Heard from your bank/court about your claim being restarted? Please let us know.

LozBingley

Thrown out due to my claim being based upon charge value

Solicitors argument under "UTCCRs" s.5 and s.6(2)b
"You can't challenge the price of a product (or service)"

But the Judge did say that the door is still open as regarding the Principle of the Charge !
Do I start again?

Premier_2

LozBingley wrote: »

...Should I mention that I am now in a position of hardship, being unemployed for almost 2 years?

All help, advice, and links gratefully received

Thanks

LozBingley wrote: »

Thrown out due to my claim being based upon charge value

Solicitors argument under "UTCCRs" s.5 and s.6(2)b
"You can't challenge the price of a product (or service)"

But the Judge did say that the door is still open as regarding the Principle of the Charge !
Do I start again?

If you are in the financial hardship you claim to be in, I would urge you put any money you do have towards putting food on the table or keeping a roof over your head rather than wasting it on yet more court fees.

Some of the best legal brains in the country have failed to come up with any arguement to succesfully prove in court there is any legal basis to recover this type of bank charges, so I doubt you'll do any better.

Was this all to do with the charges in your signature? i.e.

On Hold :mad:
A+L = £722 charges (target = 147%)
BARCLAYS = £1,405 charges (target = 128%)
BARCLAYS = £175 charges (target = 140%)
ABBEY = £3,220 charges (target = 148%)

LozBingley

Thanks Premier,

£60 a week don't go far!

As for restarting the process, the Judge did say that there was a legal argument left open by the supreme court, based on the "principle" of the charges rather than the value and the solicitor for Barclays had to agreed that there was a legal argument still available to me, just that I had not used it in this case, where all court fees had been paid up front in 2007 when I was on a bit more than £60 a week.

So going forward, I was thinking of just hanging this argument over their heads rather than applying it, much like we all did back before Aug'07, when the banks usually paid out in full prior to a court hearing.

And yes - my signature strip is all about Bank and Credit Card Charges and I even appeared on Martin's 2nd show of "It Pays To Watch" back in January 2008

So I have had prior success in this with Intelligent Finance (Halifax) paying out without even having to pay court fees.

The other success's were all Store and Credit Cards.

Premier_2

There's an awlful long way between a judge saying he hasn't ruled on one particular aspect of law and a plaintiff proving that there is any basis to an arguement using that, let alone then obtaining judgement in a particular claim using that basis.

For someone who claims to be in financial hardship and only having £60 per week to live on, can you really afford to spend the following? If you can, I suspect you are not in the financial hardship you claim to be in

A&L (Santander) - £60
Barclays - £70
Barclays - £25
Abbey - £100

Total = £255 (over 4 weeks money!) although you may be able to reduce that to £240 if it's possible to combine the two Barclays claims

Don't expect the banks to simply roll over if you raise a new summons. In fact, expect the exact opposite. A lot has happened over the last 2-3 years, and credit card charges are a totally different argument to bank charges. (so don't use any previous success as a barameter to future success) Banks believe they have the law on their side following the decision of the Supreme Court in 2009 and defend most strenuously any legally based claim for a refund of bank charges.
You should plan to envisage a long legal battle, with many appeals if the banks don't like the decision, appeals all the way back to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Who's going to bank roll that for you? As you say £60 a week doesn't go far.

Even if it doesn't go that far, almost certainly expect a bank to defend a claim and it would go to a hearing. That will involve you in more court costs to get there.
From the posts of others, it also appears the banks want (and get granted) as a minimum a request to take the claim out of small claims/fast track.
The argument for this is so that a legal precident can be set by the judgement (but see my earlier comment about what will likely happen if the banks don't like the judgement). The downside for this is should you lose, you will not only have to pay court costs but the defendants costs too... and their barristers do not come cheap. They probably charge what you the receive in a week about the same as for the time for drinking their cup of coffee before entering the court room! :eek:

GuidoT

Friday, 18 March 2011

Unfair bank charges update from Govan Law Centre

The Scottish Legal Aid Board have granted full civil legal aid certificates in the cases of Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc and Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc. This will enable Govan Law Centre to argue that the overdraft charges applied to our clients' current accounts were unfair in relation to s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as amended, and separately, regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (on grounds excluding price in relation to the UTCCR as per the decision of the UK Supreme Court in OFT v. Abbey National plc and others).
Unfair bank charges update from Govan Law Centre

LozBingley

Premier wrote: »

For someone who claims to be in financial hardship and only having £60 per week to live on, can you really afford to spend the following? If you can, I suspect you are not in the financial hardship you claim to be in

A&L (Santander) - £60
Barclays - £70
Barclays - £25
Abbey - £100

Sorry Premier, I don't understand what you are trying imply here!

But back in 2007, when I was on considerably more than the £60 a week I receive on JSA today and for the past 2 years, I paid out the following court fees...

A+L £80
Barclays £120 + £30
Abbey £120

These case's are still in the court system and were put on hold back in August 2007.

I also paid out on some of my other claims but the returns far outweighed the expense of taking them to court - as you will see from the first 5 lines of my signature.

Prior to August 2007, I had received over £2,625 in returned Bank and Credit Card Charges plus £689 which more than covered all my court fees at that time.

Premier_2

These are the costs of bringing about new claims.

I thought you said:

LozBingley wrote: »

Thrown out due to ...

...no legal basis.

If I have misunderstood, and the claims are still in court, I think it costs £75 a pop to change your PoCs (so £300 in total)

Even more expensive than bringing new claims.

LozBingley

Thrown out on the basis of this argument

BUT

the JUDGE did say that there was a legal argument to be made about the Principle of the charge !!!

The Banks say you can't argue of the value of the charge as the market will let it decide if their charges are fair - although I still feel there is a long and full discussion needed on this argument with the banks as you can't pick and choose what services you are charged for or the amount they charge you - and they hold you over a barrel on these charges - they have your money and can charge what they like and you can't argue without incurring more charges! If any other company slapped a charge on an "account" you'd have the right to argue the charge and at last resort refuse to pay it - you can't do that with a bank as they already have your money.

You never open a bank account with the view to going over drawn or falling in to the Debt Spiral.

As for a new claim - I can still threaten court and argue with their solicitors without inuring further expense - and then there is always the Financial Ombudsman to call upon too.

Sorry Premier but you sound like you have never fallen into debt or you'd understand that this is a very emotive subject - when a bank charges you 50% of your monthly salary in bank charges - you struggle to get back on your feet and like I said - they have your money already and you can't spread these costs over time - there is no repayment plan to fall back on - the bank take your money and don't care about food on your table - to them EVERYONE is a potential Profit Centre and they milk you for all they can - and you can't complain to the child on the end of the phone that has no idea what the real world is like and that possible the customer might be right !

jon_boy75

Let's not forget that in the first instance 2 courts actually upheld the arguments about challenging unfair bank charges. It was extremely bizarre that this was then reversed in the Supreme Court. Don't give up, that's what the banks want you to do. There are new arguments you can use

proeleche

GuidoT wrote: »

Friday, 18 March 2011

Unfair bank charges update from Govan Law Centre

The Scottish Legal Aid Board have granted full civil legal aid certificates in the cases of Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc and Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc. This will enable Govan Law Centre to argue that the overdraft charges applied to our clients' current accounts were unfair in relation to s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as amended, and separately, regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (on grounds excluding price in relation to the UTCCR as per the decision of the UK Supreme Court in OFT v. Abbey National plc and others).
Unfair bank charges update from Govan Law Centre

This is good news! Well done to the GLC for sticking with this issue!