Thread: Latest OFT Ruling

Unbelievable
BBC NEWS | Business | Judge rules on overdraft charges

Seems a bit of farce....

Also the end of the article implies that the OFT have all but given up on the hope of any of us normal customers getting back any of our charges!!!

Similar Threads:

• Oft Ruling 29/03/07
• OFT Ruling of £12
• OFT ruling, Not for businesses
• Question on OFT ruling
• OFT ruling

Fair point mailmannz - am reading now

In a nut shell, It says is that historic terms do not constitute penalties - which is what most people expected it to say.

As for claims, it leaves us where we were - waiting for the appeal to be thrown out so that we can get the stays lifted and carry on suing the banks under UTCCR1999.

This was always the side act to the main event. More later in the month on the main site.

Thanks to Steven4064

Please don't take this post the wrong way, it doesn't sound as curt when spoken.

Not at all Peter

There's more information to come from the case and the OFT later this month, the 28th I believe. A announcement will be made when all the relative information is in hand and has been digested. It will be made in the main forum and I will put a link here.

Lex

If you keep this thread in your fav's, I will update it as and when. There will be posts all over the site when there's any news.

Lex

To LegalAdviser, or what ever your name is today

We understand WHY the banks charge - although you do say that it's because we've spent money that isn't ours. This argument falls flat when you consider that they charge more for NOT paying a direct debit than they do for paying it - i.e. spending money that we haven't got.

With rising costs throughout the country directly affecting the cost of living, pretty much every normal citizen in the UK is spending money they haven't got - this site has been up for more than 2 years - in those 2 years we have heard horror stories from people - one where a disabled woman and her two kids had to eat dry breakfast cereal for a fortnight (one pack of Tesco's own cornflakes) because her disability benefit had been paid late, meaning her DD for her rent, gas and electricity were paid late. The bank took more in charges over this than was actually due in the account. Yes, I suppose she did spend more than she had, and I suppose she didn't really have to splash out on breakfast cereal.

If you breach the contract then the bank will charge you - fair enough - what they are not allowed to do for a breach of contract is make a profit - it's simple contract law 101.

Banks have been making profits unlawfully - someone caught them out. The owners of this site.

Well, if I were on a low income, I doubt I would be living somewhere where there is a decent and affordable public transport system. In fact, if I had to catch a bus from where I live to get to work, the earliest would get me into work 1 hour and 15 minutes late every day. I can't see me keeping my job for long if didn't have a car. Incidentally, it's STILL cheaper to have the car that it would be to catch that bus to work and back each week.


Now, if Barclays, and the others, had been reasonable and realised that we didn't create the situation and had refunded us the money they had taken when we asked, perhaps this mass of publicity wouldn't have occured and instead of it costing them millions it would only have cost them a few quid. Greed is what caused this - THEIR greed.

Each of the top 5 banks in the UK routinely post profits - a good chunk of that coming from people who can least afford it - and they know it, they also know that they are the people least likely to be able to do anything about it, and so the spiral continues.

Just because something is written into a contract doesn't make it legal.

If I were to have a contract with you, and it was written that if you breached it, I could slap you in the face, and I did so - I could still be arrested for common assault.

People, like yourself, often say "be responsible for your own actions" - well, aside from the fact that a lot of the time these charges are a result of someone elses actions (i.e. not being paid on time, businesses taking the wrong amounts via DD (and, yes - it happens, and you try and enforce the DD guarantee and see how easy that is! NOT!)) - I think the same could be said of the banks - they are kicking up because they've been caught with their pants around their ankles for once, and instead of putting their hands up they actually have the gaul to attempt to gain public sympathies with lies like "if we lose this case, we'll have to start charging for accounts" - when their lawyers know, I'm sure, that this wouldn't be legal any longer either. It's called deflection.

It works both ways. In law, if I break the contract I am legally bound to reimburse any costs incured by the other party because of that breach - I am happy to do that. I am not happy to condone the breaking of the law by making them a profit for a breach - to do so, IMO, would be aiding and abetting something I know to be unlawful.

Lex

This should help with the intrepretation of the Judgment and the next steps, which Mr Lex has alluded too;

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/per...ksqa091008.pdf