Bank wins "charges" Case

Discussion in 'Finance, Property, Law' started by Banshee_09, May 15, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. District Judge Cook, at Birmingham County Court, dismissed a claim for £2,545 from Kevin Berwick.

    I wonder if he has any shares in the banks :x
     
  2. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    Mr Berwick has leave to appeal, and by all accounts it seems that the learned Judge didn't actually go by the law, so I doubt this is the last we've heard of this.

    The Consumer Action Group has many posts about cases where judges have either disregarded evidence against banks, or just accepted their evidence, which judgments have subsequently been set aside.
     
  3. I am one of the lucky ones, I put in a claim for £1400 and got an offer of £1166, I am happy to take this as it is over 80% and cannot be arrsed going through all the other letter writing etc. I only put in the letter to see what happened on the off chance. Will pay for quite a few shandies.
     
  4. Dont worry heres the break down clicky as he didnt fill in his MCOL paperwork correctly.
     
  5. Seems that Lloyds conduct in this case was exactly the same as has caused previous cases to win by default, thus preventing the possiblilty of a precident against the banks. Strange that, as they maintain that the charges are "fair", they repeatedly fail to mount a proper defence. Surely, if they believe they can win, they have a duty to their shareholders to defend properly and appeal if they lose? The cynical side of me thinks it's almost as if they really don't want a proper test case.

    Given the huge weight of informed opinion that the banks can't win, maybe the Judge in question decided it was time to force their hand. Finding against them would have kept the banks safe in the knowledge that they could force everyone with a claim to go through the full process.

    Finding in their favour, on the other hand, gives a chance for it to be taken to the next stage. Maybe not such a bad thing!
     
  6. For anyone who's interested here's a link to the approved judgement.

    In brief the Judge decided that the law, as it is written, allows the bank to make reasonable charges for the services that it provides, and that as Berwick did not prove that the charges levied were unreasonable, he could not claim them back. (Hopefully I've got that right).

    Interestingly the Bank did not try and defend the case, possibly because they had 'lost the paperwork'.

    PB
     
  7. [quote="Fugly
    TROLL!

    Go fuck yourself, Chubb.[/quote]

    please mods can you remove fugly comments he seems obessed by the above user

    thankyou so much
     
  8. He stated that the charges levied against him were Illegal where he should have stated that they were Unlawful.
    The wording makes all the difference as he has found out to his cost.
     
  9. Makes me wonder how anyone can be stupid enough to rack up that much in bank charges in the first place.

    If he had his admin sorted then he wouldn't have had to pay them
     
  10. Its not charges added up, its 30 quid here and there for last 6 yrs

    Not enough in your account for Direct debit charging you £30
    and now that because we've made you go overdrawn thats another £28
    and now were charging interest ...etc per month
     
  11. Yes but even if it's £2545 over six years, that's still at least £30/month :?