new claim idea

thenextmcfadden

just wondering what people thought about this as an idea for reclaiming charges, seeing as the muppets at the supreme court didn't have a clue what they were doing.

claim that as already £1 billion has been given out in refunds it is very unfair that the banks would choose to refund some charges, and not others. claim that as already x million people have got money back you want yours too, otherwise it is favouritism, and that is unfair.

dunstonh

just wondering what people thought about this as an idea for reclaiming charges, seeing as the muppets at the supreme court didn't have a clue what they were doing.

I'm not sure a judge will agree with your views of calling other judges muppets as a reason to get charges back. More likely you could end up in contempt of court.

claim that as already £1 billion has been given out in refunds it is very unfair that the banks would choose to refund some charges, and not others. claim that as already x million people have got money back you want yours too, otherwise it is favouritism, and that is unfair.

There is a world of difference between being forced to repay back charges as they were unlawful or willingly refunding charges.

A business person may give an individual a 10% discount on their price. Does that mean they have to give it to everyone? That is what you are arguing.

natweststaffmember

thenextmcfadden wrote: »

just wondering what people thought about this as an idea for reclaiming charges, seeing as the muppets at the supreme court didn't have a clue what they were doing.
I hope you have read the verdict before giving this opinion(cos I would agree with what they said for the reasons they gave).
claim that as already £1 billion has been given out in refunds it is very unfair that the banks would choose to refund some charges, and not others. claim that as already x million people have got money back you want yours too, otherwise it is favouritism, and that is unfair.

The argument is a non starter as banks gave money without liability and as a gesture of goodwill. They declined many more so unfortunately the answer is no.

davidgmmafan

What tha guy said!

The banks paid goodwill gesture without any admission of liability. You have to ask why they refunded at least half a billion (maybe more) if there was nothing wrong with the charges. Could've just been feeling generous, but IMO they knew they'd pushed the envelope too far and got caught with thier fingers in the till.

I do hope measurs on hardship are taken seriously, but this shouldn't be a get out of jail card for all an sundry.