Why dont we just all boycott the banks in the test case

Nathan_Spleen

''How are they relatively good guys they have been ripping us of, have been caught out but will not accept this so are fighting tooth and claw to keep the huge profits they have been making in very bad financial climates after making very bad financial decisions and will drag this out for years if they get the chance. Quote from this site "At the moment there’s no date on when the appeal will take place, yet it is hoped it could be before the end of Summer; though more will be known by mid-June”
While the first appeal is likely to be quick - well, quick for the Courts that is - if they continue to appeal to successive higher courts after that, it could take years; saving the banks billions in the process as they continue to charge consumers, but consumers can’t reclaim from them."

I don’t base my opinions on selected and unattributed quotes from articles that have no relevance to the subject.


we won round one did we I have to disagree with you on that again from this site
"As for the other clauses which went against the OFT, it has decided not to appeal either the ‘plain and intelligible’ language or the 'current terms are not penalties' decision." and also " The banks have been given leave to appeal the High Court ruling that charges are subject to fairness rules. The appeal is likely to go to the Court of Appeal; yet that could then be appealed to the House of Lords, and possibly Europe after that. So if appeals were to be made at each stage, the decision process could take a very long time."

Again, a selected and cherry picked half quote. This is a wholly inadequate summary of the judgment. You obviously haven’t read the judgment so I’ll spoon-feed you: The OFT won the main issue - the assessment of fairness under UTCCR. Also, 4 of the 8 banks LOST the PIL issue and were refused leave to appeal it. PIL is a secondary issue and in the light of the the OFT winning on UTCCR 6.2, it render's PIL superfluous.

If you know nothing of the legal issues in the test case then please refrain from commenting on them.


''Id much prefer for you to be here face to face with me because your head would now be up your !!!! its easy for you to slag people off over the net but will you do it face to face I wonder I’m up for seeing if you do. OK I did a typo so what the “FSA” not OFT I meant.

On the same legal ground that the FSA have put a hold on customers claims if we can not claim our money back then they should not be able to continue to charge if this was the case the banks would not be trying to sandbag us and take as long as possible.''

This is painfully simple. The FSA do not have the jurisdiction to suspend the charges. Full stop. It’s ok saying they ’’should’’ but as they can’t your point is utterly meaningless.


''Im not saying I can get 500000 but I can get some people to boycott the biggest of the banks as in HSBO because some people still have a backbone and pride like our guy out in Iraq and Afghanistan. they have back bones my point is that if people actually did something instead of whingeing and !!!!!ing then in the currant climate yes HSBO would panic because the cant afford to be losing that much custom in one hit.''

You’d have a tough time getting ‘’some people to boycott the biggest of the banks as in HSBO’’. You call me a ''retard'' yet you are manifestly incapable of articulating the bank that you urge people to boycott. There is no such bank.

''Northern rock you retard how many people moved money out of that bank because there was an issue. A large amount of people moving money to another bank would mean that banks shares would take a dip and create the same environment if the government had not stepped in with northern rock it would have gone under ''

People moved their money from NR because they thought it was insolvent. Not because you wanted them to.

"As for the other clauses which went against the OFT, it has decided not to appeal either the ‘plain and intelligible’ language or the 'current terms are not penalties' decision." Why not the backs are appealing that charges are subject to fairness rules if they win the fact that OFT has not appealed about the terms being penalties will have well and screwed the consumer over.''

See point 2.

''Obviously Im not going to get a million people to change banks mate and that was not the point (you tell me to get a brain!!!) I stated 1 person cant change something but 1 million can at no point did I state I was going to get 1 million people to change banks and it IS simple one million people making a stand can have a massive effect when it involves millions of pounds from one company''

You have completely invalidated your entire argument here. You concede that ‘’Obviously Im not going to get a million people to change banks’’ and then go on to assure us that ‘’it IS simple’’ By any standards imaginable this is not a credible idea but an unattainable fantasy.

I'm sure it wouldn't have escaped your notice that not a single person has spoken in favour of your idea and if it wasn't for the criticism heaped upon it, this thread would already be languishing in the 'where are they now?' file.

Tozer

Without quoting your whole post, on what basis would the test case ever go to the European Court of Justice? There is no issue of EU law which is in issue. It is an entirely domestic law issue.

You post indicates that you haven't the slightest clue about how the English law appeals system works. There is plenty of information out there - go check your facts.

inmypocketnottheirs

TBH what aload of ^&**()&^

Turtle

It is HBOS not HSBO as you repeatedly state. I don't congratulate you on getting your money back. in fact I think it's completely irresponsible that people are being encouraged to claim all the charges (and interest in particular) back. Why should people be leant money for nothing? Banks are not charities they are businesses. By the way, you don't run up £6500 in charges because of a 'curve ball'. It's irresponsible spending and should be penalised (in my opinion) even though that word is 'not allowed'. I don't want to pay for people like you running up these charges in the first place then demanding them back.

Sol00

Turtle wrote: »

It is HBOS not HSBO as you repeatedly state. I don't congratulate you on getting your money back. in fact I think it's completely irresponsible that people are being encouraged to claim all the charges (and interest in particular) back. Why should people be leant money for nothing? Banks are not charities they are businesses. By the way, you don't run up £6500 in charges because of a 'curve ball'. It's irresponsible spending and should be penalised (in my opinion) even though that word is 'not allowed'. I don't want to pay for people like you running up these charges in the first place then demanding them back.

I disagree. Banks are the only organisation, as far as I am aware, that can 'dip' into your account and take money from it. I know they provide the service, but it is a personal account and no one else would be allowed to do it.

That aside, and I'm sure everyone has different opinions on bank charges, but my view is that they are completely unfair. They take money from your account (anything upto £40) and if you are short and have other DDs coming off you can find that you can quite easily end up in the red.

I don't feel as though I'm saying anything new here, but I'm tired and your comment annoyed me quite a bit.

Nathan_Spleen

Turtle wrote: »

I don't want to pay for people like you running up these charges in the first place then demanding them back.

You're not. According to the banks themselves, the people running up these charges pay for your banking.

Tozer

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

You're not. According to the banks themselves, the people running up these charges pay for your banking.

Hi Nathan. Not sure that is entirely true at all. Defaulters cost banks (and ultimately ALL customers) enormous amounts.

I think what IS true is that banks rely on people to borrow. Ultimately that is the business case for the good old fashioned building societies - get money in and lend it out.

Tozer

Sol00 wrote: »

I disagree. Banks are the only organisation, as far as I am aware, that can 'dip' into your account and take money from it. I know they provide the service, but it is a personal account and no one else would be allowed to do it.
.

Banks are also the only organisation that you can 'dip' into their accounts without permission. Hence why they allow the unauthorised overdraft...but charge for it.

If you are going to make a comparison to other organisations, consider popping into M&S for dinner and saying "I'm going to take this now but pop back next to pay.". I think most people would recognise that as theft.

youki

if the charges are all refunded and then banks cant charge due to the test case then what will happen is they will start charging for a bank account.I know there are a lot of banks now who charge but at least you get benefits with that charge.But they will start charging for even a bog standard account which doesnt help anyone in the long run.The be all and end all of this is the banks ALWAYS will win

whitewing

Unfortunately I can't change my acct as DS' maintenance goes in and I have no way of contacting his father to change the acct details.