OFT v Banks - Round One to OFT

[JOSH_IOU]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

All this which is taking us far from the purpose of this thread, but I thought such worrying comments needed highlighting and querying.

No kidding

[Aequitas]

Originally Posted by JOSH_IOU

what kind?

All contracts to which the Regulations apply.

[JOSH_IOU]

You cant drop it can you?

[Aequitas]

Let's start again.


You said:


It does not matter how much they charge us if we were not given the chance to negotiate the price it is an unlawful amount.


The current Regulations say:


In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate...to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange


You have yet to persuade me that what you said is not incompatible with the Regulations.


But we also need to consider fully the implication of what you say. Let's suppose we are concerned with a hotel booking (what applies to a banking contract must apply to a hotel booking). The price advertised is for a certain amount. You book a room. The price was not individually negotiated. According to you it is an unlawful amount and, moreover, “the contract cannot be enforced in a court of law”. Are you telling me that if you stay in the room when you come to leave there is no obligation to pay?

[yourbank]

Booworm, it wasn't precedent setting which is what I quoted originally in my initial eroneous post 1053.(please post evidence of the precedent setting case on bank charges alone).
To go back on topic, are you guys aware that the FSA are proposing that hardship claims are being defined as £500 worth of charges during the year? I have read this across other forums. The topic is interrelated as the OFT test case was the cause of the FSA waiver in the first place.

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by yourbank

Booworm, it wasn't precedent setting which is what I quoted originally in my initial eroneous post 1053.(please post evidence of the precedent setting case on bank charges alone).

No, of course, it wasn't. Who said it was? Neither was Berwick (not Barwick) which you mentioned alongside the alleged thousands of lost cases you mentioned in your post.

I'm really not sure of where you are going in your reasoning, or even what is your point. First you mention that no case has set precedent in the matter, which I don't think anyone was disputing, you then say thousands lost their cases, then reduced to hundreds, with no evidence whatsoever to back this up (so far anyway), and all this in an attempt to show what?... I really don't know. I know it won't be the first or the last time, but I am confused.

[yourbank]

Bookworm, Josh IOU says he did not agree with the stay on cases. What I have badly done is to state that there are people who have gone to court and lost on the same basis as going to court and won. For example, Barwick went to court on the same premise and thousands of others yet, despite this and the same legal arguments, he lost along with another claimant who did not turn up. The not turning up at civil court is an example, ie they filled in templated MCOL's, assumed the bank would pay out and didn't turn up to court. If the stays are removed then the situation could go the same way with one judge saying claimant wins and another saying claimant loses. The OFT test case will set a precedent. That was the idea I was trying to get across and I appreciate that the manner in which I was trying to explain that was not clear enough. Does my post make more sense now?

[Bookworm]

Ach so . Yes, and thanks for clarifying.

[JOSH_IOU]

Why only lift the stay on hardship claims?

Are the banks saying they will only repay hardship cases?

Are you seriously saying one only qualifys as being a so-called hardship case if you have £500 on one claim?

You want to see the list of creditors I deal with on a daily basis. Then you will see why I get confused on simple legislation in a thread like this.

I rely on the acuracy of people on here to keep me on the right track. I am not just saying that I really do.

I might be able to create large posts like this on a thread but thats only because there is creative backround. I am crap at letter writing.

Which is where a site like this is extremely useful. I put that in bold to highlight the fact not to shout it.

You no its a shame this site was not around when I worked for Northern Rock. Thenmaybe the debt problem might have not goten so big. But lifes a pig and we all need to help each other.

Reminders here and there are verry helpful as there is alotof info and it is verry easy to get caught in all the hype if you like.

I am sure thereare many others with an arm of a list of creditors who they owe dosh to. But my name was mentioned so....

I still would love to sit opposite the bank in court and makethem look at the list I have And say look you cintributed to this and you could of done something about it ages ago but you did not.

[yourbank]

I read merely the first two statements you wrote. apologies but will re read the rest of the post now.
Define hardship?

[JOSH_IOU]

Not being able to pay off bills without getting charged.

[JonCris]

Being on benefits & having the bank nick most if not all of your money to pay their exorbitant charges Charges in many cases which have resulted in the debtor going overdrawn by ONLY a very few pence (66p in at least one case we know about)

[JOSH_IOU]

Well I am and if I paid all my charges then Id have no money to eat. And I wouldnt be able to pay half them off on the benefitsI am on.

[car2403]

Originally Posted by yourbank

To go back on topic

Please do

Originally Posted by yourbank

are you guys aware that the FSA are proposing that hardship claims are being defined as £500 worth of charges during the year? I have read this across other forums. The topic is interrelated as the OFT test case was the cause of the FSA waiver in the first place.

If that's right, we all need to amend our claims to include contractual interest and compound contractual interest at that - once that's in there, the majority of them would be over £500, I would have thought?

Can anyone substantiate this view? Where does it come from and how do we use it?

Currently, mine is based on 8% interest, but I haven't bothered with it for almost a year now because of the stay situation.

[yourbank]

with regards to hardship issue, can someone clarify if this is the right thread to continue on with this or should I start a new thread even though it is interrelated to The OFT test case?

[Bookworm]

I think maybe start a new thread. At some point, we'll need to wade through the 54 pages of this thread and split it between the stuff which is relevant to the case and which is not (I suspect that there's more mundane if not downright inane than germane in those 54 pages ) so that people who just want to know about the test case don't have to lose the will to live trying to work it all out, but maybe now would be a good time to start on that FSA stuff in a different thread, since I suspect it is going to stir up the debate. If you don't mind?