Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

PhiltheBear

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Those 12 were appointed to the House of Lords based on their experience of the Law not on what their political persuasions are.

Precisely. What has to be remembered is that the Supreme court wasn't looking at any kind of moral issue. It was simply deciding how the law should be correctly interpreted. You may not like what they decided (I don't) but the simple fact is that they've made their decision based solely on the law. You can be 99.99% certain that there is no other influence on their decision (there's always a tiny chance that a row with the wife that morning put someone in a cantankerous mood!;))

pingchris

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Those 12 were appointed to the House of Lords based on their experience of the Law not on what their political persuasions are.

and Pingchris....hope you've enjoyed the festive period and I guess it's soon time to rock and roll again on the banter

didnt do anything really over the festive season as i was skint,the banter will begin again,i know these bankers are wrong so the fight goes on against them,anyway hope you had a good xmas and santy got you some socks.:j

pingchris

PhiltheBear wrote: »

Precisely. What has to be remembered is that the Supreme court wasn't looking at any kind of moral issue. It was simply deciding how the law should be correctly interpreted. You may not like what they decided (I don't) but the simple fact is that they've made their decision based solely on the law. You can be 99.99% certain that there is no other influence on their decision (there's always a tiny chance that a row with the wife that morning put someone in a cantankerous mood!;))

i dont believe thats all there was to it,not for a second,our government went to war and killed thousands of people on a bull !!!! intelligence report that didnt exist,you think they wouldnt have words to a few mates about bank charges,gorden bennet.

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

i dont believe thats all there was to it,not for a second,our government went to war and killed thousands of people on a bull !!!! intelligence report that didnt exist,you think they wouldnt have words to a few mates about bank charges,gorden bennet.

As the gloves are off, that is complete nonsense. If that was the case the judges would have said NO and completely shut every door for reclaimers. They didn't and to suggest they did is totally and utterly nonsense.

PhiltheBear

pingchris wrote: »

i dont believe thats all there was to it,not for a second,our government went to war and killed thousands of people on a bull !!!! intelligence report that didnt exist,you think they wouldnt have words to a few mates about bank charges,gorden bennet.

I think that rates as possibly the dumbest remark I've ever seen in this forum.

As a matter of fact you'll find that the judiciary and the government very seldom agree / come down on the same side. Part of the rationale of setting up a Supreme Court was that it is independent - completely - from any kind of political interference. That's why it's no longer set in the House of Lords.

In fact what tends to happen is that some legal people rise through the ranks and become judges/law lords on the basis of long, hard legal work. Other legal people (think T Blair as an example) divert into politics. The judges/law lords look down on the politicians because they regard them as failures. There's no love lost between the two.

What is 100% certain is that when the Court pronounces it does so entirely on a matter of law. When politicians pronounce they are usually lying.

lunchy123

Hi

Looking for some advice - Nat West have agreed under a hardship claim to refund me £1700 in charges. Currently I have a £3000 overdraft limit which is nearly up to limit. Can anyone advise if I accept and they refund, will they just reduce the overdraft facility by said £1700 or will the money be available to me?

natweststaffmember

lunchy123 wrote: »

Hi

Looking for some advice - Nat West have agreed under a hardship claim to refund me £1700 in charges. Currently I have a £3000 overdraft limit which is nearly up to limit. Can anyone advise if I accept and they refund, will they just reduce the overdraft facility by said £1700 or will the money be available to me?

It would be paid into the account where the charges have come from. If the overdraft is £3000.00 then it should mean the money is available for you to use to pay off arrears.
Is the account still open and accessable to you?

lunchy123

Hi

Thank you for this. Yes the account is open. What I'm worried about is Nat West paying the money in to the account but then just reducing the overdraft ie I won't have use of the funds at all - which I really need. Are they likely to do this?

Thanks again

natweststaffmember

lunchy123 wrote: »

Hi

Thank you for this. Yes the account is open. What I'm worried about is Nat West paying the money in to the account but then just reducing the overdraft ie I won't have use of the funds at all - which I really need. Are they likely to do this?

Thanks again

If they do that then you will have a valid claim to the FOS on that point specifically since they cannot just do that. Unlikely to do this to be honest.
Are you also in contact with your creditors, ie mortgage, gas, electricity etc, etc,
Utility companies do have hardship funds that you can apply for so worth looking at this issue. Some mortgage providers are extremely helpful with regards to consumers in financial hardship/payment difficulties.

pingchris

PhiltheBear wrote: »

I think that rates as possibly the dumbest remark I've ever seen in this forum.

As a matter of fact you'll find that the judiciary and the government very seldom agree / come down on the same side. Part of the rationale of setting up a Supreme Court was that it is independent - completely - from any kind of political interference. That's why it's no longer set in the House of Lords.

In fact what tends to happen is that some legal people rise through the ranks and become judges/law lords on the basis of long, hard legal work. Other legal people (think T Blair as an example) divert into politics. The judges/law lords look down on the politicians because they regard them as failures. There's no love lost between the two.

What is 100% certain is that when the Court pronounces it does so entirely on a matter of law. When politicians pronounce they are usually lying.

sorry dont agree ,i dont wear rose tinted glasses,anything close to any government is suspect in my view ,and i couldnt care one toss what anyone says about my posts,i believe your post to be crass,next........