozer

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your situation MrLeeLee, i am currently trying to claim because of my financial difficulties too.
Tozer seems very protective of the House of Lords. I don't know much about the British legal system but i am sick of reading about it's flaws everyday in the news. Such as this morning when a woman has been caught claiming over 70k in fraudulent benefits, only to be given 100 years to pay the debt off. This woman is in her 30's. !!!!!!?

I'm not protective at all. But have you ever read a HL decision? Perhaps I have a touch more experience than you.

They are incredibly well reasoned.

And your point regarding benefit fraud? What has that got to do with civil law?

arigney

All criminals should be treated the same way under law, this includes peers to the relm. Look at Lord who got off almost scott free for breaking the law by texsting whilst driving.

I think that the courts should take 15-20% of income direct from source to pay off any fines etc. Giving that woman 100 years is a joke to the system and prooves that crime does pay in the UK at the moment.

I believe that bank charges are criminal too!

Tozer

arigney wrote: »

All criminals should be treated the same way under law, this includes peers to the relm. Look at Lord who got off almost scott free for breaking the law by texsting whilst driving.

I think that the courts should take 15-20% of income direct from source to pay off any fines etc. Giving that woman 100 years is a joke to the system and prooves that crime does pay in the UK at the moment.

Can I suggest you keep this on-topic?

And as for the Peer who "got off almost scott free" I believe he was actually given a custodial sentence.....

arigney

Tozer wrote: »

Absolute bull.

You are accusing the Judges in the UK's highest courts of being corrupt. They are not.

If the HL gives leave to appeal (which I think it may well do given the issue is of such high public importance) then the Law Lords will decide it entirely on principles of English law which apply.

I think you are wrong, there is no way that the old boys club will not kick into action if the banks go down this path.

lizbob

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

Very good point Lizbob. I'm just being skeptical, there's a lot of money at stake here and it could come from the pockets of some very influential people. This must surely go down as being the biggest compensation case in British history, and with the banks crying that their hard done by and the government seemingly doing everything it can to help them, i am worried.

the government aren't actually "helping" the banks, they are simply trying to prevent what happened with the iclandic bank happening to our banks, namely consumers losing their money without any chance of getting it back. many people are looking at this too simplistically. the banks are not a mate who's broke so your giving them money, it's someone who has lost the money he was looking after for a load of children, yes it's bad he lost it but shouldn't we at least ensure the children still get their money? if in addition to this he'd also stolen some money from those children then you would find proof it had been stolen and regardless of his problems you would expect him to give it back!

crude analogy but you get the point.

marcharrison1979

You obviously much more experienced than me.
I was just making a statement that nothing really surprises me when it comes to decisions made in court, these things are very complicated and covered in red tape. I can understand why this case has taken so long. It's just a shame it has come to this. Banks have become enemy number one in many peoples eyes, i understand that they have to make a profit, but their actions have alienated many customers in my eyes and that is what is really conna cost them in the long term.