« Inside Gordon's mind | Main | Eternal, British and clean »

September 24, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

Steven L knows far more about this than I do. the test case is surely the best way forward rather than thousands of claims in small claim courts all enriching compensation handlers.

I wish my bank would stop trying to sell me bonds that go DOWN in value after the first year, tie up cash and rob if the money is withdrawn early. All without providing any significant benefit.

Paul Flynn

Thanks Valleylad.

There is a dash of humbug in the claims. Someone has to pay these costs. They will be recycled under a different heading when the dust settles

It's the self-deluded ambulance chasers who stir my ire - offering help with one hand while picking our pockets with the other. it would be generous to call them parasites.

It's difficult to raise the energy to attack Tories - especially when they do it so well themselves. No-one is beyond redemption as Quentin Davies, John Bercow et al are proving.

I thought Nye's comment was deeply speciesist and unfair to vermin.

Paul Flynn

Thanks Iain Dale. Relieved to hear you are not lodged in the uncomfortable position described.

I have always seen you as a man of vision - certainly beyond the fast approaching Cameron horizon.
I have ordered your new book through Politicos and I urge all my readers to do the same.

Back to your blog and prepare for riches.


"I'm fully aware of the legalese regarding "penalty" charges, but why should the banks bear the costs of people too stupid to manage their own money?" (valleylad)

Banks charges are not a political issue really, unless you bring it up to the point of overall EU membership, and even before our accession to the EC, Parliament had not legislated to make financial penalties enforceable. This is a legal issue, sympathy is irrelevant.

It is not a crime to be 'stupid'. Although being stupid allows you to enter into agreements that most people would regard as stupid (and this is subjective, a girl I work with thinks me spending £10 on cigar is stupid I think her spending £169 on a pair of jeans is).

The legal fact is that penalties are unenforceable in UK contract law. futher than that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracst Regulations 1999 give the OFT the power to challenge the charges in court. Given the many thousands of small claims and the banks inability/reluctance to deal with them on a small claims level I think a high court case is perfectly justified.

Sentiment should not come into it, this case must be decided on a purely legal basis.

Iain Dale

Usually I am described as being so far up Cameron's arse I've disappeared, so to be described as anti Cameronian is an accolade indeed!


My sympathy is with the banks in this case, if I contract with a company if I do X you may charge me Y, why years later should it be possible to renege on that contract?

I'm fully aware of the legalese regarding "penalty" charges, but why should the banks bear the costs of people too stupid to manage their own money?

The blog makes new posts easier to find, so is better than the old site - thoroughly enjoy reading it most nights. Not sure about political discourse however. As someone who feels Nye held too high an opinion of the tories, I can't really think of a forum where I'd go and they'd go.

The comments to this entry are closed.