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.
[COLOR=olive][SIZE=1]If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.
Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.
Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.
------------
Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get
Even if it were true, how is that relevant to the case? :-?
At the moment, he said, those in the red cross-subsidise those who stay in credit
A-AH! So they admit it at last!
But, he added, addressing a criticism made by the OFT and consumer campaigners, those in the red were not just paying for their unauthorised overdrafts.
"It is incorrect to say they are charged only for those services," he said.
"The package of services is always being supplied. "They are at one and the same time charged both for the specific service and the overall bundle of services," he added.
Oooh, trying to counter the OFT argument that the charges are not a core part of the contract and that the contract can keep on functioning with the charges system removed. Tut tut tut.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
From the thrust of the quote, it would appear to be an attempt to disconnect the amount of charge, from what it says on the tin, ie 'late payment fee' and that in fact it covers a package of other services provided.
Whereas this might be of value to them in this particular case, would it not open up challenges under other legislation.
I am pretty sure under the legislation on unfair contracts, hidden and undisclosed charges are a no no.
Human Rights Legislation may well have something to say on that as well, as in fact they seem to be saying that, 'we have to put something on the contract, but it doesn't really mean that'. Which calls into question if this is a fair way of doing things.
With the power that the financial institutions have in the UK, I have wondered (and still do), if this will ever go anywhere. I think that we can take some comfort in the fact that our judges, despite their often misquoted foibles, are often not afraid to rule on what they think is right. Case in point, one of them just blew a massive hole in the current anti-terrorism legislation. Think of the pressure that will land on them over that one!
The thing is, the judge can only make a decision based on the arguments put before him and the OFT really haven't been aggressive enough IMO. They even gave their opposition a head start by allowing them time to come up with an alternative argument before starting the case.
The OFT case pretty much has nothing to do with the vast majority of claims made to date, in that the principles in question are not the same.
If they really were serious, they could have rigorously compared the two in court. Surely the first thing to have done would be to address the legalities of all the thousands of cases over the last 3-5 years first. After all, it is those cases that supposedly "prompted" this test case.
Once that was settled, then get on to the arguments over the new T&Cs and examine how or if the two are any different.. It still baffles me how services that were introduced only weeks ago can be part of the core terms of an account that was opened 10 years ago.
I'd love to see how the RBS lawyer would explain how these charges can subsidise Free Banking for those in credit, when only a couple of months ago the same charges were equal only to their admin costs.
It is the failure to address and fully include the original principles and the flat refusal of the OFT to even listen to the concerns of those they are are supposed to be representing that still makes me suspicious of what the actual intention of this case is.
Here here, Gez. Let's not forget for a second that OFT are a government entity.
It is not an unusual tactic in controversial and emotive subjects (as this case surely is) to have the bods in grey suits think up a gig in order to vent steam, earth the otherwise dangerous lightening and to create the impression that he government is a listening caring beast when, in fact, it is only ever interested in lining pockets and doing as it was elected to do -- support business and moneyed interests.
I have been suspicious of the OFT from day one when I spoke to them by phone about a non-banking issue. [edit]
And I speak from experience because I can remember back when Trading Standards/Weights & Measures really did have teeth and commerce cowed before them. A phone call from them to a commercial enterprise was all it took to cause a tug of the forelock, a yes sir, no sir and a full refund (plus I might add, the travel costs of returning to said enterprise said faulty goods in exchange for said cash).
That all changed with the "the market will regulate itself" heistfest of Margaret Thatcher and her con crooks.
The OFT does still have teeth, however these days they seem, (to me), to be selective as to who they bite. Complaints regarding Banks, supermarket chains and big business in general seem to get the response of "we are building a file on this", "when we get enough complaints" etc. I think that can be translated as "when we can no longer ignore it, we will have to do something"
Consider their response to a complaint against say, a motor, or a market trader. In my experience they are all over them like a rash!
The difference:
The public perception of these tends to be that they are a bunch of crooks anyway, (a bit unfair I think to the majority) and deserve all they get. The other point is that they don't have any clout.
In short, easy targets. The OFT can lay down the law, rack up court cases and produce yearly reports saying how well they are doing.
To be fair, we may be shouting before we are hurt, but you know, you just get that feeling............
The difference is, I think, more subtle than that cashins. The individual/small businessman is fair game. Big business and the transnationals call the shots at the government level and this then trickles down the greasy pole until it hits a lowly unit like the OFT who, deep down (at the upper levels of that lowly unit), know that what they were formed for was PR and spin -- to create the illusion that there is regulation across the board when, in fact, it is selective.
If anyone bothered to conduct an independent and in-depth study of this, I am sure these finding would spring out at one like a captive, trained dolphin leaping for a fishy snack from its trainers hand.
We like to be charged...
