interesting news

digp

an acquaintance of mine will be suing a major bank (won't name the beggars yet otherwise they might make for the hills on their horses) for bank charges illegally applied.

however, not in common with all other claimants, i am told that a claim will be made additionally for:

1. A Declaration that Bank Charges are unlawful.
2. An injunction restraining the Bank from imposing Bank Charges.
3. The money back.

If 1/2/both of them are refused then an appeal will be lodged to try and propel this case into the appellate courts.

Now that should be fun and could help everyone else.

Will keep you posted.

RichyRich

digp wrote:

make for the hills on their horses)

So it's not Lloyds TSB then?

gizmo111

digp wrote:

an acquaintance of mine will be suing a major bank (won't name the beggars yet otherwise they might make for the hills on their horses) for bank charges illegally applied.

however, not in common with all other claimants, i am told that a claim will be made additionally for:

1. A Declaration that Bank Charges are unlawful.
2. An injunction restraining the Bank from imposing Bank Charges.
3. The money back.

If 1/2/both of them are refused then an appeal will be lodged to try and propel this case into the appellate courts.

Now that should be fun and could help everyone else.

Will keep you posted.

This would only be any use if it got to court - and the banks settle right on the court date.
Not all bank charges are unlawful - ie premium packaged accounts monthly fees - so an injunction if granted would presumably have to itemise every financial institution and the name of each seperate charge.

RichyRich

The thing is, it suits most people down to the ground that there isn't a precedent. The banks, scared that they will lose, don't want to go to court. That means they'll pay up.

If your mate isn't happy with just his money back, LTSB may be forced into going to court. Now, whilst I believe that the rule in Dunlop v New Garage SHOULD apply here, even if your mate wins at Small Claims LTSB will appeal and this could go right up to the House of Lords. And I reckon that if it gets that far the HL will distinguish this from Dunlop and thus enforce the charges. OR, if the HL don't enforce the charges, relying as heavily as they do on banks, the government in the form of parliament will statutorially 'correct' the situation by allowing charges through legislation.

So I reckon, and I expect to be slated, and it is after all only my opinion, which is by no means a legal one, that your mate is shooting himself and everyone else in the foot.

Rich

DebDay

I agree. I think people have a right to their money back if we make the bank etc change there policies in doing so, good for us. But they should do it off their own backs not because they are forced to by the courts. If that makes any sense. Or am a putting to much stock into human conscience and decency which these companies obviously are short of in the first place?? lol

Ps Well done Rich for quitting the fags. Wish I had your will power, would save me a hell of a lotta dosh!

RichyRich

Have PM'd you DebDay.

Rich

digp

1. the law lords can be trusted to be sensible and apply the law properly
2. the law needs clarifying in any event
3. if the morons in parliament step in to 'rectiy' the situation then they are the bigger fools

RichyRich

digp wrote:

1. the law lords can be trusted to be sensible and apply the law properly

Just like in Bruton v London & Quadrant Housing Trust? Or Pinochet? Or Avonridge? Get real.