Bank charges test case latest: bank given leave to appeal

marcharrison1979

thanks for that, the links are very informative. True, i don't know anything about the house of lords, but i am very skeptical about how after the decision by the high court and court of appeal can be cast aside so easily, doesn't the house of lords respect their abilities to make a correct decision?
The banks were told not to bother appealing the decision because it would be a waste of time, yet they did and even more sickening is the fact that they have been accepted with open arms. I just hope this means that the house of lords has already followed the case and are confident of making a decision quickly. Thanks again.

Nathan_Spleen

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

The banks were told not to bother appealing the decision because it would be a waste of time.

This is a myth enthusiastically peddled by the Consumer Action Group that made up a 'quote' by the Master of the Rolls that the banks' had ''no chance'' in appealing to the House of Lords. It was exacerbated by a BBC report which falsely and erroneously claimed ''The banks will ask the House of Lords for permission to appeal further, against the appeal judges' advice''.

The judge didn't and wouldn't advise the banks to do anything and certainly wouldn't comment on the propects of them appealing to the House of Lords.

natweststaffmember

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

thanks for that, the links are very informative. True, i don't know anything about the house of lords, but i am very skeptical about how after the decision by the high court and court of appeal can be cast aside so easily, doesn't the house of lords respect their abilities to make a correct decision?
The banks were told not to bother appealing the decision because it would be a waste of time, yet they did and even more sickening is the fact that they have been accepted with open arms. I just hope this means that the house of lords has already followed the case and are confident of making a decision quickly. Thanks again.

The bit in bold is fiction.
"3. The Banks’ appeal to the Court of Appeal has now failed and we have now refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords. The Banks are of course entitled to apply to the House of Lords for permission to appeal"
That was what was read out in court. Where did he say it would be a waste of time? And "no chance"?

marcharrison1979

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

This is a myth enthusiastically peddled by the Consumer Action Group that made up a 'quote' by the Master of the Rolls that the banks' had ''no chance'' in appealing to the House of Lords. It was exacerbated by a BBC report which falsely and erroneously claimed ''The banks will ask the House of Lords for permission to appeal further, against the appeal judges' advice''.

The judge didn't and wouldn't advise the banks to do anything and certainly wouldn't comment on the propects of them appealing to the House of Lords.

Ah i see! i did read that on the BBC website, didn't realise it was a lie. What are these journalists playing at?

Nathan_Spleen

I wouldn't call it a lie.The BBC journalist simply made a mistake in his usually accurate reporting. The same cannot be said of CAG.

Head-Out-Of-Sand

This is so frustrating. Why have they been granted permission to appeal again????

In my work, much of what I do is affected by decisions taken by the law lords, and while I am loathe to criticise what is clearly a collective of excellent legal minds, it's decisions like this which give credence to the comments of some colleagues of mine referring to the law lords as "ermine-clad t*ss*rs completely out of touch with reality."

While yes, it's good that this was quick, how quick will the appeal be? And in the meantime, banks can continue to screw money out of people in hardship, which is particularly an issue with so many people losing their jobs at the moment.

Grrrrr.

Milarky

Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels!!!!

...This is the 'system' using every last gasp to ward off, what, exactly? 'Fairness' because the fairness (or otherwise) of the charges is all the OFT will be asked to 'investigate' (Oh, yeah! Like the OFT hasn't already had all the facts in and has decided banks charges will have to be cut..)

Why can't the OFT just admit this test case idea - for legal certainty - was just a massive screw up on its part? It has already bought the banks two years and still drags on.

I'd like the OFT just to say today exactly what it wants to set bank charges at - and will set - if the law ever 'allows' it to do so - just so those smug banks can start doing the sums on how lucre they will have to shell out? After all, making contingencies is responsible to shareholders etc...

Nathan_Spleen

Milarky wrote: »

Why can't the OFT just admit this test case idea - for legal certainty - was just a massive screw up on its part? It has already bought the banks two years and still drags on.

It might have bought the banks a couple of years but what you fail to account for is that it will buy the consumer the rest of time.

rickytanner26

Can someone please explain how the banks have been given a waiver not to process charge reclaims until its legality is determined, yet they can still apply those same charges to accounts that are not known to be legal/fair? I love this country!

machomanugget

rickytanner26 wrote: »

Can someone please explain how the banks have been given a waiver not to process charge reclaims until its legality is determined, yet they can still apply those same charges to accounts that are not known to be legal/fair? I love this country!

because the banks run the country and will do what they like .. as is taking place now ...