We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

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

Options
1131415161719»

Comments

  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    jon_boy75 wrote: »
    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

    Lets not forget that any earlier decision by lower courts is irrelevent; the decision that is important is the one from the top court in our land.

    Nothing bizarre in the fact a higher court reverses a decion of a lower court. It shows the process of appeal is there and can work.

    What are the new arguments, and more importantly do they work? No one has succeeded in court using the arguments in the MSE guide to reclaiming bank charges.
    But if you think you have the majic formula, perhaps you should contact the GLC :cool:
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    LozBingley wrote: »
    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 !

    Sorry, I do not follow your logic that based on anything I have posted in this thread you come to the conclusion I "have never fallen into debt" :huh:

    But as you say, it is a very empotive subject, and I fear perhaps you have let your emotions get the better of you in this instance.

    Your claims have been thrown out of court. They are therefore no longer in the court system. That, together with the costs of you doing so should you be so inclined, is all that I essentially posted.
    Given the financial hardship you claim to be in, I do not follow the logic of following such route, one which has so far failed to prove positive despite the efforts of some of the best legal brains in the land.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • jon_boy75
    jon_boy75 Posts: 364 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Premier wrote: »
    Lets not forget that any earlier decision by lower courts is irrelevent; the decision that is important is the one from the top court in our land.

    Nothing bizarre in the fact a higher court reverses a decion of a lower court. It shows the process of appeal is there and can work.

    What are the new arguments, and more importantly do they work? No one has succeeded in court using the arguments in the MSE guide to reclaiming bank charges.
    But if you think you have the majic formula, perhaps you should contact the GLC :cool:

    Premier, the previous case and arguments (and even the decision) are entirely relevant to someone wishing to fight on. Only by understanding why the previous courts came to the decisions they did can people refocus their arguments.

    Many experts believed the decision to be a surprise, even the banks themselves and their lawyers. That's why it was bizarre. It was not the expected outcome.

    I'm not aware of anyone actually getting into a court room with the new arguments yet. I will be doing it myself soon. There is, of course, no magic formula, but just because the case fell at that hurdle, does not mean people shouldn't continue to pursue this.

    Do you think the current charges are unfair or excessive?

    There are two points of law on which the new arguments can be based, neither of which were covered in the original test case.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    edited 25 March 2011 at 1:34AM
    Options
    jon_boy75 wrote: »
    Premier, the previous case and arguments (and even the decision) are entirely relevant to someone wishing to fight on. Only by understanding why the previous courts came to the decisions they did can people refocus their arguments.

    Many experts believed the decision to be a surprise, even the banks themselves and their lawyers. That's why it was bizarre. It was not the expected outcome.

    I'm not aware of anyone actually getting into a court room with the new arguments yet. I will be doing it myself soon. There is, of course, no magic formula, but just because the case fell at that hurdle, does not mean people shouldn't continue to pursue this.

    Do you think the current charges are unfair or excessive?

    There are two points of law on which the new arguments can be based, neither of which were covered in the original test case.

    It really doesn't matter what the previous arguments were ... other than to not bother trying again. The decision has been made by the Supreme Court and there is no further chance to appeal. It was settled. Those who attempt to use those previous arguments will have their claims thrown out becuase they have no legal basis, hence the revised article by MSE that has been published over 12 months now.

    I don't know anyone making it to court based on new arguments either. Just goes to show they are not very good. It's so easy to raise a summons and with all the excitement last year when Martin issued that article, I'm sure many tried. But as you say, I know of no one having succeeded yet.

    As to whether the charges are unfair or excessive, well that is a matter for the courts to decide should anyone be interested in pursuing this course of action. I'm not sure they are though. It's been over 12 months since the Supreme Court ruling and no one has won on any other arguments, despite the best efforts of some of the best legal experts in the land ... such as the MSE article you kindly linked to.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Alpine_Star
    Alpine_Star Posts: 1,356 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    Premier wrote: »


    As to whether the charges are unfair or excessive .......I'm not sure they are though.

    Well if you're not sure they're excessive, the Director of Retail of Royal Bank of Scotland certainly is:

    “Banks have enormous fixed costs that need to be recovered – but it is not fair to charge somebody hugely more than the value they are getting. Gradually it got so completely out of whack''.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e72b64c0-4438-11e0-931d-00144feab49a.html#axzz1FOKcOozH
  • LozBingley
    LozBingley Posts: 580 Forumite
    Options
    Premier wrote: »
    Sorry, I do not follow your logic that based on anything I have posted in this thread you come to the conclusion I "have never fallen into debt" :huh:

    But as you say, it is a very empotive subject, and I fear perhaps you have let your emotions get the better of you in this instance.

    Your claims have been thrown out of court. They are therefore no longer in the court system. That, together with the costs of you doing so should you be so inclined, is all that I essentially posted.
    Given the financial hardship you claim to be in, I do not follow the logic of following such route, one which has so far failed to prove positive despite the efforts of some of the best legal brains in the land.

    If you had been in debt you would understand !!!

    I started the legal process about 3 years ago, all costs paid up front and I was not in financial hardship back then. It is not just one case in the courts so I still have 3 live cases in court, only one has been cast out legally, so far, as each case is dealt individually by the courts (1 down 3 to go)

    It would appear to me that you have nothing good to say to anyone else in this forum and that you just post to put others down. I thought a forum was here to share our experiences to assist and help others in their fight against the Fat Cat Banking System that insist or robbing the poor to pay the rich.
    Got It & Spent It :dance:
    IKEA CARD = £120 charges = £175 received (146%)
    MARBLES = £450 charges = £370 received (82%)
    I.F. = £494 charges = £494 received (100%)
    CAPITAL ONE = £981 charges = £1,489.03 (152%)
    BARCLAYCARD = £580 charges = £786.12 (136%)
    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%)
  • befair
    befair Posts: 5 Forumite
    Options
    Had a claim in 2007, stayed on condition Halifax submitted a defence. Halifax submitted a defence admitting charges applied on breach and proprtionate to costs - one month after they submitted defence to OFT case saying no breach and fee was for service.

    Supreme Court said their judgement would apply to almost all historic terms - I think mine is one of those that it doesn't cover (all charges pre 2001 which means my account T&C were not in those 'historic terms' submitted in OFT case).

    So how can Halifax submit one thing to OFT case and say something else to county court. In my view, either:

    1. they said 2 different things because my charges are different - so penalty charge argument still holds: nothing to do with Supreme Court judgement OR

    2. They told truth in OFT case but lied to county court and previously to me (as always said they were charge for breach - including when I wrote to them making complaint) so their lie took me down a wrong course of action and as they never told me these were service fees, surely I can claim under misrepresentation and have the whole account rescinded and get all charges back plus court fees etc? At the very least, surely I should get court fees and money for time/post etc back as they set me down the wrong route for making a claim?

    What is wrong with this argument/logic?

    If I don't win a court claim on point 1, would I still be able to start a claim under 2?
  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 117,121 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    You can try it but no-one has one a case since the OFT case was won by the banks and lawyers and consumer groups have dug deep to find ways but not succeeded. If you think you can win when no-one else has then its your money to lose.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • leclerc
    leclerc Posts: 137 Forumite
    Options
    befair wrote: »
    Had a claim in 2007, stayed on condition Halifax submitted a defence. Halifax submitted a defence admitting charges applied on breach and proprtionate to costs - one month after they submitted defence to OFT case saying no breach and fee was for service.

    Supreme Court said their judgement would apply to almost all historic terms - I think mine is one of those that it doesn't cover (all charges pre 2001 which means my account T&C were not in those 'historic terms' submitted in OFT case).

    So how can Halifax submit one thing to OFT case and say something else to county court. In my view, either:

    1. they said 2 different things because my charges are different - so penalty charge argument still holds: nothing to do with Supreme Court judgement OR
    Penalty charges argument was knocked out in the first judgement in the case ie in 2008(if memory serves me right). The only terms that was said that might(and that is a huge might) was some terms by natwest relating to a term called "card misuse" but as Dunstonh has said above this post, no one has successfully argued the case.
    2. They told truth in OFT case but lied to county court and previously to me (as always said they were charge for breach - including when I wrote to them making complaint) so their lie took me down a wrong course of action and as they never told me these were service fees, surely I can claim under misrepresentation and have the whole account rescinded and get all charges back plus court fees etc? At the very least, surely I should get court fees and money for time/post etc back as they set me down the wrong route for making a claim?
    I do not think that you will get very far on argument 2 and you would have to be very conversant on that second point. If you are arguing that the bank said it was for administration but that they said it was for the cost of the account then I doubt you will be successful in this argument.
    What is wrong with this argument/logic?

    If I don't win a court claim on point 1, would I still be able to start a claim under 2?

    I think you are on dodgy ground and that the bank would probably get you to court and try to get court fees from you since the OFT test case is currently the case law to go by and I do not think your arguments are strong enough to win.
    There are cases still being battled in the courts on aspects of the OFT test case but as Dunstonh has said already, so far those battles have strengthened the lines that were perhaps weaker looking at the OFT test case judgement.

    Do not try and be a martyr cos that might be the worst decision you make and could ultimately lead to a costs order against you because it has happened before....
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 344.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 236.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 610.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.9K Life & Family
  • 249.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards