Bank Charges case upheld

jinkssick

This is like a soap opera in here.

This is not the first win, as already described there has already been like 3 victories from the banks around 7 months back.

Secondly, it was probably mistakes in documentation that he lost.

Thirdly, keep going with your claims. In 1 or 2 weeks, this will all be forgotten about and thousands will still be asking ''40 days are up'' and ''ive won''. end of.

Felix_the_Foccer

Tozer wrote: »

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.

But, but ... ..

Martin has already offered publicly in his blog of today to help the claimant with any appeal.

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/
I really hope the guy DOES appeal ...

I personally wouldn't mind throwing a couple of quid in the pot as it'd be nice to see the bank capitulate ... especially as the Abbey has just lodged a defence for my claim.

oldwiring

Ernest wrote: »

soolin wrote: »

It's a shame that an otherwise interesting thread has to be spoiled by a silly comment. This thread is a discussion about whether a decision made by a DJ should be a worry to the many people still going through the system to reclaim bank charges.
QUOTE]


I'm sure the comment was tongue in cheek and directed at people who have a sense of humor.

The same thing crossed my mind, without knowing the full details of the case at this time I can see no reason why an unbias judge could rule in the banks favour.

Hi lited quote: either that- posted in humour, or a post from someone who is so paranoid, that he/she thinks all big corporate and legal entities are in a gtand conspiracy. :rolleyes:

daisy_bumbleroot

playfire1 wrote: »

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'

Hear Hear. Im bored of people on other discussion boards coming up with the boring old "well, thats the end of free banking im afraid". Why should they NOT pay? And besides I am sure there will be plenty of banks out there that will offer free banks beyond LTSB, barclays etc.... UUUUUUUU-switch as the advert goes!

brodie82

hi guys I have just read the following , I have taken it that mr berwick was arguing about the banks charging not the high charge amount , or am I just being thick ?? sorry

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

oldwiring

chipbeck wrote: »

We'll have to agree to differ then mate. I think abuse is warranted.

IMO abuse is never warranted. Polite but foreceful criticism is, and it should never be ad hominem!

oldwiring

Revels wrote: »

Why are people posting the same BBC article again and again? Do they not read the thread first?

Exactly the same thought going through these elderly little grey cells:D

Edinburghlass_2

The reason it is being posted again and again is cos these elderly grey cells started merging them all

lindilou39

Tozer wrote: »

No it is a very definite setback. It is to my knowledge the first time a judgment has been made - albeit by a low level court. There have not been any judgments (other than by default) against banks so it is effectively 1-0 to the banks.

This will also give the banks confidence to defend. Interestingly, the bank didn't even turn up so the defence must have been really quite convincing.

I do not agree with the view adopted above that this is PR from the banks. It is a judgment. I'm also a solicitor and in high profile cases the senior district judge will be wheeled out to hear the case. I suspect that happened here. By giving leave to appeal, the judge has recognised that there are important issues here but I wouldn't want to be the one appealing against a County Court decision in the Court of Appeal.

Undoubtedly the bank will ask for security of costs which will require the claimant to pay thousands up front. Frankly, it isn't worth it.

Well it might be worth it in his case because if you took the time to read martins views on this case he has already offered to help him hence why he asked..."does anyone know Kevin Berwick".

3 cheers to Martin.

Lindi

Tozer

Felix_the_Foccer wrote: »

But, but ... ..

Martin has already offered publicly in his blog of today to help the claimant with any appeal.

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/
I really hope the guy DOES appeal ...

I personally wouldn't mind throwing a couple of quid in the pot as it'd be nice to see the bank capitulate ... especially as the Abbey has just lodged a defence for my claim.

Theres more to an appeal than just own party legal costs....

And what if the Court of Appeal rules in favour of the Banks? To the House of Lords, then what? Europe? Game over for everyone else's claims.

We are not talking about 1 page particulars of claims but EXTREMELY detailed and expensive legal arguments being presented. In my experience the Court of Appeal is reluctant to interfere with a judgment unless it is wrong for very specific legal reasons. I'm not sure they will interfere with this one.