The OFT Case

[renegotiation]

Originally Posted by JonCris

breeze ask Martin about his next programme & the credit card companies ploy of using the current stay to avoid repaying their charges

Is that actually working in the courts or are they just saying that to deter court action in the first place?

[breeze1996]

It Pays To Watch: Wednesdays @ 7:30 on five

just found this link to his website on the tv programs hope it helps.

i joined his blog and he emails stuff that has been found he won't answer emails as it is so busy.

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by renegotiation

Is that actually working in the courts or are they just saying that to deter court action in the first place?

Yes - unfortunately many courts have effectively colluded with the lenders by also staying card claims as well as bank charge claims when they shouldn't have as the card companies are not part of the action & their fate had already been decided by the OFT

[mailmannz]

Originally Posted by JonCris

I'm not sure if the above is a sarcy response to my suggestion that it's all a sham - I would simply state that there being a court case was/is the best & most obvious way of stopping consumers claiming their money back.

No it isnt because all those days in court, not to mention all the work required to get there actually costs the banks a bomb!

If this was a sham, and if the banks were REALLY in collusion with the OFT, the FSA would have announced years ago that the bank charges were legal, fair and just.

What will lose this for the OFT would be the mickey mouse outfit they had representing their side of the case.

Mailman

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by mailmannz

No it isnt because all those days in court, not to mention all the work required to get there actually costs the banks a bomb!
Really & how much do you reckon they are NOW saving by NOT having to settle claims - or what do you consider it would cost them paying the legal costs - as apposed to having to pay compensation to customers past & present - my guess - settling claims which I'm sure would be many millions if not billions more


If this was a sham, and if the banks were REALLY in collusion with the OFT, the FSA would have announced years ago that the bank charges were legal, fair and just. Only a court can decide what's fair & legal which is the reason the banks didn't want to answer to the court in thousands of actions brought by consumers where the banks have withdrawn at the last minute

What will lose this for the OFT would be the mickey mouse outfit they had representing their side of the case.

Mailman

See above in red

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[rdm2006]

really there should be a two pronged attack because not only are the charges not fair in the way that they are excessive but they are also one sided most contracts protect both sides from one failing in some way.

How many banks T & C's say that if the bank make a mistake then the customer is entitled to charge them for their losses - none

they basically say that if you make a mistake we want that corrected and we will charge you for that mistake, but if we make a mistake you will just get your money back and you are then at our mercy to decide if we feel like paying you compensation or not - how fair is that?

[texel]

I agree with rdm 2006. I had a situation with BOS where they made a mistake and eventually paid me £10 compensation. I wrote back enquiring why when i made a mkistake it cost me £ 30 and they only paid me £10 for their mistake

[dannyboy660]

Originally Posted by JonCris

It was undertaken to allow the banks more time to introduce their new charging regime so their inflated profits won't suffer & even if it wasn't that's the effect it's having.

I agree.

This whole thing is a blessing in disguise for the Govt, and to a certain extent the banks themselves.

They can introduce standard charges for Bank accounts for everybody, thereby doing away with the outdated "subsidy" system, and fit in nicely with the EU cross border Banking directives. Everybody getting nicely in step, and it's been made to look like it was the consumers choice. What a beautiful stroke of social engineering.

The next step will be to abolish the whole outdated idea of "spending a penny" - and everyone will be "Euronating" instead.

[dannyboy660]

I can never find the right things when I need them but here's a start

"When there is doubt as to the meaning of a written term (including standard terms) in your contract with a professional, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer will prevail. This rule derives from the general rule whereby in contracts where all or certain terms are in writing, these terms must always be drafted in plain, intelligible language."


European Commission - Your Europe - Citizens - Unfair terms in contracts

Mmmm. Looks good!!

[Kid Shelleen]

Interesting thought.

It's not too difficult to imagine the Bank Manager, the District Judge and a few Lawyers getting together at the Lodge on a friday night and finding ways to make the best out of it.

It doesn't take a giant leap of the imagination to wonder if the whole thing is being engineered in some way.

[JonCris]

Interesting but I wonder if for the 1st time we 'find' we can opt out of some European legislation

[dannyboy660]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Interesting but I wonder if for the 1st time we 'find' we can opt out of some European legislation

Quite possibly, but I suspect the banks might be prepared to go with it.

Have you noticed how Banks like ING, KBC and the like, seem to be doing quite well in the UK, but you won't find very many branches of 'our' high street banks on the continent?? I think you'll find the UK is virtually a killing field for banks with inflated charges and the very clever illusion of 'free' banking. This doesn't happen elsewhere in Europe, at least not on such a large scale so it's not very attractive to UK banks - but the European banks are now poaching customers on UK soil and doing quite well operating under UK rules. I was reading amongst that EU stuff that UK banks will soon be offering Polish versions of their websites, a real sign of the times.

No. I believe this is all part of the process of levelling out the playing field and laying the foundations for the way UK banking will eventually have to merge with their EU colleagues. Another step along the road to a truly Global, or for the time being, European economy.

I mean one of the big 'threats' at the moment is "Do you really want to see the end of Free Banking??"........but we all know as long as your credit interest rate is lower than the true rate of inflation your banking has never been 'free', the banks always win. They'll come out of this smelling of roses and will be able to launch their own financial 'invasion' of mainland Europe.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[ss_collins]

On the flipside we can all start banking with Credit Agricole or whoever

[dannyboy660]

Looking again at that EU 'Unfair terms in contracts' has just reminded me that in most EU member states a court will put a ceiling on the amount a third party Debt purchaser or Factor can claim on the outstanding balance of an alleged debt, as they only pay a fraction of the face value anyway.

"A contract term is in principle regarded as unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the party's rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

"If you come across such terms you have the right to challenge them or to ignore them - they do not bind you."


Surely that should apply to the UK as well???

I'm drifting off topic a bit now - but the Debt forum people might want to consider that point.

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by dannyboy660

"A contract term is in principle regarded as unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the party's rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."
Surely that should apply to the UK as well???

It does - It's in the UTCCR. (Section 5)

[dannyboy660]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

It does - It's in the UTCCR. (Section 5)

I've just had one of those 'Eureka' moments.

Suddenly things just got a lot clearer.

Bookie, I love you, and I want to have your babies.

[Bookworm]

Just give me your postcode, and you can have them, I'll even even pay for P&P.

[rdm2006]

is it not an unfair term and condition if only one side can apply charges then?

[mailmannz]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Really & how much do you reckon they are NOW saving by NOT having to settle claims - or what do you consider it would cost them paying the legal costs - as apposed to having to pay compensation to customers past & present - my guess - settling claims which I'm sure would be many millions if not billions more

You are not getting what I am trying to say.

You say there is a conspiracy going on here...Im saying bull pucky, if there was one there wouldnt have been a court case to start with AND the FSA would have ruled years ago that bank charges were lovely jubberly.

The very fact the banks have had to front up to court and face the music should tell all but the most challenged individuals that any talk of a conspiracy between the banks and the OFT, FSA and Elvis is absolute crap. Crap on the 9/11 conspiracy magnitude!

Mailman

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[mailmannz]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

It does - It's in the UTCCR. (Section 5)

Hence why thank banks were argueing the UTCCR doesnt apply to bank charges hey?

Mailman

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.