Hey Martin

esmerellda

hicskis wrote: »

This is indeed one way - the other is through the courts i.e getting the Law changed and to do that you have to prove that the Law as written (to a particular case) is not working.

Lobbying is good but we cannot forget that the banks do it to, have far greater resources at their disposal, and are heavily incentivised to win (profit).

If you took a claim to court you would have to get turned down at county court (because they follow the law) take it to appeal at high court, then supreme, then referred to ECJ I would think and the Supreme might refuse that saying government needs to step in and look at the legislation anyway.

Lobbying would be a cost effective simpler way and although it wouldnt help your specific case as wouldnt be retrospective would make the change for the better in the future.

esmerellda

natweststaffmember wrote: »

But any new law will not act retrospectively so it will not help those who have already been charged. Furthermore, there would be a transitional period of any new law which is the same as any country in the world.

As I understand it hicksis on this thread isnt talking about retrospective but future to improve things for the next generation rather than get recompense for past actions - I think his other thread was on a recompense type claim.

noh

hicskis wrote: »

But this is precisely my point - lenders are claiming there is no requirement - however you have a right to an accurate credit file which means that all the data contained within that file whether reported or not must be accurate and relevant for the purpose under the Data Protection Act 1998 (as amended), and you have a right to an accurate credit file under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 (as amended) - as you have the right to challenge inaccuracies in that credit file.

This must be tested in the courts to show the banks that their position is wrong. This will create the Case Law required to get people's monies back becuase when lender's are made to report true borrowings it will open up a black-hole of irresponsible lending practices and will prove that the manner that most of these Unfair Charges have been applied - was and is Unfair.

This will be a huge kick in the teeth for banks as they have colluded by use of the British Bankers Association (The Lending Code - formally The Banking Code) - which is anti-competitive by nature and which i'm sure will be in breach of the Competion Act.

This creates redress which means the banks ought to be fined.

There clearly is no requirement under current legislation for all data to be reported.
You appear to be the only person who thinks there is.

hicskis

By noh:
There clearly is no requirement under current legislation for all data to be reported. You appear to be the only person who thinks there is.

I know there is no legislation that says "lenders must report this and that to the CRAs" - but there is other protection - The Data Protection Act - hint in the word protection - that allows us to have accurate credit files so we are protected.

1. A change in the Law applies from the date it is enacted;
2. A successfull claim in the courts would be retrospective, and at the same time would apply prospectively.

For example sake:

1. If the government introduced a Law that stated what information must be reported to the CRAs - then lenders must comply from the day the Law comes into effect i.e today
2. If a person sued the banks because they had been unfairly lent to, and succeedded in getting the Unfair charges back, and their credit files repaired - then precedent would be set. That means that lenders would not get away with it in the future (Case Law), and all others that were in a similar position would be able to also get their Unfair charges back and their credit files repaired as a consequence of this Case Law - (Prospectively and retrospectively)

I am seeking a change in the Law (point 1), through the courts (point 2) i.e the Law would automatically have to be changed if a person was successful in the courts.

Simple mathematics.

I would have thought a victory could be achieved in the County Court (esmerellda) because:

By esmerellda:
If you took a claim to court you would have to get turned down at county court (because they follow the law) take it to appeal at high court, then supreme, then referred to ECJ I would think and the Supreme might refuse that saying government needs to step in and look at the legislation anyway.

Not so - i believe you would win at County Court, this would then be appealed by the banks, they would loose, and then the banks would have to appeal all the way to the House of Lords, and then on to Europe - where they might loose. That's just an example of how else it might work out.

Another way is this:

a) Victory in the County Court;
b) Banks Appeal;
c) As precedent is set templates appear on web sites such as this advising people how to claim back;
d) People start claiming back in there tens of thousands through the Ombudsman Service and the courts;
e) Goverment concedes as the volumne of complaints and claims is clogging up the courts and government agencies. New laws are enacted that means the banks would then have no choice but to concede - as they were wrong.
g) People would be given a time period to claim monies back, there would be a cut off point time wise, banks would pay out, and /or be fined by government.
h) We would all find better things to do as we would no longer have anything to talk about on this forum.

hicskis

See my other thread - "Taking the Fight Back"

natweststaffmember

Hold your horse there, hicskis, you haven't yet got a template letter nor a Particulars of claim with case law. Do not be the martyr that does things in spite of the advice here not to.
If your argument is sound then it will win not based on suppositions.
Template letter please and POC please.

hicskis

It's your advice that says not to. If you understood my threads then....

hicskis

Today's news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/7245125/Credit-card-holders-face-crippling-interest-rates.html

and this....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7248357/Barclays-profits-near-double-to-hit-11.6bn.html

It's disgraceful.

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

It's your advice that says not to. If you understood my threads then....

You can either provide templates or you can't. If you can't then it is very easy to say words on a forum but yet without actions they are useless(in the sense that you won't put your money where your mouth is).

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

Today's news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/7245125/Credit-card-holders-face-crippling-interest-rates.html

and this....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7248357/Barclays-profits-near-double-to-hit-11.6bn.html

It's disgraceful.

It's disgraceful that Bank shares will rise and even us the taxpayers might make a profit. It's disgraceful, utterly disgraceful. We should be making a loss on our investment cos that is in our interests. Have I got that logic wrong?