OFT v Banks - Round One to OFT

[JOSH_IOU]

well I'm applying for a stay being lifted after making a member of the court staff shout at me over the phone.

My claim is for a basic account i don't earn enough to open a current account. And the charges are pushing me further and further into debt.

The defendant issued a request for a stay and they should no this. Now the judge seems to have made the stay for proceedings unlawfully. As he was simply relying on the case being a penalty charge case and a claim against a bank. What is interesting is that the waiver was mentioned so I may have grounds for a removal.

Believe me if this request is turned down then I am going to move higher up the ladder and claim more damages. If the defendant wishes to settle before then i have won.

[JOSH_IOU]

You no Lloyds TSB have changed the name of the account to a cash account. Which apparently is a current account. I still can not see how this waiver applies to direct debit charges. Are any banks actually calling a basic account what it actually is?

How can an account with a visa debit card be a cash account? (sorry for taking over this thread but i'm told evryone dose it.)

[InformedSearcher]

I have to say I personally am seeing 'cracks' in all this. You can imagine the banks smiling and the OFT quite aloof to the consumers they are supposed to be fighting for.
There again we must remember that courts operate on budgets. I'm probably correct that the OFT started to have pressure put on it, not by the banks but the courts themselves. The process of handling small claims is geared to a specific ad hoc market and certainly not for the masses to be claiming exactly the same thing.
Having said the above the problem is quite frightening that if the judge were to err on the side of the banks one could still swamp the courts with claims. On the other hand if the judge sways to the consumer the banks merely appeal and the viscious circle of events repeats itself. Then the FSA hangs in the middle of deciding the time spam of the 'stay' and taking on the fact of those same courts being swamped with claims.
This should be classed as one of the proverbial 'opening the can of worms' fiasco's. This is also one of the times that the banks wish there was no internet or media. All in all thay've done well though regarding the little media coverage on it all. Even the OFT web site says little. However they should all be aware that this is not going to go away. I would think the regular meetings of the FSA, OFT and the banks is a little less cordial as of late. This sounds very much a reflection of politicians at work (or not!).

Gez: I did get an email from the OFT at the time saying they would take the change of wording into account and reflect on it.

Michael

[Gez]

Originally Posted by InformedSearcher

Gez: I did get an email from the OFT at the time saying they would take the change of wording into account and reflect on it.

I wouldn't read anything at all into that I'm afraid Michael. That just sounds like the typical "we'll look into" it response you get which means "here's a carrot, now go away".

The cracks were there before the case even started. The OFTs actions have been pretty much like this.. Due to the huge avalanche of claims against banks for the return of charges that consumers claim to be penalties, we're going to do a "test case". We won't actually test any of the cases in question, what we'll do is give all the banks a month or so to come up with something creative for their T&Cs and we'll test them on that. If consumers are not happy with that, sod them we're not interested & we won't listen to them.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But that is what we have..

[InformedSearcher]

I could not agree with you more Gez!
Shameful state of affairs to say the least.
Michael

[mailmannz]

Of course they could also win because their arguements were much more robust than those of the OFT? [insert rolling eyes]

The judiciary has time and time again proven they are not at the beck and call of the Government [insert more rolling eyes]

Honestly, some of you people need to lay off the stuff them 9/11 goons smoke [insert yet more rolling eyes]

Mailman

[Gez]

LOL.
I do have faith in the court system, it served everyone quite well until this test case started. I personally just don't have faith in the OFT.
We didn't need them & their test case and the courts could possibly have forced a real test case (or perhaps even a few) by now, which would surely have tested the legalities of the original T&Cs and examined banks' costs, something the OFT failed to do despite claiming that it was these cases that prompted them to act..

[breeze1996]

I phoned the OFT and they say we will need to wait till the end of June ? July to hear anything. But this is on the website so it's just an offical reply.

[brown1950]

'Mail on Sunday' today says OFT Test Case decision now delayed until July 08.

[kennythecelt]

Originally Posted by brown1950

'Mail on Sunday' today says OFT Test Case decision now delayed until July 08.

Hi,

can you clarify what it actually says please. Have checked on line, with no success.

Perhaps it is to do with the waiver??

"The FSA initially granted the Waiver (which allows the banks to put on hold their consideration of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges) for one year; it is due to expire on 26 July 2008."

[SELV]

Looks to me like SPIKE has gone on holiday too much pressure.... SELV..

[wino]

I have tried to scan the news item but it looks bleary.
On page 61 of the Mail On Sunday it says
'A crucial ruling on the legality of bank overdraft fees has been delayed for three months.
With billions of pounds of potential customer refunds in the balance, the verdict hoped for next month will not be delivered until July.

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by kennythecelt

Hi,

can you clarify what it actually says please. Have checked on line, with no success.

Perhaps it is to do with the waiver??

"The FSA initially granted the Waiver (which allows the banks to put on hold their consideration of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges) for one year; it is due to expire on 26 July 2008."

No according to MoS the banks are stating that if they lose they may not have sufficient records with which to calculate the refunds to customers. Yeah right

They are apparently claiming that they may not have records going back beyond 6 years - something we the consumers know is crap & anyway aren't they going to claim limitation or do they think they will lose that as well - I do hope so

& if the Judge or anyone else believes this they need their head examining - or are employed by the banks

[kennythecelt]

Thanks Jon!!

[breeze1996]

I thought that records have to be kept for 6 years.

I also wonder if they are trying to make sure they only pay 6 years from last july, as the less time we can go back the better off the banks will be.
It would also allow them to stretch out the payments back to customers by saying they needed time to go through archive records.

[InformedSearcher]

I personally was quite specific with HSBC and stated that I expected 6 years from my initial claim and they agreed this would be done (as the 7th year in in the running now). I further found that the FSA 'stay' expires .... Oh, hang on, 'just' at the time of the expected ruling! - That's quite amazing eh?!
I never thought it'd come down to this (as I mentioned previously mentioned) but there again people say I'm both sceptical and cynical - I wonder why?
Now I also believe that the OFT were 'forced' to instigate this test case becase the courts were running a little scared and overwhelmed to say the least. Just like anything else they run on budgets and manpower and the thoughts of X million claims would simply have unnerved them to say the least. It's so strange that this is such importance to so many that the media involvement has been so little. Surely there was some media presence at the original hearing or who were these 11 special onlookers?
Just my views as I watch HSBC continue to send me letters telling me how succesful (/lucky) I am to have been allowed to exceed my zero overdraft at £25 a throw to a maximum of £150 a month (in charges)!
Michael

[JonCris]

Perhaps those of us who have evidence of the banks records going back to long before 6 years should send it to the judge

I have Abbey obtained in 2006 & going back to 1993!!