![]() |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() In their defence they clearly state:
12 "Finally, HSBC Bank PLC seeks a declaration in its counterclaim that none of the relevant terms and conditions and charges are capable to amounting to penalties at common law. This is because the consumer does not and did not commit any relevant breach of the relevant terms and conditions by reason of the matters complained of by the OFT and none of the charges are payable on or for a breach of contract by the customer." However talk about shooting themselves in the foot............. http://www.penaltyactiongroup.co.uk/...43&topic=651.0 http://www.penaltyactiongroup.co.uk/...HSBCBreach.pdf |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean
in the above case (which is the appeal) the word penalties has been freely used without any questions being raised by the appellant to the "such usage" of the "said term" ! Quote:
Quote:
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() FWIW
Abbeys terms and conditions refers specifically to breaches of their t&c as do es their defence issued in cases prior to the OFT test case being announced. But, they will argue its semantics no doubt. Its funny how the courts will in some cases accept this in others they wont. JMHO Glenn
__________________
Please PM or drop me an email if you want my input on anything, i dont always log on because of pressures of work but will be happy to help if i know someone needs support. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Looks like a bit of good old cloaking to me.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Banks etc charge interset on late payment charges if you don't pay it in full with the next monthly payment, if they say its a finance charge then finance charges can't carry interest, can they?? as its then a "one off "payment?
sparkie |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Its been live for a while, but yes fairly new.
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|