Why Reclaim Bank Charges

Cleany

hicskis wrote: »

The problem with your argument lies right here - the bank's would be the ones that caused it in the first place by lending the money in the first place for the profit that they want to make.

But i would agree that people need to manage themselves better - the problem is they don't.

agreed, so why make it easier by lowering penalties?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Cleany, you will never see someone else's argument so can you just leave this thread alone cos to be honest, you are boring everyone off this thread, and unfortunately, other posters come along when what they should do is shut up, leave this thread to go and hopefully you will go. Hicskis, just leave Cleany alone cos they are here just to argue about nothing.
Cleany, appreciate your view but I'm bored now so can you just give your final speech on how fair bank charges are, how stupid campaigners are and how much we are all wearing rose tinted glasses and we can move on and actually help people?

you're joking right? i started this thread to discuss the topic. now you want me to go because you're "bored"?

unbelievable!

anyway the thread died for a couple of weeks and came back to life, you were second to post after this interestingly. perhaps if you leave this thread alone people who want to talk can, or it will die again.

Alpine_Star

hicskis wrote: »

On a point of Law. The OFT could have taken it to Europe and had the ruling overturned again but they didn't.

You are in error. The OFT had no right of appeal to the SC judgment. Only the Supreme Court themselves could have referred the case to ECJ and only on their own volition:

From Supreme Court: ''......With regards to your second question, it is courts which make references to the ECJ, the parties do not appeal to the ECJ.''

From OFT: ''The OFT did not pursue the case to further appeals and any other jurisdiction because the Supreme Court decided that although the interpretation of the European directive which the UTCCRs implemented was a question of European law it was not necessary to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice (Paras 49, 91, 115, 120 of Supreme Court Judgment).''

Alpine_Star

Cleany wrote: »

You are appealing to a sense of social justice, while ignoring that fact that these charges are a result of a breach of agreement in the first place

This is factually incorrect.

Justice Smith specifically ruled that the charges were not the result of a breach of agreement (and therefore could not be capable of being penalties) but were the result of ''an event'' for which the agreement provided a service for.

.

Cleany

fair enough

davidgmmafan

Alpine_Star wrote: »

You are in error. The OFT had no right of appeal to the SC judgment. Only the Supreme Court themselves could have referred the case to ECJ and only on their own volition:

From Supreme Court: ''......With regards to your second question, it is courts which make references to the ECJ, the parties do not appeal to the ECJ.''

From OFT: ''The OFT did not pursue the case to further appeals and any other jurisdiction because the Supreme Court decided that although the interpretation of the European directive which the UTCCRs implemented was a question of European law it was not necessary to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice (Paras 49, 91, 115, 120 of Supreme Court Judgment).''

I'm not one for consipracy theoris but it was awfully convenient how the banks were denied leave to appeal to the house of lords (as it was at the time) but did so anyway, and the OFT was denied leave to appeal to the european court and said oh well fair enough.

Putting it another way if a ruling worth billions of £££'s is not worth taking to the European court what is?

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I'm not one for consipracy theoris but it was awfully convenient how the banks were denied leave to appeal to the house of lords (as it was at the time) but did so anyway, and the OFT was denied leave to appeal to the european court and said oh well fair enough.
David on another forum I referred people here, ie to the working of the HoL
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yO4Q22k5j2IJ:www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofLBpJudicial.pdf+supreme+court+leave+to+appeal+UK&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgyuTb9Zzuww0xgEvgt3L-1wv4cx9pCigTwbQooAuTAmSGUlJDinLUsdC5jSsgLqt46s0FA2NNATp0lzzg7ktpPKbtAD2J4fPD6PPkyjc9e7LBn-mFQbpj85ZM6OYXj9HAG8HK4&sig=AHIEtbRtyh-QwoZVizUOYEvLqHE7GphwtA
Read it and you will see that there were grounds for appeal and the appeal was heard. The Right of Appeal exists to every claimant and is considered prior to it being allowed to continue. NO CONSPIRACY
Putting it another way if a ruling worth billions of £££'s is not worth taking to the European court what is?

The ruling is irrelevant to the actual appeal and the grounds of appeal. Whether it was about billions or whether it was about £1, the Law Lords were very specific why they could not refer it to the ECJ. You need to re read the judgement again and again and you will see why they did not refer it to the ECJ any further.

natweststaffmember

Actually let's cut to the chase:
Paragraph 49 Supreme Court Judgment. Lord Walker

"49. If (as I understand to be the case) the Court is unanimous that the appeal should be
allowed, then in my opinion we should treat the point as acte clair, and decide against
making a reference. It may seem paradoxical for a court of last resort to conclude that a
point is clear when it is differing from the carefully-considered judgments of the very
experienced judges who have ruled on it in lower courts. But sometimes a court of last
resort does conclude, without any disrespect, that the lower courts were clearly wrong,
and in my respectful opinion this is such a case."

Paragraph 91

Lord Phillipps

"91. I have not found this an easy case and I do not find the resolution of the narrow
issue before the court to be acte clair. I agree, however, that it would not be appropriate
to refer the issue to the European Court under Article 234. I do not believe any challenge to the fairness of the Relevant Terms has been made on the basis that they cause the
overall package of remuneration paid by those in debit to be excessive having regard to
the package of services received in exchange. In these circumstances the basis on which I
have answered the narrow issue would seem to render that issue academic. It may be that,
if and when the OFT challenges the fairness of the Relevant Terms, issues will be raised
that ought to be referred to Luxembourg. That stage has not yet been reached"

Lord Mance
Paragraph 115

115. Taking the view that I do of the meaning of both the Directive and the
Regulations, the question arises whether it is nevertheless incumbent on us to refer the
interpretation of the Directive to the Court of Justice. Under CILFIT v Ministry of Health
(Case 283/81; [1982] ECR 3415) and in the absence of any prior Court of Justice
authority, this depends upon (a) whether the question is relevant to the outcome of the
case and (b) “whether the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave
no scope for reasonable doubt”. In the latter connection we have to ask ourselves whether
the answer we consider correct would be equally obvious to the courts of other Member
States and to the Court of Justice itself; and in this regard we have to bear in mind the fact
that Community legislation is drafted in different languages which may convey different
meanings to different readers, that the Community concepts it uses (here “price and
remuneration”) are autonomous concepts and that every provision of Community law
must be placed in the context of Community law as a whole. In the present case, we are
concerned with a relatively simple sentence, using simple and basic concepts, and the scope for different readings of different language texts seems very limited. The complex
and unpredictable value judgment involved in the Court of Appeal’s approach was based
in large measure upon a clear error, in treating the existence or absence of negotiation as
significant in a context dealing by definition only with non-negotiated terms. The
suggested test of what is “not . . . ancillary to the main bargain” involves a restatement of
the language of the Directive and Regulations; that language treats the “price or
remuneration” as axiomatically part of the core bargain and so immune from scrutiny for
reasonableness. Bearing in mind the general Community aim of legal certainty, the
likelihood of the Court of Justice (or any other Member State’s courts) accepting the
Court of Appeal’s approach to the interpretation of article 4(2) seems to me remote
indeed. I would regard the position as acte clair and not as requiring a reference"

And finally paragraph 120
Lord Neuberger

120. I also agree with Lord Phillips, whose reasons are, I think essentially the same as
those of Lord Walker and Lord Mance. On the one issue on which there may be some
disagreement, namely whether the resolution of the dispute as to the interpretation of
article 4(2) is acte clair, I share Lord Mance’s scepticism as to whether the Court of
Justice would adopt the meaning accepted by the Court of Appeal. However, like Lord
Phillips, I consider that it is possible that the Court of Justice would adopt such an
interpretation, and therefore, if the resolution of that issue were essential to the
determination of this appeal, I would, very reluctantly, have concluded that a reference
was required. However, as he says, it is unnecessary for the issue to be resolved for the
purpose of this appeal – as explained by Lord Walker in para 50, and by Lord Mance in
paras 116 and 117.

davidgmmafan

To be honest I lost interest when it became apparent that the banks are off the hook. I still maintain that they have shafted their customer using blatant mis-representation as to the nature of the charges and shoul not be let off scot free.

If the law does not support this view then in my opinion the law is an !!!.

Chrysalis

its evident the oft, fsa and banks were all in collusion. I worked this out the moment they decided to suspend all individual claims, that was a outrageous decision in itself. At that point I knew what the result of the oft case would be.

hicskis

Yes i would also agree - however - if the end result is a better regulated finance industry in Europe and the UK, and power is taken away from the bankers as a consequence of this global financial crisis - and taxes are now imposed on the banks such as the Robin Hood Tax then overall this is better for us.

http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/

We may have been ripped off by the banks but their own greed, i personally believe, was a spectacular home goal.

The taxes the public purse will now receive will far outweigh what they stole. We might not see that money back as individuals - but as a whole.