MSE News: Mortgage blow as building society hikes SVR

MarkyMarkD

sarahbennett wrote: »

Do you think that may be because they got their fingers burnt on bank charges or another reason?

Mainly the former, but in two ways:

- they proved with bank charges that they can pontificate all they like, but they aren't necessarily right; and
- they aren't likely to go to town on a case with far less public interest (or, more accurately, far less people affected, as I don't particularly buy that they were acting in the public interest on the bank charges case) than the bank charges case, after losing that one.

MarkyMarkD

howardtheduck wrote: »

Your dislike of legal jargon does not detract from the fact that said legal jargon will be instrumental in deciding the legality or otherwise of Skipton's actions.

As for Uberrimae Fidei (utmost good faith), you're kinda missing the point. A contract involving Uberrimae Fidei e.g. an insurance contract, is merely an example of a situation when silence will amount to a misrepresentation. There are others e.g. fiduciary relationships.

(IANYL)

I hadn't noticed that I was in any sort of fiduciary or contractual relationship with you, or anyone else on this board.

I think you should just accept that you were making a stupid point when you accused me of misrepresentation when NOT referring to the OFT's responsibility for BTL mortgages.

howardtheduck

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I hadn't noticed that I was in any sort of fiduciary or contractual relationship with you, or anyone else on this board.

I think you should just accept that you were making a stupid point when you accused me of misrepresentation when NOT referring to the OFT's responsibility for BTL mortgages.

Your omission in neglecting to mention the role of the OFT in respect of BTL mortgages, if not deliberate, suggests a lack of competence on your part.

I ask you to provide me with the reasoned legal basis for why the courts would not follow the Thames Valley Power ruling and the best you can come up with is that you'll "quite happily keep pointing out what the FSA/FOS are likely to have done or to do in the future. You may equally happily keep pointing out how you believe the courts will behave. The two are not mutually exclusive."

That's the BEST you can come up with????

As pathetic responses go, your response is cringeworthy.

Now go and do some legal research, then come back and provide the statutory, caselaw or common law basis for any assertions you make as to whether or not Skipton's actions were intra vires or ultra vires?

Stop obfuscating and changing the subject. If you're going to pontificate, please provide cogent, reasoned legal justification as to why the Thames Valley Power case should not be followed by the court as a precedent?

If you are unable (or unwilling) to do that then at least do the honourable thing and go hang your head in shame as you've just had your a*se handed to you on a plate.

Dan_1976

howardtheduck wrote: »

Your omission in neglecting to mention the role of the OFT in respect of BTL mortgages, if not deliberate, suggests a lack of competence on your part.

I ask you to provide me with the reasoned legal basis for why the courts would not follow the Thames Valley Power ruling and the best you can come up with is that you'll "quite happily keep pointing out what the FSA/FOS are likely to have done or to do in the future. You may equally happily keep pointing out how you believe the courts will behave. The two are not mutually exclusive."

That's the BEST you can come up with????

As pathetic responses go, your response is cringeworthy.

Now go and do some legal research, then come back and provide the statutory, caselaw or common law basis for any assertions you make as to whether or not Skipton's actions were intra vires or ultra vires?

Stop obfuscating and changing the subject. If you're going to pontificate, please provide cogent, reasoned legal justification as to why the Thames Valley Power case should not be followed by the court as a precedent?

If you are unable (or unwilling) to do that then at least do the honourable thing and go hang your head in shame as you've just had your a*se handed to you on a plate.

In your opinion! At least he talks in english and does not sound like a pompous know it all!

howardtheduck

Dan_1976 wrote: »

In your opinion! At least he talks in english and does not sound like a pompous know it all!

"You wanna hurt me? Go right ahead if it makes you feel any better. I'm an easy target. Yeah, you're right, I talk too much. I also listen too much. I could be a cold-hearted cynic like you... but I don't like to hurt people's feelings. Well, you think what you want about me; I'm not changing. I like... I like me. My wife likes me. My customers like me. 'Cause I'm the real article. What you see is what you get."

MarkyMarkD

howardtheduck wrote: »

I ask you to provide me with the reasoned legal basis for why the courts would not follow the Thames Valley Power ruling

no you didn't, or not in any post to which I was responding

and the best you can come up with is that you'll "quite happily keep pointing out what the FSA/FOS are likely to have done or to do in the future. You may equally happily keep pointing out how you believe the courts will behave. The two are not mutually exclusive."

er, yes, because you were telling me and others to shut up!

That's the BEST you can come up with????

As pathetic responses go, your response is cringeworthy.

Now go and do some legal research, then come back and provide the statutory, caselaw or common law basis for any assertions you make as to whether or not Skipton's actions were intra vires or ultra vires?

Stop obfuscating and changing the subject. If you're going to pontificate, please provide cogent, reasoned legal justification as to why the Thames Valley Power case should not be followed by the court as a precedent?

If you are unable (or unwilling) to do that then at least do the honourable thing and go hang your head in shame as you've just had your a*se handed to you on a plate.

Drivel. I've never, since you quoted it, said that there is any reason why the TVP case should not be followed! I've said that you're quite entitled to believe that the court will follow that precedent. I don't need to go and do lots of legal research when I've got you to do it for me! :P

As for changing the subject, look at yourself. If I respond to one post by quoting it, that's all I'm responding to, not hundreds of other posts. And if I respond to one post without quoting it, I'm responding to the whole of the immediately preceding post, not to hundreds of earlier ones either.

It would help if you didn't post 10 consecutive posts where one would do, if you want people to make it clearer what they are responding to.

howardtheduck

My posts provide Skipton borrowers with a point by point breakdown of their legal rights in respect of the SVR rise.

The difference between my posts and yours is that my posts are SUBSTANTIATED with reference to statute AND caselaw.

What have your posts provided other than a load of UNSUBSTANTIATED hot air?

All I'm asking for is for you to supply EVIDENCE to back up your assertions. Despite repeated requests from both myself and SarahBennett for this evidence, you have so far failed to supply the requested evidence.

This in itself speaks volumes about the veracity of your statements.

Ultimately, I'm going to be provided right by the courts and you're going to be proved wrong.

THAT'S how confident I am!

VIGILANT22

Quack/quack

Confident! You are making a complete a*** of yourself

howardtheduck

Pipe down Vigilant22, Daddy's talking. You're about as useful as a chocolate fireguard when it comes to supplying any meaningful information on here.

Take my advice and save your one braincell for a rainy day rather than expend it on this forum.

When have either you or MarkyMarkD even ONCE supplied even the tiniest morsel of evidence to back up any of the countless assertions you have made on this thread?

Why do you constantly provide opinions that you appear unwilling (or more accurately, are unable) to support with evidence?

KINDLY PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL FOR YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT SKIPTON BUILDING SOCIETY HAS ACTED LAWFULLY IN RAISING ITS STANDARD VARIABLE RATE.

IT IS A SIMPLE, REASONABLE REQUEST.

JUST IN CASE YOU DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND, ALLOW ME TO REITERATE.

PLEASE PROVIDE THE ABOVE REQUESTED EVIDENCE!!!!

UNLIKE BOTH OF YOU, I HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE FOR ALL OF MY ASSERTIONS IN THIS THREAD IN RESPECT OF THE RATE RISE.

VIGILANT22

howardtheduck;Pipe down Vigilant22, Daddy's talking. You're about as useful as a chocolate fireguard when it comes to supplying any meaningful information on here.

Take my advice and save your one braincell for a rainy day rather than expend it on this forum.


The top is off the gin bottle again & this is what Sarah places such importance on............:rotfl: