Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Simply Googling "OFT test case" reveals the OFT press release below dated 15OCT2007.
Perhaps CAG lawyers might like to summarise the info making it available in plain English, instead of a thousand members duplicating this effort of interpretation?
It's knowing what to Google though, isn't it... I guess you've done that a few times for this case, no? I did try a large number of searches but eventually got bored and thought I'd ask here. I'm not a *complete* numpty.
New info keeps being put up, so no telling when any time-dependent info can be hauled in by googling. I have no personal stake in the Test Case, so have not googled it until today. Just happened by pure chance to find it before you, so thought it best to post.
I believe one day it will be possible to google
"when is my wife's birthday?"
Willisden county court has written to me about a hearing with Abbey to determine whether to stay my case. The hearing is on 20th December, 2007. I had already received an order for Abbey to pay and had written for judgement at the time.
NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.
Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.
Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full
Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full
Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.
The UK's banks have formally defended themselves against accusations that they levy unfair charges on customers who go overdrawn without permission.
Seven banks and the Nationwide building society have filed their defences with the High Court for a test case to be heard next January.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has accused the banks of imposing unfair terms in their customers' contracts. The banks argue that current consumer regulations do not apply.
The original announcement of time and date was the 16th Sept, when i posted this thread.
I didnt think to keep a copy, but im sure it will be in their archives.
Hope that helps.
.
I Wish you everything you wish yourself.
.
NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.
Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.
Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full
Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full
Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.
The OFT have the driver's seat and grassroots citizens haven't, in the test case to determine the retrospective refunds of something between zero and £27 billion.
Once a figure is adjudicated in the High Court it will be very difficult for the grassroots to challenge. If say £20 charge is adjudicated as lawful even while Dublin banks continue to charge £3, then this great grassroots movement which came from zero could subside to nearly zero. With the flow of refunds and presumably donations reduced, how is this expensive website going to be financed?
11 weeks to go, with Christmas and New Year intervening.
Unfortunately i'm not an expert in any given field legally and my advice and that of the Consumer Action Group and the Bank Action Group is given without prejudice and without liability so please if in any doubt whatsoever seek help from an insured qualified professional. Contents of my posts are purely my own personal opinions and not condoned or endorsed in any way, shape or form by CAG. Thank you!
NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.
Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.
Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full
Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full
Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.
They are not penalties - why? because the banks changed a few words in their T's & C's.
This comment by the OFT is even though the common law they refer to has repeatedly recognized that any attempt to disguise their true nature simply by rewording the terms should fail
The mind boggles at how this useless so called watchdog treats the general public - as if we are all idiots.
We really do need a proper enforcement agency that IS NOT staffed by former employees of the banks etc: & who have their futures to think of
They are not penalties - why? because the banks changed a few words in their T's & C's.
This comment by the OFT is even though the common law they refer to has repeatedly recognized that any attempt to disguise their true nature simply by rewording the terms should fail
The mind boggles at how this useless so called watchdog treats the general public - as if we are all idiots.
We really do need a proper enforcement agency that IS NOT staffed by former employees of the banks etc: & who have their futures to think of
JonCris,
There is a grave risk that a precedent may be set going forward, and that the banks will shout from the rafters that they were well within their rights to make the charges they have to peoples accounts.
Let us not forget what these banks were doing to people who trusted them and were afraid to stand up to them.
The policies employed by the banks in the past have had a far reaching effect, people have lost homes, relationships, possessions, health etc.
The refunding of overcharges should be automatic, else the banks will simply run away with the cash.
This case is simply weakening peoples ability to claim what is theirs.
I for one will not accept that £20.00 is a reasonable charge, nor £12.00. Anything over and above the actual cost to the banks is a penalty and therefore must be refunded, with interest.
With respect to the people who ran these companies, their rationale, business ethics and business models need to be scrutinised and the results made public.
They have failed their organisations, failed the people who trusted them and succeeded in turning once trusted institutions into financial profit machines, regardless of the cost to the many.
All eyes on the test case, let us see if justice will / will be seen / is not done.
I reckon each charge costs no more than £0.49 to make - and that includes a profit.
Of course, the banks will put forward their current overheads, not the overheads they had when they were found out. Their new overheads include less charges, massive repayments of charges and a much higher volume of complaints / calls for refunds.
The OFT should focus on the banks' position 3 - 4 years ago, what their overheads were then, and what their profit margins were, not the figures they will put forward now.
To be given the date and time of the irrevocable showdown certainly concentrates the mind. I make that 77 days to 14th January. Deduct 2 weeks for Christmas and New Year disruption and we have only 9 weeks left. This Campaign Forum has been of specialist interest up to now, hence little known to CAG members focused on their own cases. With the decisive battle looming a co-ordinated campaign is no longer an option but a necessity.
Since the OFT's pronouncement on 5th April 2006 of a £12 intervention level for credit cards (£16 for Egg Card) there has been no downward revision of this figure from the OFT, and no mention of a planned OFT test case against credit cards. It is not unknown what ballpark figure the OFT currently has in mind for banks. The OFT press release indicated they are continuing with global investigations and consultations with banks to ascertain a fair level of charge, deadline weeks away, possibly only 6 weeks away? Once an OFT figure is set fast, hard to see how amorphous public opinion can shift it.
I am dismayed that after the Cynthesys documentation covertly obtained, and the Australian study openly obtained, were both ruled inadmissible as "conjecture" at Kevin's trial in April 2007, since then no attempt that I know of has been made to confront banks with the live precedent of Dublin banks charging £3 penalty. The UK and Northern Ireland branches of these selfsame Eire banks charge £20 and £38, not £3. As accounts in Eire, NI and UK are all maintained by the same IT system run from the same centralised location at the same cost, it is clearly a management decision not a cost-based decision which determines a charge of £3 on one side of the border and £38 on the other. UK banks which own NI banks cannot afford to see a £3 charge in NI, as the story will quickly get back to the UK mainland and embarass UK banks.
Might I suggest:
· This survival campaign to be given CAG site-wide prominence.
· A countdown clock to raise awareness of how little time is left - speak now or forever hold your peace.
· A bar chart poll showing the various campaign activities for each person to participate in and tick off, as in CAG's table showing bank refunds.
· Joint statements with MoneySavingExpert and PenaltyCharges, possibly Which magazine and Tom Brennan, to present a united front to the general public and the media. Unquestionably the other side presents a united front via the British Bankers Association.
On the OFT's website, they say there is a window between 14th January and 28th February. I would suspect there would be pressure to get it listed in the earliest slot, but also that the banks would like it delayed as long as possible.
Information about the test case?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by StoneLaughter
BBC News 24~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Last Updated: Friday, 19 October 2007, 13:14 GMT 14:14 UK 
