supreme court rant

pingchris

Is it just me who believes the supreme court decision in nov 2009 was a whitewash and was really decided in the rooms of parliament rather than a proper indipendant judicial ruling, id like to know your thoughts.

Alpine_Star

In a nutshell



However you should be interested to know that Parliament (or rather most of it - ie the government) have taken Lady Hale's comments in the Supreme Court judgment about the need for a change in the law to heart and are currently consulting on a change to the regulations which would make bank charges assessable for fairness:

''The Government believes in principle that an economic case may exist to regulate charges which, from the consumer’s perspective, do not form part of the “essential bargain” between the trader and the consumer. If such charges are not actively considered by the consumer when electing to enter into a contract, they will not be subject to normal competitive pressures, even if they are formally referred to in the contract. It could be argued, therefore, that the level of these charges should be able to be assessed for unfairness under the relevant law.''

http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/consumer-rights-directive-assessability-unfairness?cat=open

pingchris

good answer although your getting paranoia confused with conspiracy theories im afraid,:eek:

Alpine_Star

pingchris wrote: »

good answer although your getting paranoia confused with conspiracy theories im afraid,:eek:

There's no confusion. Paranoia is irrational thought. It is not rational to believe that the case was not conducted in a court of law but instead decided in the murky world of intrigue and double dealing in the corridors of Westminster by....them.....they're everywhere.....you know who I mean.....them....

AnonymousForObviousReason

Paranoia is generally associated with the irrational behaviour as well as feelings of being persecuted. Nothing to stop so someone being a paranoid conspiracy theorist

Premier_2

The issue with trying to precise the Supreme Court ruling is that by doing so, one would inevitably leave out some of the finer detail.

However, without doing so, it's difficult to see the wood for the trees, so allow me to try.

In essence, the Supreme court ruled on whether or not the OFT (or anyone else interested in doing so for that matter) could assess the charges for fairness.

The Supreme Court essentially said no, that could not happen.

Whilst it is clear that the ruling is not directly answering the question of 'are the charges fair or not?', it says the charges cannot be assessed for fairness. It is for that reason that I would say (and it appears that Lord Turnor is of a similar opinion) that the question of whether the charges are fair or unfair is immaterial since they cannot be assessed as such, at least on the basis that the OFT had intended to do so.

Now there may be other basis that charges could be assessed as fair or unfair, and MSE in conjunction with one of the best legal brains in the field, has published an article giving details of such a possible basis.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges


However, it should be noted that the article does explain the risks for anyone attempting to follow what is unproven advice, no one since the article has been published has reported any success in copurt following the guide, and perhaps most damning of all is the OFT's decision not to even bother attempting to pursue such other possible routes themselves as they considered the chance of success was too low. (however they didn't advise others not to try)

davidgmmafan

One of the reason's the OFT gave for not proceeding, as I understand it. Is that the other grounds are to do with an unfair relationship. Therefore as a regulator (don't laugh!) they couldn't challenge them but an individual could. However Martin Lewis reckons such a challenge would cost in the lost millions, so the banks are probably off the hook for now.

Unless there is a philanthropist somewhere who wants to pay for the challenge, or these is some legal aid type avenue.

pingchris

some excellent and relevant points made,thankyou for the input,going back to conspiracy theories etc,it is silly to say there are NO conspiracies,and it is annoying that this phrase conspiracy theory has become joined with paranoia(spelt wrong northern monkey)the world is full of conspiracy,politics would not exist if it were not so,therefore it is very possible that dark deals were done however i stress to add, nothing is proven by anyone and it may not be true,but on the other hand ,it is a simple and straightfroward thing to have achieved.(in regard to bank charges and the blocking of an investigation and assesment into fairness of said charges)

Alpine_Star

pingchris wrote: »

........on the other hand ,it is a simple and straightfroward thing to have achieved.(in regard to bank charges and the blocking of an investigation and assesment into fairness of said charges)

Is that right?

Presumably you have first hand experience in managing to pursued all 5 of the most senior judges in the country to forgo their integrity, risk their careers and corrupt themselves.

Piece of cake was it?

pingchris

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Is that right?

Presumably you have first hand experience in managing to pursued all 5 of the most senior judges in the country to forgo their integrity, risk their careers and corrupt themselves.

Piece of cake was it?

conspiracy theories arent always wrong,im throwing it out there that it may have been a few words with a few people,its not that difficult to say "block this" after all they are politicians,they lie for a living,its in there job title.(and please dont say they dont lie,even martin lewis said angela knight lied,she was a tory politician, by the way,now one of the heads of british banking,god help us all )
and also the trio of courts prior to the supreme court were in favour of customers,are you saying THOSE judges are inferior in intillect and are unable to make the correct decision,if that is the case then lets bypass normal courts and we can all use the supreme court for everything,why have normal courts at all if they cannot make a correct and final judgement on such an obviously unfair rule that the banks have illegally imposed on there customers.
and on a final note,if the yanks can kill there own president,then im sure a handfull of politicians can say oi mate block this .

johnnyroper

pingchris wrote: »

if the yanks can kill there own president,then im sure a handfull of politicians can say oi mate block this .

i think you are way off the mark here,agreed the OFT case was flimsy and concentrating on just one specific item hence the court ruling,but i doubt the judges have been nobbled.

as for the yanks killing president have i missed something here i dont remember that ever been proven?