new argument??? anyone confirm what i have heard

jju5t

Hey guys,

Has noone yet chanllenged and had their money back from the banks since the end of the test case??

I heard from a friend who works at Halifax in the claims department and have been told this week alone halifax has paid out over £50,000 to people challenging the charges on their accounts.

This tells me there are people who have already rechallenged the banks and won already.

Is noone going to share this info on how they got their moeny back ???

how far off is Martin with the new QC written letter template??

jju5t

dunstonh

I heard from a friend who works at Halifax in the claims department and have been told this week alone halifax has paid out over £50,000 to people challenging the charges on their accounts.

Those in financial hardship are still able to put claims in.

This tells me there are people who have already rechallenged the banks and won already.

Or they are the ones that qualified under financial hardship.

orc_2

As dunstonh said, it is probably just hardship claims which may still be getting paid.

We have not heard of other claims being settled. Those claims were submitted under old criteria. New particulars of claim are being work on at present, using a different argument.

Those claims, it is likely, will be based on Consumer Credit law, and will be much more linked to the individual circumstances of each claimant.

If we had information to share, please rest assured that it would be shared with every claim web site and every claimant. We would not hold it back.

Its a case of work in progress and very little information can be given out. This is partly because it is not all available and partly not to give information to the banks, who will have solicitors watching the arguments being developed.

Note however, that all the claim sites are working closely for the greater good. However, nothing can be promised, its far too early for that.

Premier_2

... or perhaps goodwill gestures for people who made the odd error in the financial handling.

Perhaps ask your friend for more details?
You'd have thought if people were successfully challenging charges despite the decisions of the Supreme Court & the OFT, they'd be all over this and other forums declaring their success.
What's more Martin won't need his QC anymore if the banks are willing srttling claims.

But the fact is, many posts on here are from claimants receiving letters saying following the court decision, there is no legal basis for the claim and, given no appeal to the decision, the matter will be considered closed in a few weeks.

jju5t

i have stated before i will take the banks to court regardless of winning or loosing just to cost them more than my charges are worth in mounting a legal defence against me.

and again after the case i will complain to the OFT jsut to cost them another £500 when all is said and done.

I will never be detured by anyone,



Premier why do you post so often and be so negative in most of your posts. thanks you your opinion is always welcomed by me but the sinercism you employ is unhealthy at best.

As for martin i would like to nominate him to be forever known on this forum as SAINT MARTIN. some may agree some disagree but he has already helped more people with his advice than most of us will manage compbined.

orc_2

I don't have a firm basis for saying this, but its based on knowledge of the subject since the early days.

With the banks having paid out so much in the past, without defence, they knew they were on a sticky wicket.

We may see a return to those days, once the new arguments are developed. At least, it will be interesting to see if the banks are prepared to argue their corner in court.

Please don't bank on this though. Its an entirely personal hope, perhaps a wish, and other seasoned campaigners will, for perfectly valid reasons, not agree with me.

esmerellda

To continue is a case you think you will lose just to cost the bank money is foolhardy, as it could be deemed vexatious, even in small claims and you can have costs awarded against you.

Secondly, the complaint would be to the FOS (financial ombudsman service) not the OFT - and it would have to be before court action.

Premier_2

jju5t wrote: »

...
Premier why do you post so often and be so negative in most of your posts. thanks you your opinion is always welcomed by me but the sinercism you employ is unhealthy at best...

I am sorry that you often find all posts negative. This is certainly not my intention.

I simply offer my best advice to the questions posed. I accept that this may not be the answers people would like to hear, but I prefer to be honest than deliberately mislead them.
The bottom line is that the Supreme Court found in favour of the banks in the recent case, the OFT have given up trying to challenge the matter further because even they accept there is little chance of success, and much of Martin's articles also say don't plan for getting anything back.

Good for you if you wish to challenge the banks in court - that is your absolute right. You obviously need to come up with a good legal claim first to prevent the matter just being struck out and you losing your filing fee, and even if you do, expect the matter to possibly go all the way back up to the Supreme Court as the banks appeal any judgement against them. They've won there before and are likely to take the matter there again - hope you have as deep a pocket as the banks have (even if they need to rely on government bailouts now & again;))

Individuals can still pursue claims against their banks but to do so will be costly and if the OFT lawyers can't see a way forward it would take a brave person to try. The barrister, Daniel Barnett, believes this is now the end of the road for the outstanding claims.
"Individuals cannot take on the big banks. Unless someone has very deep pockets it is unrealistic to expect them to be able to run what would be a very complex legal argument all the way to the Supreme Court", he told Sky News

http://blogs.news.sky.com/cityblog/Post:d011c198-48f7-4a86-9666-9d7e3f3aa03c

See also the reasons Martin himself had hoped the the OFT would come off the stool for round 2.

..."What is crucial is the Office of Fair Trading takes up the cudgel. Can Gill from Glasgow, Pete from Peterborough or Nikkie from Notting Hill really be expected to match up to the big bucks top end barristers in the courts? This is complex law and we need the big institutions of state to champion financial justice.

...

"Yet if the OFT refuses to live up to its name and fight for fairness, we and other consumer groups are looking to publish a fresh round of template letters, and possibly organising a group action.

"Yet that could need reclaimers to fund it as the cost could run into millions, and can those already struggling due to these nasty charges really be expected to pay?...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/12/oft-urged-to-continue-bank-charges-fight?purge

dunstonh

Secondly, the complaint would be to the FOS (financial ombudsman service) not the OFT - and it would have to be before court action.

And the FOS will filter the complaint out and reject it before the £500 charge gets applied. You just end up wasting time and giving ammunition to those that say that the FOS should charge the consumer for making a complaint (which is refunded only on success).

orc_2

Hi Dunsonh

I think esm' meant that any claim to FOS would be under the new particulars, which have not yet been developed and published.

Although, I can't speak for her.

It will be interesting to see how FOS reacts to those.

Alpine_Star

What Esmerellda is saying is that the FOS will not consider a claim (or any complaint) if it has already been taken to court.

And Dunston is wrong to assume that ''the FOS will filter the complaint out and reject it''.