Charges legal Ruling

cjellwood

Hello,

Can someone please tell me if i am correct or incorrect about the following...

The court ruling regarding bank charges and the OFT was a lawfull ruling in the High Court and a legal ruling in the Supreme Court. It seems there is a difference between legal and lawfull. The High Court ruling still stands that the bank charges are unlawfull but the Supreme Court simply made a seperate legal ruling. The Supreme Court ruling did not quash the High Court ruling that charges are unlawfull, they simply ruled that they are legal.

This then means that bank charges can still be challenged on the grounds they are unlawfull. Being a test case that made the rulings, a local court can still grant a refund in the grounds the charges are unlawfull; as long as you state that it is the lawfullness that is being challenged. The court must pay attention to the High Court ruling but again because it was a test case then they do not have to rule in your favour.

Only if I am wrong here then there is not really any bad news about the supreme court ruling, it is kind of irrelevant. Everyone involved in the case knew that the supreme court would rule in the banks favour from the begining, it is basic contract law to charge a penalty for breach of contract.

The interesting thing here is that the High Court ruling should apply generally to other penalties such as parking fines etc also

Chris

cjellwood

forgot to select notify

natweststaffmember

The Supreme Court Judgement overturns the earlier lower court judgements. The first case dismissed penalty charges issue under common law early in the case. That judgement was not appealed by the OFT.

zsazsa613

I recently returned from abroad and started up an account with Bank of Scotland Halifax. Attention was never drawn to the fact that if my savings account is debited via my debit card when there are no funds in place, that I would be fined 35 pounds sterling for each transaction. I had had problems connecting to the internet and had not been able to monitor my account but assumed that if there was no money in place any transaction would be rejected at point of sale. However, that was not the case. For transactions amounting to 30 pounds sterling, I was charged 5 x 35 pounds sterling over the space of two days. I was horrified when I found out. I contacted the Bank of Scotland Helpline and then and ONLY then was told that the bank had an agreement in place with most retailers that transactions UNDER a certain amount would be honoured by the bank whether or not the client had available funds. I consider this to be plain and straighforward THEFT of my money which I had entrusted to the Bank of Scotland. As they were unwilling to refund all charges, I immediately closed down my account and went to the HSBC bank. I realise this causes problems with Direct Debits etc, but it is the only way we can get back at these banks. Taking your money elsewhere, even if the other bank has the same unnacceptable charging system, would definitely make an impression.

cjellwood

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The Supreme Court Judgement overturns the earlier lower court judgements. The first case dismissed penalty charges issue under common law early in the case. That judgement was not appealed by the OFT.

yup, legislation superceeds common law so the end judgement was that the OFT were not allowed to rule on the charges. But here we go again with regards the meaning of words :mad:

We might be onto something important here if we clarify exactly the difference now between judgement and ruling .

The end judgement was that the charges are legal.
The end ruling by each court still stands i.e the charges are unlawfull.

Only the judgement was overturned by the Supreme Court, not the ruling

The OFT maintain the right to judge fairness by lawfullness because the High Court ruling still stands :rotfl:

Or I could be completely wrong here so sorry for wasting anyones time if incorrect

Chris

pie81

Whether the charges are "legal" and whether the charges are "lawful" is the same thing, just using different words. The Supreme Court judgment specifically overturned the previous judgments (which is the same thing as "rulings"). So no-one can rely on the previous judgments/rulings any more.

you're pinning too much on the specific words used.

cjellwood

the meaning of words is ever so important in law. Not realising that is why we are in such a mess today.

Here is the legal dictionary term for judgement and ruling....

Judgement
A decision by a court or other tribunal that resolves a controversy and determines the rights and obligations of the parties.
A judgment is the final part of a court case. A valid judgment resolves all the contested issues and terminates the lawsuit, since it is regarded as the court's official pronouncement of the law on the action that was pending before it. It states who wins the case and what remedies the winner is awarded.

Ruling
court decision on a case or any legal question.

So a ruling can be made and then a judgement made on that ruling (or not in this case)

On this information i have now sent out some letters to test the theory

Chris

natweststaffmember

The Supreme Court decision was a judgement based on your musings above.

cjellwood

Here is something interesting I discovered while on the word meaning mission.

A man is commonly addressed to as 'Mr - Mister' or in a womans case 'Mrs - Misses'. A mans original title is actually 'Master' , not Mister. It becomes Mister when his title is held in trust. Check out Cestui Que 1666 act to find out about the trust.

In a womans case she is originally 'Masteress', then becoming Mistress.

So whats in a word? The more I look into it, the more important it seems to be.

Chris

natweststaffmember

cjellwood wrote: »

Here is something interesting I discovered while on the word meaning mission.

A man is commonly addressed to as 'Mr - Mister' or in a womans case 'Mrs - Misses'. A mans original title is actually 'Master' , not Mister. It becomes Mister when his title is held in trust. Check out Cestui Que 1666 act to find out about the trust.

In a womans case she is originally 'Masteress', then becoming Mistress.

So whats in a word? The more I look into it, the more important it seems to be.

Chris

With respect, the Supreme Court Decision was a judgement on a narrow piece of law based on UTCCR 1999 section 6.2(b). The penal argument was lost but not appealed, the banks tried to get a declaration under regulation 5(1) but failed.
Either way the Supreme Court decision knocked out claims under the penal argument and UTCCR 1999 section 6.2(b) which is about price. As I said certain areas of litigation are still OPEN but not price considerations or penalty charges argument.

cjellwood

blimey, the definition of consumer is described as 'natural person' in the UTCCR.

The rabbit hole goes deeper lol

Chris