Taking The Fight Back

dunstonh

ThunderBird wrote: »

Yeah - the bank's got us into this mess - they should get us out. Why do us taxpayers have to foot the bill. Who cares if the shareholders loose there money - teach em a lesson wouldnt it -

The banks were also to thank for the massive flows of tax into the treasury during the 10 years of boom. Without them much of the capital expenditure that the Govt undertook would not have taken place. The Govt has to take a lot of the blame as well for a) not reducing debt when times were good b) for over regulating the low risk end of financial services whilst under regulating the high risk end. (did you know IFAs pay more in levies to the FSA than the banks?)

As for taxpayers footing the bill, the banks are now just one of many industries that have received taxpayers money. Yet you dont see people vilifying all the industries that went before. Perhaps because the others were mostly blue collar industries and much closer to to general public than the banks are.

Nearly everyone in this country is a shareholder in a bank. Either directly or indirectly in their pensions. You should care about things like that.

hicskis

By natweststaffmember:

This is not about thinking outside the box but about getting people their money back which is not about bank error but unfairness of the way the charges were levied and not about level or cost of the charges.

I totally agree about the unfairness part and getting people the money back - that's why i'm thinking outside the box.

If it can be proven in a court that the banks screwed up then maybe we can get some money back (see my other thread - "Hey Martin" that's running parallel with this one).

I would like to point out that the boom was financed on cheap credit and low interest rates. Therefore the taxes that flowed into treasury coffers was inflated.

And I would agree that the Governemnt has responsibility. Take Gordon Brown for example who promised us as Chancellor that there would be no more "boom or bust". He is the highest financial authority in Governement and looked what happened on his watch.

A large proportion of the population are shareholders - they all demand higher and higher returns on their investments. Most of them however are just specualators (not long-time investors) looking for quick profits. Human Nature shows that greed outweighs caution.

Maybe it's time that these shareholders are reminded that :
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"Stock market investments are risky. They don't provide fixed returns and past performance doesn't guarantee future results. All securities investments entail the risk of great and sudden financial loss. Returns vary and you may have a gain or loss when you sell your securities." (learn to invest - by Greek Shares . com [/FONT]http://www.greekshares.com/disclaimer.php

natweststaffmember

I don't care about financial history per se with reference to shareholders. boom or bust or whatever other crap we are talking on.
I want legal arguments about the fairness of bank charges. Tell me your arguments cos MSE, PC, LB, CAG et al have had meetings with the OFT and they dropped their collective challenge and some banks are appealing for strike outs. TO bo honest with you, financial hardship cases and/or strike out defences are more important in the short term than anything else.

hicskis

short-termism

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

short-termism

with long terms consequences. Do you not get it?
If the banks are successful on strike outs with newer arguments then ALL avenues will be shut for reclaimers. I keep telling you Rome wasn't built in a day and you have to take small steps. We wouldn't even be talking about this at all if a judgement almost 2 years ago had not been made by Justice Smith. So that was a long time ago in terms of the bank charges campaign. If you fail to defeat strike outs then anyone not in current hardship have no chance of getting even 1p. Short termism it most definitely is but with long term consequences.

hicskis

I have been fighting the banks against unfair charges for alot longer than two years - over six to be precise and more likely ten.

I only see the situation getting worse in regards to Unfair charges - and that is why i am seeking a change in the Law through the courts.

The banks must not win.

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

I have been fighting the banks against unfair charges for alot longer than two years - over six to be precise and more likely ten.

I only see the situation getting worse in regards to Unfair charges - and that is why i am seeking a change in the Law through the courts.

The banks must not win.

Look, even if you get a change in the law, it will NOT act retrospectively, ie historically so just because the Supreme Court said no a collective challenge would not succeed it does not mean we simply say to the government to rewrite history and legislate retrospectively. Yes they could legislate on future charges, and could do but not historic. Unfortunately, that is the long and the short of it.

hicskis

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 banned Unfair charges then banks would no longer be able to apply them from the date the law came 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 - 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 as a consequence of this Case Law.

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.

hicskis

See my other thread - "Hey Martin"

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

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 banned Unfair charges then banks would no longer be able to apply them from the date the law came into effect. i.e today
It would be the date that would be enshrined in law but it would have to follow the normal approach through Parliament. I suspect the law you suggest which would only apply to banks would be defeated since unfair terms legislation already exists ie UTCCR 1999.
2. If a person sued the banks because they had been unfairly lent to, and succeedded in getting the Unfair charges back - 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 as a consequence of this Case Law.
You have to have a case with current case law to argue your point and a lot of money since the banks' would appeal if they lost in county court. There is no saying until you have a valid legal argument how this would go.
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.
If there is legislation(part 1) then there is no need to change the law but if a challenge was successful through the courts on retrospective charges(point 2) then the banks would be under pressure to repay everyone.
Simple mathematics.

See above, but you need to think about posting up a POC(particulars of claim) that can be used/amended/discussed and a template letter based on your arguments and case law. Case law is important even if you use European Courts precedent.