OFT v Banks - Round One to OFT

[jowalshy]

I can see that you are a bit frustrated selv with noone actually telling you what is going on in the OFT test case. Basically what is happening is that all the banks are at the moment putting down their arguments. Each bank has been given a little time slot in which to do this. I don't know which bank you are with so I cannot comment on what your bank has done at present, but should you wish to let me know this I am sure I can do a little digging as to what they have said. Also there has been plenty of press regarding the test case (have a look at the BBC news website and click on "business" and then "your money")

[SELV]

Cheers 'jowalshy' thanks for the reply I will get onto the case as soon as I have done this post.My bank is Barclays and as you are a Platinum Account Customer you should have a decent shovel so get diggin me old matey and we'll speak soon.

[jowalshy]

This is what was on the BBC site regarding Barclays:-

BBC NEWS | Business | Barclays begins charges defence

[SELV]

Nice one jowalshy,just about to go on the site when i had e-mail about your post.Well had a quick look about all things mentioned by Spike ,its a bit gobbly guk to a hopefully normal guy like me but in my case one thing he said about writing cheques and then going over your limit i would have thought was right but why do the Banks still pay out Direct Debits thus making you go over your limit and then charging you?also if they are not in the wrong why re-imburse the ammount of people they have already done?

[jowalshy]

Direct Debits, standing orders, cheque payments etc are all payments authorised by yourself and therefore the bank probably view them as the same sort of thing. In other words, if you have a direct debit going out of your account when you know it is going to push you over the limit, then this in a way is the same as issuing a cheque which will take you over the limit. The banks probably take the view that you should therefore cancel DD's, SO's etc if they could push you over the limit the same way as don't write a cheque if you know you haven't the money in the account to cover it.

OMG I sound like I'm for the banks

[jowalshy]

As for them refunding loads of charges so far. Back before the OFT test case thingy, banks did not want the claims to get to court stage and therefore settled prior to the actual court case. Obviously with sooooooo many people claiming now, something had to be done in order to get some clarification on the legality of the charges, hence the Test case.

[SELV]

Nice one mate ,you said that in a way that i could understand more than the way it is portrayed by Spike and the rest of the QC BRIGADE.

[jowalshy]

Have you had a chance to read the OFT's POC's (Particulars of claim)

[vortex]

just for information, the BBC was not covering todays proceedings which were the banks finishing up their arguments. OFT expected to start tomorrow.

[tonycee]

Originally Posted by SELV

Well since my last post all that has been on is a platinum account cat and a non avatar classic account post non of which have told me anything except how betting works I would be happier if that Dennis Taylor lookalike worm was to speak to me then I will know there is no more news .

Funny.

If you go to BBC News 24

Thats BBC News 24 from a platinum cat <<<<<<<<< Press Here.....

Type in OFT Test Case, and you can get the latest news for yourself.

Oh, and you want to hope that Dennis Taylor worm dosent read this.

[SELV]

Thanks jowalshy i will have a look tomorrow bit late now got to make the wife a cup of tea and a biscuit before we go to bed.
Also thank you tonycee for your info i'll do the same tomorrow you're a purrrrrfect gent .goodnight.

[Kinc]

The banks are admitting it's a service which falls under UTCCR reg's even though they have made it quite clear in the past it's a 'breach of contract' to the customers.

They are saying though because these services are packaged all nicely together for every man woman and child they don't apply. They say it's because people have a choice on how they use the package. (Dear Bank, did you let me know about all these other packages that exsisted at the time of opening the account or at anytime to the point of me writing you a letter?)

Mis-Selling.

[african_igbo]

Thanks for the heads up I have tried goooogle but lacking in update information on whats what.

[hilaryfrances]

thanks for this info guys

[jowalshy]

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks' 'self-serving propaganda'

[Gez]

Hallelujah! Now they are addressing the important bit. Now what I'd like to see examined is a simple "yes or no" Do these "services" generate a profit?

If yes, then does this confirm that thousands of written defences for cases currently in the system, that claim that the charges are to cover admin costs are untruthful? If not, why not?

How do these "services", in terms of cause & action, differ from the old system of "to cover admin costs". This comparison should be made imo because whilst there are active cases still being defended with the "to cover our costs" argument, they are entirely relevant to this case..

[mel3uk]

is there anywhere we can go (on the web) where we can get an update of whats happening on this test case?