BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

digp

ah, but the case still would not have been struck out, as the exemplary damages argument is arguable

lindilou39

if he loses.....we all lose....hearing is april 30th

Twinkly

lindilou39 wrote: »

if he loses.....we all lose....hearing is april 30th

How do we all lose ?

justlaugh2

From what i gather he is suing for damages as well as unlawful charges as the bank have already offered/paid him £4000 when his actual charges only amounted to £2500!
I also gather that this court will not set a precedent for the whole bank charge reclaiming process as that kind of precedent is only set through a higher court.
It will be the same as the case on Friday, the courts are just giving him a longer time for his case to be heard. The bank may not even show up as they dont want to reveal how much their costs really are. The same bank have just paid out £38,000 to a businessman for unlawful bank charges!
I dont think it will make any difference to ongoing or future claims ( not on the barristers case anyway)
All this information has come from this site and the CAG site.

Leaf

Having finally found out how to trace my posts and the replies... now Nathan can call me a moron (joke) ... and read some replies about how noble etc putting up the money to take the bustards to court and finally be accountable, I see that the final impact will be beneficial to all people who rely on the 'services' of banks. However, I still have concerns for us who are trying to reclaim. Those who wish to recoup in an effort to stabalize a bit of our baking experiences. Those who have a glimmer of hope of balancing the books a little. The minions who have succombed in the past, have some sense of empowerment now, who have solidated with intelligent yet desperate people who are not in it for a fast buck or notoriaty. While I applaud champions, I am the mucky faced rank and filer who just wants the next henious *suit* off my tail.
[rant off]
What happened on the 13th? Can't find sod all about the Natwest hearing.
Of course, a greater tragedy happened over the weekend.. so I should shut up.

Leaf

hibees1875_2

Perhaps given the state of pants customer service in uk banks, it's just as well we have tight gun laws preventing us from opening a bank account and at the same time getting a free gun from the bank, whilst still being IN the bank.

System

Twinkly wrote: »

I wasnt arguing

Yes you were!

UNDERGROUND

Twinkly

UNDERGROUND wrote: »

Yes you were!

UNDERGROUND

Alrighty, for the sake of pedantics. I was discussing the point raised with an opposite point of view. The point being that Tozer said people arent 'entitled' to claim back further than 6 years and I said they are and explained why.

It was that simple really. Perhaps the point got lost in all the explaining but I do enjoy discussion and debate. There was never a nasty word in there nor the intent to be nasty which I think he knows so I hope thats all sorted now.

System

Twinkly wrote: »

Alrighty, for the sake of pedantics. I was discussing the point raised with an opposite point of view. The point being that Tozer said people arent 'entitled' to claim back further than 6 years and I said they are and explained why.

It was that simple really. Perhaps the point got lost in all the explaining but I do enjoy discussion and debate. There was never a nasty word in there nor the intent to be nasty which I think he knows so I hope thats all sorted now.

See you're at it again!!!!

UNDERGROUND

bankbandit

In regards to damages would the same logic apply to defaults, bankruptcy etc if it had been caused wholly or partially by charges. The banks illegal actions could prejudice someone's financial standing and must be defamation to some extent. Is this possibly why the banks don't want a ruling? This would open up the possibility of cases with potentially unlimited, certainly higher,awards rather than just the charges and interest, albeit a risky strategy for the claimant should they lose ie the bank's legal fees.Would this also change the court track/nature of claims as it would get murkier than just the relatively simple contract/penalty law currently so succesful.