Bank Charges case upheld

Felix_the_Foccer

Tozer wrote: »

No it would be a ridiculous idea. The Law Society regulates Solicitors not judges. The appeals process is to question judges' decisions.

ok, less of the ridiculous, I DID say I wasn't an expert ... :rolleyes:

I think you'll also find The Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) supports the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for the system of judicial complaints and discipline. In their words, "We seek to ensure that all judicial disciplinary issues are dealt with consistently, fairly and efficiently".

Here's their webpage: http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/complaints/complaints_judge.htm

Are you saying that this Judge acting "consistently and fairly" with current law then Tozer?

playfire1

Of course other cases have been decided. The bank didnt turn up today. Just like they hadnt turned up in all the other cases. What makes this case so different then?. Magistrate/district judge, whatever, im clearly not in the legal profession like you. Still begs the point though my friend, thousands have still had to stand before the beak in order to get their money

there are loads of threads on here involving people who have had defences entered and the banks have not turned up at court. they have still had to give their evidence. hearing in absence. so of course there has been a decision at these cases

Tozer

AlexisV wrote: »

I don't understand the ruling. The judge is saying there was a contract and so the charges are legal. The law however says charges are legal as long as they reflect the true cost. Without evidence being submitted of the true cost, all I see is one man's opinion which is going against the letter of the law.
With it being a small court and everything resting on one man, it seems a shaky case once it goes to appeal.

I don't understand where the notion of the judge that the charges are for a service, when they are penalties?



On the other hand, did you not here about another judge's statements yesterday? If banks continue not to turn up to court he will award against them plus costs for wasting the court's time. This is one judge who happily awards in claimant's favour.

If banks do start to defend cases, it will probably only mean a couple of weeks where 90% of cases are won by claimants and 10% by banks, which would cause banks to return to not defending.
And through all of this, banks will still refuse to reveal how much charges actually cost them

BTW, I see more libellous talk from Merton and Hislop every Friday then I have seen in this thread ;-)

Please understand because this is VITAL. The decision yesterday was not a ruling on the legal arguments of the penalties issue. It was a criticism of the banks in defending and then paying.

The full judgment is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_05_07_bank_charge.pdf

Look at paragraph 2 "I have not been made aware of any case in which the meritys of such a claim have been ruled on by a court [until today!!!]. I do not of course know the reasons that have caused the defencant to reach settlement in those other cases and the fact that it has done so does not affect in any way the merits of the cases I am now dealing with".

The ruling was relevant to the conduct of the banks but NOT the legal principle. Todays judgment is DIRECTLY relevant to the legal principle.

daisy_bumbleroot

Mr_Squiddy wrote:

Why should I have to subsidise individuals who cannot be bothered to manage their financial affairs properly? .

A fee for bank accounts is to cover rent, wages, refurb etc.

Why should you NOT pay just because you are soooo excellent at keeping your finances in order?

Tozer

Felix_the_Foccer wrote: »

ok, less of the ridiculous, I DID say I wasn't an expert ... :rolleyes:

I think you'll also find The Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) supports the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for the system of judicial complaints and discipline. In their words, "We seek to ensure that all judicial disciplinary issues are dealt with consistently, fairly and efficiently".

Here's their webpage: http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/complaints/complaints_judge.htm

Are you saying that this Judge acting "consistently and fairly" with current law then Tozer?

Yes, the Judge ruled on the law as he saw it. Hence the concern!!! This is not a disciplinary matter for the judge. Imagine in EVERY case before the criminal and civil courts what would happen if the judge was complained about for making an unpopular decision? Every criminal convicted would complain or one in two parties to a litigation!! there is no disciplinary issue here.

If the judge's interpretation of the law is wrong then the appeals process is the way forward. But it will not be appealed due to the massive costs.

Tozer

BSJWright wrote: »

So we've seen the first victory for the banks:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6657025.stm

I've already submitted a claim and am waiting for the judgement date (within a few days). Should we be worried by this new ruling? It appears to me that Berwick was making the wrong argument - I believe he should have been arguing that the charges were not in proportion to the bank's costs (per the UTCCA 1977), rather than that they were illegal contractual penalties. If I present the argument in that way to the court, surely they'll rule in my favour?

Exactly the same argument I'm afraid. Its a penalty if it is not a "genuine pre-estimate of the costs likely to be suffered" by the bank. Sorry!

Tozer

playfire1 wrote: »

Of course other cases have been decided. The bank didnt turn up today. Just like they hadnt turned up in all the other cases. What makes this case so different then?. Magistrate/district judge, whatever, im clearly not in the legal profession like you. Still begs the point though my friend, thousands have still had to stand before the beak in order to get their money

there are loads of threads on here involving people who have had defences entered and the banks have not turned up at court. they have still had to give their evidence. hearing in absence. so of course there has been a decision at these cases

Sorry but this isn't correct. There have been no previous hearings with rulings on the point - hence the significance of the report.

From yesterday's judgment (dealing with the bank's conduct and not the legal principle in issue):

"I have not been made aware of any case in which the meritys of such a claim have been ruled on by a court . I do not of course know the reasons that have caused the defencant to reach settlement in those other cases and the fact that it has done so does not affect in any way the merits of the cases I am now dealing with"

dj9928

All looks very promising for us up in court in a couple of weeks, A+L's endless arsing endless arsing about has paid off, they have bought enough time for something like this to happen which may just change the entire process

playfire1

Everyone is equal. Everyone should have to pay a fee for a bank account if a fee is warranted. Not just the poorer customers, subsidising the more comfortable. If you cant see that then 'your alright Jack'

Im sure your annoyed that this so called revoulution may have an impact on future banking costs.

But it begs a fundimental question - if banks suddenly have to charge every customer a service charge for having a bank account now, because their extortionate fees againt the poorest (ok , not in all cases, butthe majority) 25% of their customers have to stop. Does that not show a deliberate stratagy against keeping good customers satisfied at the expense of the rest

grayclose31

As Martin has said in his blog ''he is willing to help Mr Berwick to appeal against this rueling''.

I really hope that Mr Berwic takes the offer of help.

My personal feelings are that if he refuses the offer he is letting down many hundreds of people.

If he does accept the offer he will be helping many people who are in real financial difficulty and need this judgment to be overturned.

I am sure that he would not be claimong back these charges unless he had to so if you know him please tell him to press on and many hundreds of people would be right behind him.

Mr Berwick - you have gone this far don't let this be the end.