Please advise!!!

natweststaffmember

jaibaby wrote: »

Ok many thanks all

Giving up or perhaps waiting for the picture to become clearer?
I have been around the bank charges campaign for about 4 years and it's hard, very hard but slowly but surely you can get your head around this....first step is to read the EU Directive on unfair terms:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993L0013:EN:NOT

that's just for starters, btw.

jaibaby

To be honest - I have no idea. I was promised, like thousands of others, that the court case was more than likely to win in our favour. Silly me believed them! I have had no help from Portal Claims as to what to do next, so thought I would try on here. Then I hear these Financial hardship claims are successful - try having 3 young children, losing your job and your partner walking out on you. Hardship just ain't the word! I seriously don't know what my next step is. I know I can send a letter of disagreement to the FOS but I haven't a clue what to write.

natweststaffmember

jaibaby wrote: »

To be honest - I have no idea. I was promised, like thousands of others, that the court case was more than likely to win in our favour. Silly me believed them! I have had no help from Portal Claims as to what to do next, so thought I would try on here. Then I hear these Financial hardship claims are successful - try having 3 young children, losing your job and your partner walking out on you. Hardship just ain't the word! I seriously don't know what my next step is. I know I can send a letter of disagreement to the FOS but I haven't a clue what to write.

With regards to financial hardship read the link on my post below which says: for hardship claimants.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote:

...If you take the time to read it then yes you can win...

I think it's only fair to point out that, unless anybody knows of a case otherwise, that no one has yet won in court using these arguments. (Not since the banks won their case in the Supreme Court)

Please don't confuse this statement with the case Govan are bringing; all they have is leave to actually bring a case to court - that's one heck of a long way away from actually winning and in most court cases is not even a step that is required

If the OP wishes to understand better the legal arguments, they could do worse than read the excellent MSE article on reclaiming bank cahrges based on legal grounds
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges
This not only goes into the basis of the legal arguements, but explains that this is only a suggestion as it is not yet proven ... and also mentions the possible financial risks you take in attempting to bring about such a claim.

With regards to financial hardship, then the other MSE article on reclaiming bank charges is particularly informative.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges
It even has some advice on what to write, but doesn't give a 'template' letter as such because as it explains, the FOS will not consider such claims that use such template or standard letters ... it needs to be written in your own words.

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

I think it's only fair to point out that, unless anybody knows of a case otherwise, that no one has yet won in court using these arguments. (Not since the banks won their case in the Supreme Court)

By the same token how many cases can you quote where the banks have actually won in court? Or even where a judgment has been given yet?

And I wish you'd stop using the MSE guide as the definitive legal authority on bank charges. If you want to see the opinion of a senior legal counsel on the matter it'll be published soon.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

I think it's only fair to point out that, unless anybody knows of a case otherwise, that no one has yet won in court using these arguments. (Not since the banks won their case in the Supreme Court)
Nobody before the OFT test case started won a precedent setting case either so what's your point?
Please don't confuse this statement with the case Govan are bringing; all they have is leave to actually bring a case to court - that's one heck of a long way away from actually winning and in most court cases is not even a step that is required
I repeat, no one has won a precedent setting case which states that under UTCCR 1999 Regulation 5(1) that the charges are fair. For your information Premier, the banks DID LOSE part of the OFT Test case(not appealed on either) for a declaration under UTCCR 1999, Regulation 5(1) that the charges were fair.
If the OP wishes to understand better the legal arguments, they could do worse than read the excellent MSE article on reclaiming bank cahrges based on legal grounds
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges
If the OP wants to understand the complexity of the case then reading an interpretation by Martin Lewis and MSE team is something he might want to do but is not the best thing to do. He can read the full transcripts of the case, the judgements, the case law, etc, etc, etc,

This not only goes into the basis of the legal arguements, but explains that this is only a suggestion as it is not yet proven ... and also mentions the possible financial risks you take in attempting to bring about such a claim.
You only prove a case in court and county court is non precedent setting. Premier, relying on the "financial risks" argument to dissuade posters from continuing on rather than perhaps waiting if their claim is stayed for other cases to go to court, or to simply not read the material out there(I am sure you have read the MSE reclaims guide but not sure if you have read transcripts or looked at EU Case law or even at all the judgements).
With regards to financial hardship, then the other MSE article on reclaiming bank charges is particularly informative.
I tend to disagree with you completely Premier, they used to have a reasonable financial hardship guide. Currently, I am of the opinion that it is wishy washy at best. Have I taken this up with MSE team? Yes and will continue to do so.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges
It even has some advice on what to write, but doesn't give a 'template' letter as such because as it explains, the FOS will not consider such claims that use such template or standard letters ... it needs to be written in your own words.

Premier, can I ask why the OP should not start reading from the original EU directive from 1993 from which UTCCR 1999 is based? Why do you think that the OFT LOST the case?
You know where the Supreme Court judgement is, please quote me the paragraph that states that bank charges are fair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, 5(1).

When you do then maybe I might take you more seriously on this specific point and have a decent debate on what was said and not on what you think was said.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote:

Nobody before the OFT test case started won a precedent setting case either so what's your point?

Simply that, unless anybody knows of a case otherwise, that no one has yet won in court using these arguments. (Not since the banks won their case in the Supreme Court)

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Simply that, unless anybody knows of a case otherwise, that no one has yet won in court using these arguments. (Not since the banks won their case in the Supreme Court)

No one has ever tested the arguments in a court of law since the Supreme Court was not testing UTCCR 1999 regulation 5(1) but regulation 6(2). Furthermore, and I will be polite, the banks LOST on regulation 5(1) for a declaration on the charges being fair(that was never appealed by the banks, btw) so that kinda leaves a big black whole or what some people call an avenue that has not yet been blocked.
Yes there are risks associated, yes there is a lot of legal arguments to understand but NO there is definitely not a simple argument of if your in financial hardship you can claim but otherwise don't bother cos that is ridiculous.

OK, so that I know your understanding of the OFT test case, can you tell me exactly what the judgement was in your speak and not martin's cos I am sure you have read it and understood it because you are advising the blind(so to speak)?

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

... can you tell me exactly what the judgement was in your speak and not martin's ...

What is this, some sort of school test or something, because that was the last time I read something along the lines of "Explain in your own words..."?

What's wroing with Martin's words? They seem very easy to understand to me.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

is this, some sort of school test or something, because that was the last time I read something along the lines of "Explain in your own words..."?
If this was a school test I would be failing you for plagiarism
What's wroing with Martin's words? Is that a no, you don't understand the OFT Test case judgement or you only understand Martin's interpretation of it?
They seem very easy to understand to me.

Nothing wrong with his words but have you formed your own opinion by reading the relevant judgements?
I have asked you a simple question cos your posts seem to indicate that you do not understand the OFT test case judgement and I am simply seeing if you have read the judgement yourself cos I am not sure you have.
Premier, you sure you don't work in politics cos you are sounding like you're not happy to answer a simple question.