Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

jules111_2

n.b.First time user

APPEAL FOR URGENT GUIDANCE

COURT HAS LIFTED OUR STAY ( NOV 08) !!!!
JUDGE HAS COMBINED BANK'S CLAIM AGAINST US (NATWEST JOINT ACCOUNT LOAN TAKEN OUT TO COVER SNOWBALLED CHARGES) WITH OUR CLAIM FOR THEIR UNFAIR CHARGES
HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS AS CLAIMANTS/DEFENDENTS?
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO PRESENT IN COURT (CASE SET FOR JAN 23rd 09 )?
WE HAVE TO RESPOND BY NEXT WEEK WITH OUR CLAIM

ALL GUIDANCE GRATEFULLY RECEIVED - MANY THANKS

mlucyminx

Hi there.

As the estimated 6 working days are now up (i read banks were back in court on 28th October) does anyone have any news on what has happened in the last few days.

I know the recession news is probably more important but was just curious

esmerellda

jules111 wrote: »

n.b.First time user

APPEAL FOR URGENT GUIDANCE

COURT HAS LIFTED OUR STAY ( NOV 08) !!!!
JUDGE HAS COMBINED BANK'S CLAIM AGAINST US (NATWEST JOINT ACCOUNT LOAN TAKEN OUT TO COVER SNOWBALLED CHARGES) WITH OUR CLAIM FOR THEIR UNFAIR CHARGES
HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS AS CLAIMANTS/DEFENDENTS?
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO PRESENT IN COURT (CASE SET FOR JAN 23rd 09 )?
WE HAVE TO RESPOND BY NEXT WEEK WITH OUR CLAIM

ALL GUIDANCE GRATEFULLY RECEIVED - MANY THANKS

Hey xxx

Well done on getting the stay lifted - do you know on what grounds, and was it following an application. Also the notice of the hearing, does it say what type of hearing it will be. Also what info have they asked you for ?

It will be easiest to type the wording of the notices from the court out (excluding personal info) then we can work on your submission to court.

Best wishes

Sharon
x

esmerellda

mlucyminx wrote: »

Hi there.

As the estimated 6 working days are now up (i read banks were back in court on 28th October) does anyone have any news on what has happened in the last few days.

I know the recession news is probably more important but was just curious

The banks went into court to put their appeal against the original judgement in, and the judges are now off deciding whether to stand by justice smith's decisions or amend the judgement. So I expect another month before we hear back at least....everythings still on hold (excepting severe hardship cases)

lydz76

Hi, I'm new to this.
I'm in a lot of debt and have been reading about the reclaiming bank charges through hardship. If I applied for the charges could Barclays stop my account as it overdrawn by £4000? Would they be allowed if they did? Anymore info would be good. Thanks.

mr.skint_5

thats interesting,can i do the same with natwest? i'm sure with them there is another way;)

jadest

Just read this article... can someone explain its meaning.... I am claiming from Halifax but from the article below it looks like the judge has about turned to back them and a few other banks... I really can't understand why this is all dragging on so long!!! Please help me to understand!


News that the UK’s retail banks have scored a success in the High Court battle over the fairness or otherwise of overdraft charges does not mean that consumers should concede defeat.
This week, Judge Mr Justice Andrew Smith ruled that the historic bank terms of Barclays, Clydesdale Bank, HSBC and Halifax do not contain unfair penalties under common law.
The ruling also applied to the majority of Abbey’s terms but not to those of NatWest.
The Judge intends to further examine the terms of Bank of Scotland’s Intelligent Finance unit and those of Lloyds TSB.
The ruling prevents large numbers of bank customers challenging charges levied mostly between 2001 and 2007.
It will impact on thousands of claims for the refund of overdraft charges currently with the county courts.
The cases have been frozen since the Office of Fair Trading and eight banks agreed to a test case last year, and are likely to remain so.
The High Court case will continue in the New Year when further tests, which could challenge this week’s ruling, will be applied to establish whether the charges are unfair.
Both sides are likely to appeal if thwarted in their attempts to win the case and consumers could yet receive recompense for being charged up to £35 for inadvertently going into the red, when the true cost to a bank of such a misdemeanour is around £2.

mr.skint_5

jadest wrote: »

Just read this article... can someone explain its meaning.... I am claiming from Halifax but from the article below it looks like the judge has about turned to back them and a few other banks... I really can't understand why this is all dragging on so long!!! Please help me to understand!


News that the UK’s retail banks have scored a success in the High Court battle over the fairness or otherwise of overdraft charges does not mean that consumers should concede defeat.
This week, Judge Mr Justice Andrew Smith ruled that the historic bank terms of Barclays, Clydesdale Bank, HSBC and Halifax do not contain unfair penalties under common law.
The ruling also applied to the majority of Abbey’s terms but not to those of NatWest.
The Judge intends to further examine the terms of Bank of Scotland’s Intelligent Finance unit and those of Lloyds TSB.
The ruling prevents large numbers of bank customers challenging charges levied mostly between 2001 and 2007.
It will impact on thousands of claims for the refund of overdraft charges currently with the county courts.
The cases have been frozen since the Office of Fair Trading and eight banks agreed to a test case last year, and are likely to remain so.
The High Court case will continue in the New Year when further tests, which could challenge this week’s ruling, will be applied to establish whether the charges are unfair.
Both sides are likely to appeal if thwarted in their attempts to win the case and consumers could yet receive recompense for being charged up to £35 for inadvertently going into the red, when the true cost to a bank of such a misdemeanour is around £2.

wow that is interesting,looks like i will have to wait a bit longer to see if i can get any refunds from natwest which would mount up to arround £200 + for going into the red

jadest

I have found yet another article (below) say banks won second round... please please someone.... does this mean we will not get money bank?

Panicing here... was so sure we would eventually get them back.... Money saving expert has always thought we would too... what is going on????

And why are these article not being put on this site? and being explained?

October 24, 2008

The start of this year also saw the start of a High Court test case into overdraft charged imposed by banks in the UK. Banks had been receiving millions of pounds worth of claims over bank charges going back as far as 2001, but in the summer of 2007 the claims that were still pending in the courts were all put on hold following the decision to take the matter to the High Court.
The first round of the battle was won by the Office of Fair Trading, which had accused the banks of unfair and unlawful practices over the charges. However, it seems that round two has gone to the banks, with the presiding judge deciding that most consumers will not be able to challenge the terms and conditions of most of the banks under common law, with the exception of Intelligent Finance and NatWest, which are still being looked at.
After the recent announcement the Consumer Action Group said: “Some banks will be breathing a sigh of relief as the judge appears to have decided that these charges were not penalties under common law.” The British Banker’s Association added: “The question of penalties was one of the claims made by the OFT which triggered the initial court case. Now we have had this judgement we are keen to move on to the next stage as quickly as possible.”
An official from the OFT said: “This is another staging post in a complex legal process. We are progressing our investigation as quickly as possible and are in continuing discussion with the banks about our provisional views on the issue of fairness

mr.skint_5

as labour once said THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER can't they?