supreme court rant

pingchris

if it walks like a duck,LOOKS LIKE A DUCK and talks like a duck ,ITS A DUCK

in my experience "reading between the lines" normally gives you the true picture of what has actually occurred,nevermind the spin and claptrap the politicians and bankers give us,check the utube vids out with martin lewis and angela knight,then tell me who is lying and giving us false statements,also brian capons interview on utube regardijng bank charges,the whistleblower tv series on bank charges also says it all,so much evidence that this case was all a rig up of spin and deceipt,ok lets say the supreme court did there job spot on and got it right,i cant accept that it was the "just" decision,and what of the "fairness" that the torys and lib dems speak of in there manifesto,all the evidence points to the WRONG decisions being made at the supreme court,if it was a case between the banks versus the government, instead if people versuus banks,i think the government would have kicked there greedy behinds well into the dark ages,ok many will disagree with the posts i have written ,but i stand by them and i believe that this case of bank charges was all decided on the fact that the banks could not afford to pay the people there money back,its as simple as that,also it would have a massive bearing on other financial institutions who make massive profits from charges,ie black horse finance make excellent profits from customer defaults,as do many others.

some estimate the total package of losses to banks and financial institutions runs into 150 billion pounds in paybacks alone,this figure increases each year they cannot charge you

Alpine_Star

In order to read between the lines you need to read the lines first, and you clearly haven't.

The Supreme Court ruling was based on how the law applies, not economic policy.

Whatever Angela Knight spins to Martin Lewis or who killed Kennedy adds nothing to your theory that the Supreme Court was corrupted. How can it?

Black Horse finance default charges would have been completely unaffected by a favourable Supreme Court decision as it was only concerned with insufficient funds charges (which are not default charges in law) to personal current accounts.

The industry revenue from unauthorised overdraft charges is circa £2.6b. Who estimated that the total payback would be £150b?

pingchris

Alpine_Star wrote: »

In order to read between the lines you need to read the lines first, and you clearly haven't.

The Supreme Court ruling was based on how the law applies, not economic policy.

Whatever Angela Knight spins to Martin Lewis or who killed Kennedy adds nothing to your theory that the Supreme Court was corrupted. How can it?

Black Horse finance default charges would have been completely unaffected by a favourable Supreme Court decision as it was only concerned with insufficient funds charges (which are not default charges in law) to personal current accounts.

The industry revenue from unauthorised overdraft charges is circa £2.6b. Who estimated that the total payback would be £150b?

the 150 billion is spread over the whole industry over a period of time ie losses ,and where did you get the 2.6 billion figure from ?

in my opinion the supreme court is there for one purpose,to defend the government from attack no matter how "just" and any financial institution connected with the running of government.

zppp

pingchris wrote: »

in my opinion the supreme court is there for one purpose,to defend the government from attack no matter how "just" and any financial institution connected with the running of government.

And the supreme court only deals with bank charges cases. Looks like those judges put themselves out of business with the OFT ruling back in December

Alpine_Star

pingchris wrote: »

the 150 billion is spread over the whole industry over a period of time ie losses ,and where did you get the 2.6 billion figure from ?

in my opinion the supreme court is there for one purpose,to defend the government from attack no matter how "just" and any financial institution connected with the running of government.

I ask again: Where did the £150b come from?

To answer your own question the £2.6b figure is from the OFT PCA Market Study for the year 2006 http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/OFT1005exec.pdf

Based on that figure if the charges had been found to be unfair refunds would most likely have been subject to the 6 year limitation. Add statutory interest and the total repayable would have been in the region of £20b.

If the Supreme Court is a tool of Government then why is Government consulting to change the law in order to effectively bypass the court's decision as you implied yourself in post#12?

The judiciary is fiercely independent of Government. So much so that the highest court - the judicial House of Lords - was moved out of Parliament and renamed the 'Supreme Court' in an effort to demonstrate it's independence for the benefit of ill-researched conspiracy theorists such as yourself.

pingchris

the 150 billion was stated on a prominent website which i will find and let you read for your pleasure, and actually was the figure based on total losses for the whole industry,and i couldnt care one hoot if you think i am an ill researched conspiracy theorist,i believe we got royally screwed over,and if you believe the world is all sweetness and light covered in roses and courts and politicians are beyond reproach then your a mug ! :beer:
do you honestly believe that if banks were to be found guilty which they are, regarding bank charges, that there would be no knock on effect to other parts of the financial industry

you missed one direct debit and were charged £39.00 from your bank and then a further £40.00 from the debtor ie black horse,thats just one company and there are hundreds of finance companies all charging stupid amounts for penalty charges,thats what i was refering to in regard to payback amounts.
the losses would be astronomic in the long and short term.

the financial institutions who rip customers off for charges, ie, again black horse,would eventually be brought into the same area as banks and customers would be taking them to court also.

ill give you one excellent example of the government being able to do as they please whenever they wish to do so..................IRAQ.

pingchris

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I ask again: Where did the £150b come from?

To answer your own question the £2.6b figure is from the OFT PCA Market Study for the year 2006 http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/OFT1005exec.pdf

Based on that figure if the charges had been found to be unfair refunds would most likely have been subject to the 6 year limitation. Add statutory interest and the total repayable would have been in the region of £20b.

If the Supreme Court is a tool of Government then why is Government consulting to change the law in order to effectively bypass the court's decision as you implied yourself in post#12?

The judiciary is fiercely independent of Government. So much so that the highest court - the judicial House of Lords - was moved out of Parliament and renamed the 'Supreme Court' in an effort to demonstrate it's independence for the benefit of ill-researched conspiracy theorists such as yourself.

in a previous post you stated 2.6 billion was the amount for payback regarding charges and now its changed to 20 billion ,what next 40 billion ?

Alpine_Star

pingchris wrote: »

in a previous post you stated 2.6 billion was the amount for payback regarding charges and now its changed to 20 billion ,what next 40 billion ?

I said it was revenue - not payback - in a futile attempt to explain the established economics of the PCA market so you might understand that a payback figure of £150b, like most of what you write, doesn't add up.

Fiddlestick

pingchris wrote: »

ill give you one excellent example of the government being able to do as they please whenever they wish to do so..................IRAQ.

Ignoring the fact that there were multiple UNSC resolutions approving military action and ignoring the fact that the government went for and won a Parliamentary vote approving action... then yes, I suppose that's the government doing "as they please whenever they wish".

davidgmmafan

The only stich up I can see, is that the Supreme Court itself said the ruling was on a very narrow point of law and that it WOULD NOT settle claims up and down the country. Somehow this transformed into the OFT saying oh well we did our best, you're on your own (now that we've messed it up for you). It makes me wonder if the OFT was really up for the fight, or felt forced to do something and so didn't give its all.

The banks HAVE lowered thier charges on the whole. But people who've been devastated in the meanwhile may have lost out. Live and learn I guess.

Its all just speculation, I think the most reasonable conclusion I can draw is that the banks were a lot like MP's with thier expenses. Thier assurances that they had done no wrong, whilst at the same times paying back large sums, convinced nobody. Similary the banks claim they are paragons of virtue, then cut the very charges they were defending to the death.

I presume Natwest is now losing £33 per time on an unpaid item? That was the argument at the outset of all of this. Lying toads!