Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

pingchris

how can a missed direct debit be classed as an overdraught,if i am not in effect overdrawn by any amount of money,this case was about overdraughts,does a missed direct debit charge apply to this case ?

SAIBOT

Wow I'm so surprised by the judgement...not.

This is the nail in the coffin to any remaining dreams that any of you may still have had about ever being refunded over these charges.

It was never going to happen. This country has no justice whatsoever. Lost a case in court? Just keep appealing until you win. Problem solved.

All of this time, all of this talk, every single one of you insisting the banks would lose this final judgement, WRONG! That just ain't how it works in the UK my friends. Right never overturns wrong. Justice never prevails.

When David (us the consumer) takes on Goliath (the rich, smug, greedy bankers) Goliath always destroys him.

What an absolute waste of time and effort.

katiefly

I am speechless... this is so wrong, and the UK government is useless considering they are the major shareholders of several big banks.

orc_2

wubberchicken wrote: »

I take it no-one's heard of Reg 5 of the UTCCR??

s5(1) UTCCR 1999 is probably one of the options being looked at.:D

orc_2

SAIBOT wrote: »

What an absolute waste of time and effort.

Yes, its a shock and a disappointment. However the time and effort has been well worth it and a heck of a lot has been achieved.

However, time is needed by all to consider the available options.

It is not necessarily over yet, by any means.

SAIBOT

orc wrote: »

Yes, its a shock and a disappointment. However the time and effort has been well worth it and a heck of a lot has been achieved.

Seriously, don't make me laugh.

unfuwain

Would it not be more helpful if people talked about what can be done now.

I will ask..Can people still claim against the charges,if they can prove real Hardship. ?????

Twinkly

Morglin wrote: »

Good verdict - this means we (those of us that didn't go overdrawn without permission) won't all have to pay for the compensation, either through taxes on the banks we own, or through bank charges being applied to all.

Lin

Bad verdict. Do you honestly believe the con that overdraft charges are the ONLY way you get so-called free banking ? Laughable. Your condescension and arrogance towards those who have genuinely suffered severe hardship through this extortionate and unfair practice is breathtaking.

Two words. Taxpayer Bailout.

MY taxes, my CHILDREN'S taxes and MY GRANDCHILDREN'S taxes will be paying the price for you retaining your precious bank account at all. I am paying for YOU.

So...step back and think on about the bigger picture. That goes for anyone else who thinks this is a victory for them. It isn't it is a victory for the banks and their pockets alone.

What price a moral conscience eh.

pie81

unfuwain wrote: »

Would it not be more helpful if people talked about what can be done now.

I will ask..Can people still claim against the charges,if they can prove real Hardship. ?????

No, people cannot bring any claim using the old arguments (i.e. "penalty clause" and s6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations). These arguments have been firmly decided by the Supreme Court to be wrong. That applies whether you are in hardship or not.

This also means that any claim that people have previously put will fail, because it will have been made using the old arguments.

However, it may be possible for people (whether in hardship or not) to bring new claims using new arguments. The main likely new argument is under s5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. Martin's update article says he's working on template letters/court forms which use this new s5 argument.

Personally though I very much doubt the new s5 argument will get anywhere fast. If it was that good then it would have been thought of before now. Banks will again just fight the whole way... all the way to the Supreme Court again if they have to.

Lex555

Why on earth is no-one talking about appealing this latest Judgement under the same legislation before we start talking about other clauses? What about the European and International Courts? If the banks can appeal twice against multiple Judgements, then surely the reclaimers should be able to appeal at least twice aswell. And what the hell is the supreme court? I thought only the USA had a "supreme court". I thought it was the house of lords that were trying the latest case/appeal. People say finally there is clarity now and nail in the coffin etc. What the hell are you talking about?!?!

If anything there is now far less clarity as even the courts can't agree on the issue. It's still 2-1 to us. And nail in the coffin? What coffin? There never was a coffin as i believed most people expected the banks to lose. The fact that this so called court are saying 2 other high court judgements were wrong just makes it even less credible and laughable.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense would think that it's blidingly obvious that something "dodgy" has gone on. I'm sure people just daren't elaborate further for fear of making libel comments. Yet a lot of people seem to be taking the judgement seriously by what they're saying. This battle may have been lost, but the war should be far from over.