The OFT Case - Page 7

adamc6671 · 28th April 2008, 09:26

I also agree with you both BW and JC. The chances of 'the system' saying, in effect, "you can do what you like with your bank accounts, borrow as much as you like from the banks in unauthorised fashion, and you won't be charged" are nil.

However, I do feel that in the end something similar to the current situation with credit card a/c's and the £12 charge, is likely to be the final outcome, with the banks and the OFT informally agreeing this, without anything actually 'being carved in stone' as it were.

If that is the case, then re-vamping existing claims by claiming everything over £12 until the point is reached when the a/c balance would not have been o/drawn, and then claiming everything from that point on, would seem to be the way to go. I'm contemplating that very seriously with both of my existing claims, and have done the groundwork. The end result is that the claims are only a few hundered down in over 7 thou, taking into account the 8% SI. What do you think?

I also totally agree, JC, that maximising publicity for the banks many wrong-doings could do us no harm at all, and would in all probability help us very considerably. It just needs a co-ordinated effort to collect and collate the information, and present it to the media.

All the best - Adam.

Leecabs · 28th April 2008, 13:47

Hi All,

I met with a friend of mine on Friday who works for a major consultant of the major banks and they are advising the banking sector to prepare to settle all of the claims.

I cant name names or reveal my source as it would get him/her in trouble, I believe the banks are going to take the advice so be prepared for more offer letters!

Cheers

Lee

JonCris · 28th April 2008, 13:54

leecabs ask your friend if this would be a PR exercise only an attempt to redeem what little is left of their reputation or do they really think there's a chance they could lose or both

Leecabs · 28th April 2008, 13:56

Will do!

Chromatix · 28th April 2008, 14:44

As a clarification exercise, I have actually just read the 119-page blob of legalese, and there are a couple of points that most people haven't realised.

The judge determined that the *present* T&Cs used by the banks do not operate on the "breach of contract" principle when levying Relevant Charges. He said nothing at all about *historical* T&Cs, such as those in effect when I reclaimed my charges in 2005.

I get the distinct impression that if he *had* considered these historical terms, he would have found them to operate in the "breach of contract" mode, and thus subject to the "penalty charge" rules in common law. So if you have old charges to reclaim, you may do so under the penalty-charge rules if your T&Cs for the time period in question allow. This is mostly helpful to business claimants.

The *other* ruling is that the OFT has free reign to apply the UTCCRs to the current T&Cs and their Relevant Charges. This is *good* because it probably means that the charges will be disallowed or greatly reduced. The judge's reasoning in this matter is extremely involved, but I believe that the banks will find it extremely difficult to wriggle out from under it.

Part of the latter decision, for example, is that the Unpaid Item Fee is most certainly not a "fee for a service", because no service is provided to the consumer holding the account. This is plainly obvious to the layman, and that fact formed part of his reasoning. The other Relevant Charges were determined not to be "fees for a service" by a different and more complex reasoning.

Bookworm · 28th April 2008, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromatix

there are a couple of points that most people haven't realised.

I think you'll find that they have.
BBC NEWS | Business | Slow progress on bank charges

Quote:

The issue of historic terms and conditions is still wide open
Marc Gander, CAG

paulwlton · 3rd July 2008, 23:52

I believe there is a hearing next week to consider whether the bank's t&cs previously used are capable of being penalties.

yourbank · 4th July 2008, 19:35

The historic terms and conditions judgement is next week, I have heard.

indebtstudent · 5th July 2008, 16:06

I would bet that the vast majority of the claims currently stayed are based (at least in part) on historic terms and conditions.

The wording is different in the past T & C's, explicitly stating you must not do this etc, the only institutions which hasn't frantically re written its T & C's is Nationwide.

However if the historic T & C's support the contention that the charges ARE penalties what does that mean? The action is the same, surely by changing the wording the banks shouldn't be let off?

My main concern is that, through thier own short term greed, banks are now having a very tought time of it. Nobody in power wants to take a shot at the banks at this time.

texel · 5th July 2008, 18:02

When is more news coming out re the OFT case as I have to go to court on the 11th for a full hearing against BOS and they are going to try for a third time to sist having already lost twice before. Theyb are now telling me that the charges are not penalty charges according to the OFT case

JonCris · 6th July 2008, 03:03

texel are you the defendant because if so you can ask that the claim be stayed until a final Judgment no matter what BOS claim the matter is not decided

texel · 6th July 2008, 11:35

JonCris
Good heavens I am the pursuer not the defendant

JonCris · 6th July 2008, 13:22

Then am I correct in assuming your previous claims didn't reach a conclusion??

texel · 6th July 2008, 14:27

Provided we are talking about this one claim. First I had to go to court to fight a sist then we had a hearing when BOS did not turn up so i won by default when the extract for payment was sent. BOS asked for a recall saying their lawyers got the date for the hearing mixed up. So it was back to court for the recall that was when BOS tried to do a nother sist which they lost so now it is 11th july for the final hearing ( I hope)

carter56 · 7th July 2008, 14:24

whats new this week i heard its another decision in the courts ?
linda

yourbank · 7th July 2008, 19:01

Historic terms and conditions are being discussed this week and the OFT has a new QC in charge with a very impressive CV
http://www.4stonebuildings.com/pdf/jonathan_crow.pdf

carter56 · 23rd July 2008, 13:17

any news anyone ?

texel · 23rd July 2008, 14:31

I find it is very difficult getting news about what is happening in court about the OFT case. When I was in court on the 11th july. The lawyer working for BOS came out with a lot of jargon about what had happened re ths case. things I knew nothing about so of course could not say anything

. The only thing that worked in my favour was for the third time BOS was unable to sist the action

But the judge continued the action for 10 weeks. So it is back to the court for the fifth time on the 19th. Sept.

To think if I eventually all I can except to get for costs is a max of £76

Of course it has cost me alot more than that.

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.