How will the OFT decision impact on CAG?

indebtstudent · 25th February 2007, 22:05

It seems likely they will decide on some sort of cap (I believe) but will this really change anything?

I mean with credit cards you're still free to challenge the amount of £12 as nobody has said this refelcts costs. The situation would surely be the same with bank charges?

I only mention this because I'm sure Martin Lewis suggested, on the tonight show, that once the OFT made its decision people wouldn't be able to claim.

Stornoway · 25th February 2007, 22:21

i dont think he said you wouldnt be able to claim entirely but he did seem to indicate that you would only be able to claim the difference between the charge and £12. As you have indicated many people are already claiming full refunds on credit cards despite the cap. Inmy view nothing changes.

Bookworm · 25th February 2007, 22:25

ITV - 'Tonight' programme - Friday 23 Feb 8.00 pm

To save repeating myself.

barracad · 25th February 2007, 22:27

If the charge is deemed unlawful, then the whole charge is unlawful, which is why people are still claiming the credit card charges back even if they've been charged £12. The same would apply to Bank Charges. Besides, the OFT can't decide if a charge is lawful anyway!

Martin said a lot of things in that program which differs from the advice given on this site, unfortunately. You need to judge for yourself whose advice you follow, but take a look at who has had the most success and provides the most information and support.

loverboy · 26th February 2007, 18:56

Yes although OFT will have an effect in court!!! basically this sets a fair practice code of charging £15, although not law , the courts may regard that as authority for the banks to charge that amount, OFT is a extra legal body as it called.
So claim now, it is possible upon OFT ruling you will only get back the difference between 15 and 30 ie 15, halfing your claim!!

Bookworm · 26th February 2007, 21:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by loverboy

Yes although OFT will have an effect in court!!! basically this sets a fair practice code of charging £15, although not law , the courts may regard that as authority for the banks to charge that amount, OFT is a extra legal body as it called.
So claim now, it is possible upon OFT ruling you will only get back the difference between 15 and 30 ie 15, halfing your claim!!

Absolutely not.

In the OFT's own words (credit card report, April 5th 2006):

Quote:

What costs were in the reasonable contemplation of the consumer would be a question for the court to decide.

Please be aware that only a court can decide whether a term is unfair and what is stated here is just our view.

Furthermore, if a term is deemed unfair, it will be deemed non-enforceable in its entirety. That's how it goes.

loverboy · 26th February 2007, 23:07

Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april

Stornoway · 27th February 2007, 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by loverboy

Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april

Loverboy, on what basis should we trust you - do you have inside knowledge or are you employed in the legal profession ?

Bookworm · 27th February 2007, 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by loverboy

Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april

Trust you?

On what basis?

I repeat:

If a term is deemed unfair, it will be deemed non-enforceable in its entirety.

That's the law.

I also repeat that the OFT themselves advise that they can not decide a level at which a charge would be deemed lawful, and instead advise customers to go to court if they think they have been charged penalty fees.

So, if you want me to trust you, I suggest you'll need a bit more than blind faith.

gizmo111 · 27th February 2007, 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by loverboy

Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april

Citicards have already tried this saying that £12 is the industry standard asd set by the OFT and in court last week the judge ordered that Citi provided full disclosure of their costs, as the OFT did not and cannot say that £12 is a fair charge, it is up to me/the court to decide the issue of penalty charges, and I cannot to do so without a full breakdown of their figures.

Funny thing is one week before court hearing, I tried to settle out of court and Citi's legal team said trust me Mrs Gizzmo you will lose!

loverboy · 27th February 2007, 10:05

yes but what im saying is OFT are going to make a ruling on what is fair to charge, hence change is on its way,

loverboy · 27th February 2007, 10:06

Im a law student , you are right if a charge is unfair its un fair and unlawfull, what im saying is it will no longer be looked at as unfair, by the courts,

gizmo111 · 27th February 2007, 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by loverboy

yes but what im saying is OFT are going to make a ruling on what is fair to charge, hence change is on its way,

As bookie has already said the OFT cannot and have already said they canoot make a ruling on waht is fair and what is not - only a court can decide this.

Bookworm · 27th February 2007, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by loverboy

yes but what im saying is OFT are going to make a ruling on what is fair to charge, hence change is on its way,

No, they will not. They will set a threshold at which they themselves will take action, as they did on credit cards:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...ts/oft842a.pdf (summary)
and
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...cts/oft842.pdf (full report)

Quote:

We are not suggesting that default fees should be set at £12, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.

I really don't see how else to make it clearer then the OFT themselves did...

Spiceskull · 27th February 2007, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by loverboy

Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april

As everyone else says - WRONG!

The OFT will only advise, and they are very careful not to jeopardise their position by adding the rider - TWICE - that only the court can decide what is fair, and only the court can decide what is legal...additionally, when they add this rider they imply that a court will decide on a case by case basis, and that therefore there is no "blanket" fair or lawful charge...

callingcard · 27th February 2007, 11:08

When I was a student, although not a law student. I was told in a series of lectures on mainly business law as part of a Business Administration course on an an engineering degree course that only Parliament and Judges can make laws. A judge can set a precedent in court, the precedent can then if the Government of the day wishes be incorporated in an Act. The banks are afraid that one day soon a judge will order a full disclosure of their internal costs relating to refusing to pay direct debits, cheques etc. In fact it gizmo111 has reported that a judge ordered Citicards to disclose their internal costs, I assume they didn't and just paid up. A bank will not want to disclose it's internal costs as I suspect that refusing a direct debit only costs a fraction of a penny and they don't want to confirm a lot of peoples suspicions that they are profiteering and risk having a lucrative revenue stream cut off for good by a new Law.

The OFT have no powers to make Law they can interpret law just as the rest of us can, they can make recomendations, they can state their own rules that govern if they themselves will take action to enforce the Law. The OFT like the Police or the Health and Safety Executive have to bring evidence to a court for learned council to argue the case and a Judge and if appropriate a Jury to decide using the presented evidence to decide on an appropriate order or ruling. The OFT cannot make a ruling in the same sense that a Judge in court can.

I'll now get off my soap box and wait for someone to say I am wrong
I have represented myself in an arbitration hearing in front of a District Judge in a money claim case in the small claims court. Although I won, the Sheriffs Offices I instructed to enforce the order the Judge made for the defend

CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right These sales also help us to keep helping YOU and keeps this site free of third party adverts!

Small Claims Kit	Small Claims Court Guide New Edition	CallBurner - Skype CallRecorder Review	Last Will & Testament Kit	Fight a Motoring Ticket

Alternatively you could purchase a CAG email address here, or maybe you'd prefer our address labels here
UPDATE: Consumer Forums ConsumerWiki is now LIVE - click here: ConsumerWiki N.B. Please note - due to postage costs these products are only available in the U.K.