Bank Charges case upheld

daisy_bumbleroot

soolin wrote: »

One of my jobs involves working within local courts and the behaviour and professional integrity of both paid District Judges and lay magistrates is expected to be beyond reproach and where there is any hint of problems either can be asked not to sit until allegations are fully investigated. If you are even hinting at misconduct likely to bring the court into disrepute then you must report it immediately, otherwise making comments about accepting back handers is libel.

I dont think speaking my mind is libel is it? forgive me if im wrong. im not involved in law.

Im not the only one thinking it though *points at post 36*

I suppose though in your position - working within local courts - you must be right. I bet there has never ever been a situation where a paid district judge or lay magistrate or policemen or anyone in those positions of integrity have never ever ever taken a backhander? Silly me, been watching too much telly!

Knackered

soolin wrote: »

Yes it is a silly thing to say if you can't prove it...

One of my jobs involves working within local courts and the behaviour and professional integrity of both paid District Judges and lay magistrates is expected to be beyond reproach and where there is any hint of problems either can be asked not to sit until allegations are fully investigated. If you are even hinting at misconduct likely to bring the court into disrepute then you must report it immediately, otherwise making comments about accepting back handers is libel.

Lighten up for gods sake. What is the matter with you? It was a off-the-cuff comment about something which may or may not be true and it doesn't warrant your OTT reaction.

Ernest

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.

Stephen_Leak

MoneyKing2007 wrote: »

How can a judge believe these are service fees?

The banks have tried to claim that they are. For this reason, the form of words for the Particulars of Claim includes the bit to the effect that "if they are service charges, they must be reasonable", etc.

wok_boy

pdel61 wrote: »

about time

Congratulations on your successful attempt at raising your profile on the forums for all the wrong reasons. Care to back up the reason for posting that?

BTMan, thanking him for his post, was that a stab at sarcasm or you are really backing him up in what he is saying?

Edinburghlass_2

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.

It may well have been a tongue in cheek remark, however it was posted on Martin's website and therefore he then becomes responsible for what is posted.

So please, lets leave it there or I may need to remove some posts.

nellystew

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

The banks have tried to claim that they are. For this reason, the form of words for the Particulars of Claim includes the bit to the effect that "if they are service charges, they must be reasonable", etc.

Does this mean that if my MCOL claim only includes charges for returned DD / cheques....., then this judgement shouldn't really effect it?

Ernest

Edinburghlass wrote: »

Ernest wrote: »

It may well have been a tongue in cheek remark, however it was posted on Martin's website and therefore he then becomes responsible for what is posted.

So please, lets leave it there or I may need to remove some posts.

Fair enough,

Do you guys have any views on this? I'm sure any feedback from the team would be welcome at this stage.

Steve

soolin

nellystew wrote: »

Does this mean that if my MCOL claim only includes charges for returned DD / cheques....., then this judgement shouldn't really effect it?

You would probably need to see the actual comments made by the DJ in his judgement.The wording he used and the reason for making the judgement need to be scrutinised by those with a legal mind...and probably argued on at a higher court. However it is probably a reasonable statement to say that this might just mean that some banks may be prepared to chance their case in the future, rather than automatically settling as they tend to do at the moment.

However, one judgement by one DJ does not necessarily mean that everyone should give up..it is just the start of the process to getting a firm legal ruling.

MSE_Martin

I've just blogged on this

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/?p=457