OFT v Banks - Round One to OFT

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Again,

Can I ask is it right that the appeal in the OFT test case is going to start on the 28th October 2008?

Thanks

TheyrCriminals

[InformedSearcher]

You know all this makes one wonder. I still believe that the financial institutions are in cahoots with the OFT/FSA. One needs to consider where their 'top brass' are employed from to consider that comment. Can you imagine their 'interviews' and the OFT/FSA saying, 'sorry you are from 'X' bank etc. and cannot be employed? Rather the entire opposite I would dare to say.
Anyhow, what I don't inderstand is that if you have a 'hardship' case then you might well be considered for a review and probably receive a full refund. How can this be I ask because if the FI's like erm, 'win' would those 'hardship' case people have to repay it all back? If they did not then that would obviously be considered grossly unfair. Personally I consider being owed well in excess of £4k and would not look on too happy if that a 'selected' few shall we say, got away with it? I would add that whilst I consider myself a hardship case I'd simply not get a look in purely because I'm fully employed and paid a reasonable salary. However I wonder what will happen as I'm 'verging' on redundancy within the next few weeks/months.
Michael

[Aequitas]

Originally Posted by InformedSearcher

I still believe that the financial institutions are in cahoots with the OFT/FSA.

What makes you believe that?

[yourbank]

Originally Posted by InformedSearcher

You know all this makes one wonder. I still believe that the financial institutions are in cahoots with the OFT/FSA. There is no evidence to support this view. One needs to consider where their 'top brass' are employed from to consider that comment. Can you imagine their 'interviews' and the OFT/FSA saying, 'sorry you are from 'X' bank etc. and cannot be employed? Rather the entire opposite I would dare to say.Is that a bad thing if someone has had banking/financial employment?
Anyhow, what I don't inderstand is that if you have a 'hardship' case then you might well be considered for a review and probably receive a full refund. How can this be I ask because if the FI's like erm, 'win' would those 'hardship' case people have to repay it all back?No they would not. If they did not then that would obviously be considered grossly unfair.Those who have had GOGW refunds running into the millions of pounds would not have to give that back because you are right, it would be grossly unfair. Personally I consider being owed well in excess of £4k and would not look on too happy if that a 'selected' few shall we say, got away with it?Got away with what? Not sure I understand that bit. I would add that whilst I consider myself a hardship case I'd simply not get a look in purely because I'm fully employed and paid a reasonable salary. However I wonder what will happen as I'm 'verging' on redundancy within the next few weeks/months.If you do get made redundant then ask your bank to consider you for hardship as that would be a change of circumstances under the waiver rules, Annex 2 for reference.
Michael

Michael, a lot of people think that there is a conspiracy because the OFT test case meant the FOS Waiver(pressure is mounting on them because of the lack of filtering of genuine hardship cases). The problem prior to the test case was that judges could go either way which solved nothing for consumers.

[JonCris]

They seldom went 'either' way because rather than face claimants in a straightforward fight they refused knowing they would almost certainly lose

Now since the belated intervention of the OFT & the FSA ruling which can hardly, even by the banks most avid supporters, be described as balanced the banks have saved many, many millions in refunds & continue to impose their obscene charges one way or another namely under the guise of service charges

While all of this continues more & more are being pushed into even greater debt. Also despite their being an agreed moratorium on claiming bank charges the banks still continue with their recovery actions in the full knowledge that many of them include just such charges

The fairness & balance expected from our so called regulators does not exist as they are a sham

I recall the response of the FSA boss when NR 1st showed it had problems. He blamed the savers who risked losing their money & pensions for not making sure the banks investments had been secure In other words he believed that consumers should understand what an SPV was .......bleeding idiot...........needless to say the interviewer jumped on that remark

[yourbank]

JC, could the OFT have applied for a moratorium or applied for an injunction on all banks to prevent charges while the process was going on?
What would the OFT basis in law be?(I know you are legally trained and therefore would be able to answer it better than a layman). Is there precedents that could have been used to back up the injunction if it was possible at the start of the process?

[JonCris]

No they could not have ordered or demanded a moratorium but as their decision was of considerable benefit to the banks they could, to offer balance, have 'requested' the banks stop imposing penalty charges.

However had they done so & the banks, as to be expected, had refused it would at the very least shown the banks to be tossers & to a great extent the FSA to be as much use as a chocolate teapot & the farce it is & always has been

[yourbank]

So, did the OFT had no legal basis for asking for an injunction while the test case was on going? Is that right?

[JOSH_IOU]

lol the government had no legal basis for asking an injunction?
There the elected bodies of parliment..

[djgordyp]

Originally Posted by JonCris

No they could not have ordered or demanded a moratorium but as their decision was of considerable benefit to the banks they could, to offer balance, have 'requested' the banks stop imposing penalty charges.

However had they done so & the banks, as to be expected, had refused it would at the very least shown the banks to be tossers & to a great extent the FSA to be as much use as a chocolate teapot & the farce it is & always has been

Or they could have agreed and then just called them something else or come up with some new way of fleeceing us.

[JonCris]

The OFT like the FSA is NOT the government. Its a regulator that is formed as a limited company. one the idiot Browns ideas

Yes if they had made a ruling similar too that for credit cards they could have applied to the court for an injunction which the banks would probably have appealed but no effort was made to try & be balanced. As the banks have completely ignored that part of the FSA ruling which is of no benefit to them ie hardship claims, the ruling should be scrapped

[yourbank]

I am getting lost, JC, which part of the FSA ruling?

[JonCris]

the bit that says they can suspend settlements but should still consider payment to those suffering hardship which of course they are ignoring

[yourbank]

You mean this one? Annex 2 I believe.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Re...sp_monthly.pdf

Even though there is evidence on another site that LloydTSB ARE paying out on hardship claims? I agree on the whole though that the waiver and the poor definition of what hardship actually is, was absolutely appalling on the part of the FSA.

[JOSH_IOU]

We no whats going to happen there going to cap the charges.
Like they did with the credit cards.

But even then we can still carry on with our claims.
Think of the interest.

[JOSH_IOU]

We still have this culture of capping things broght in by the government to make it ok.

Lloyds tsb are ignroing claims of hardship that are sent to branches and are giving responses like the following.

[InformedSearcher]

Heck, a lot to address after a couple of days....
JonChris and JoshIOU kind of sum quite a lot of my feelings up on the sunject. I do have to address the reply to me in the thread though and make some comments.
In theory we all all 'hardship' cases but viewed differently upon vague definitions. Let me suggest adifferent way to consider my 'cahoots' suggestion and that is pure 'convienience' for all. Prior to the FSA 'stay' being put into place people who received a refund got 100%. It's obvious that since that banks (HSBC in my case) have changed their wording etc. to make it seem like 'agreed but unqualified overdrafts'. After all theis, whenever there will be a charge and I doubt anyone would dispute that. With that in mind I'm non too sure say for Credit Cards the £12 was really correct though because even making profit on an automated system costs a £6 fee might be more apt. Financial institutions currently continue to charge the 'same' fees for unauthorised overdrafts probably reserving those fees into interest bearing services within their own communities.
Prior to the 'stay' there was a notable 'quickly mentioned' radio 4 comment of a large group of people who took them to court. At the court the banks' legal people turned up handing out cheques to all concerned so ending that 'mass' case. Amazing how so fast the FSA issued their instructions.
If I go back to hardship cases then if say a bank credits a person with the full amount (which they would) and the court case finally says there's a fee (which they probably will) then what happens to the rest of us? We get refunds minus the new fees or total refunds and start agan from day 1 with new fees? That case alone would be unfair as 'hardship' vs 'non-hardship' must be equal.
What should have been a simple proc