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.
See this judgement at paragraph 7 that states the OFT expect to reach a decision on fairness late in 2009. It also states that the appeal to the House of Lords may come on before July 2009. The remainder of the judgement makes an interesting, if unfortunate reading (for Mr Brennan again).
On the matter of bank charges generally, the position is simple, if the banks say their charges are fair; as they maintain, then they should have no difficulty allowing OFT to investigate or decide the question of fairness.
There is one reason why the despicable banks are appealing the matter to the matter to the House of Lords - the banks know their charges are unfair.
Moreover, the OFT are continuing with this litigation as they will know that ultimately they will publish a report that confirms that the charges are unfair, the OFT would not waste their time with this initial litigation if they were going to conclude that the charges are fair.
Once the OFT report is issued, true to form the banks will invariably contest such and more litigation will follow.
I expect we will know how many 2012 Olympic medals we have won, before we see any mass refunds. However, I would like to be proven wrong.
It is all so unpalatable, even more now that perversely the tax payer is probably funding this litigation for both sides and will probably end up footing the substantial bill when the refunds are eventually made.
Anyone dithering about filing their claim should file it soonest, be first in the line, avoid potential limitation difficulties, get that interest accruing (and claim back effectively from your own pocket).
If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/per...ksqa030409.pdf
That might be the link referred to, updated on the 2/4/2009 with the line "We expect to publish a further report later this year."(Page 7).
Been following the case mentioned on LB. Pity he didn't get the stay lifted in court(it would have helped a lot of people.
The real question is whether the powers that be will be able to sustain the stays on claims and the waiver on complaints when the House of Lords gives its judgement. At the end of the day the waiver is a political action but the stays in the courts are a matter for individual judges.
Hopefully, we'll end up back in the position we were in two years ago and people will be able to make claims irrespective of how long it takes the OFT to issue its report and the banks to try and squirm their way out it.
Hopefully we won't end up in that position at all. The courts were overflowing two years ago with claims, can you imagine the number that would be entered to court now The courts wouldn't cope. the waiver isn't political, and if the stays are lifted in courts before the conclusion of the test case and the report on fairness, and I hope a declaration on issues of limitations, restitution etc, the entire system would grind to a halt.
Sorry, I really must disagree. the waiver was political and was intended to bring claims to a grinding halt. If it was anything but intended to do that, then there would have been far more stringent intervention to regulate the application of bank charges and the use of the county court system by the banks to recover debts including unlawful charges.
The OFT is to be applauded for bringing the test case but regarded with contempt for failing to appeal the judgement regarding penalties. I think it's now fairly clear that even when the HofL hands down its judgement and the OFT reports on fairness, the public will be fobbed off with a "fair" level of charges far in excess of costs and a byzantine reclaim mechanism that is more than likely to ignore the limitation and other relevant issues.
It will be a huge victory for CAG and ordinary members of the public but it will still reek of an establishment set up that protects the banks as much as possible.
The real question is whether the powers that be will be able to sustain the stays on claims and the waiver on complaints when the House of Lords gives its judgement. At the end of the day the waiver is a political action but the stays in the courts are a matter for individual judges.
Hopefully, we'll end up back in the position we were in two years ago and people will be able to make claims irrespective of how long it takes the OFT to issue its report and the banks to try and squirm their way out it.
My understanding was that the stay's were negotiated pending the outcome of the test case.
When the test case is concluded, In the H.O.L and if the oft win the appeal, then I can see no leagal reason why the stay's should not be lifted even if the banks appeal to the E.C.J, and I am not aware that the negotiated stay included further action in the european courts or in perpetuity in the courts of england & wales.
Further to say, that if the banks involved in the test case want an extension of the stay, then surley the must apply for it in the E.C.J, as this was originally negotiated as part of the test case in england and wales.
My understanding was that the stay's were negotiated pending the outcome of the test case.
When the test case is concluded, In the H.O.L and if the oft win the appeal, then I can see no leagal reason why the stay's should not be lifted even if the banks appeal to the E.C.J, and I am not aware that the negotiated stay included further action in the european courts or in perpetuity in the courts of england & wales.
Further to say, that if the banks involved in the test case want an extension of the stay, then surley the must apply for it in the E.C.J, as this was originally negotiated as part of the test case in england and wales.
I do see a reason for the stays to continue. The terms can be assesed for fairness under UTCCR. The OFT will ask for compliance voluntarily(yeah, right) and the arguments have already been going back and forth previous to this. The issue is "what constitutes a fair term in a bank contract?" We all believe the bank have the right to charge an amount for returning an item but what constitutes a term that is fair and an amount that is fair? I think we still have a bit to go before the conclusion of the OFT test case issues. The problem is that if a court does not decide that issue, then its game on again with court cases and bank charges and we are back to square one anyway.
Call me naive, but I would have thought that a fair term would be what it actually costs them + a bit on top for the inconvenience. So how much? £3-£4? That should still give them a massive profit margin compared to what it cost them.
Somehow, I doubt that will happen...
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Call me naive, but I would have thought that a fair term would be what it actually costs them + a bit on top for the inconvenience. So how much? £3-£4? That should still give them a massive profit margin compared to what it cost them.
Somehow, I doubt that will happen...
I do agree with you but not sure how a court can really decide on a fair charge or how that could work in practice. No doubt there is a way but damned if I know....
A certain amount set by an Act of Parliament? Like the 8% APR or the £9.25 LIP? Oh, but hang on, the banks wouldn't like that because once set, it won't get changed again for a very long time (the LIP one has not changed since the 70s) and well, that wouldn't be good for them, now would it...?
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
A certain amount set by an Act of Parliament? Like the 8% APR or the £9.25 LIP? Oh, but hang on, the banks wouldn't like that because once set, it won't get changed again for a very long time (the LIP one has not changed since the 70s) and well, that wouldn't be good for them, now would it...?
We are talking bank charges and how much a court would decide was a fair charge, right?
I know, I know, these are amounts set for something happening through court action, but is it inconceivable? I don't know enough about how Acts of Parliament work, isn't that possible?
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Hmmm... not sure a % works... does bouncing a cheque for £5 cost the bank more than bouncing one for £500? Presumably not. It's the action itself which needs quantifying, not the amount of the transgression. The 8% is different, as it's supposed to compensate you for the time where you have been deprived of that money... The equation is somewhat different for the bank, which is why I believe a set amount per transgression would be fairer. What would be even fairer (going into fantasy world now, bear with me, lol) is that transgressions up to that amount DON'T get charged at all.
So say that the charge level is set at £4. If you go over by £3.99 then you don't get charged, if £4, off it goes. BUT if you go over by twice £2, then you'd still incur a £4 charge. It's really back to the buffer zone, which I thought used to work pretty well, but got scrapped quite quickly, presumably because it wasn't generating enough profits for the banks.
In the end, I think a fair level would be the level at which most people won't bother complaining and will shrug it off with a "fair enough". What that is, I do not know. I suspect that most people won't kick off at anything between £5 and £8, but that's JMO.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Exceed an agreed overdraft(or informally ask for one as the banks' have us believe)
Guaranteeing a payment (with a card where the amount takes it over the said limit)--interconnected with the above really.
Item returned unpaid
Item paid but still takes it over and agreed limit(referral fees)
I can see the bank charging for returning an item unpaid but I can't see a huge loss on the others apart from interest charged on the amount.
Well, tbh, I can simplify this even more. ALL the bank has to do, ever had to do, is put the limit at £0. If you have the funds, it goes through, if you don't, it doesn't. With the new faster payments method, instant clearing is going to become more and more common, so I don't see why this can't be done.
If nothing gets past, it is just as automated a system, so the costs to the bank beyond the original programming are nil.
That leaves the problem of the cheques, but these are being more and more phased out anyway, so the amount of cheques bouncing from those still being used is minimal, and at that point, there is nothing to stop the bank charging our illusory fair charge, this time per failed cheque since there is a certain amount of actual work involved.
We MUST get away from the credit habit. If you don't have the cash, you wouldn't expect the supermarket to let you off on credit. If you don't have it in the bank, you shouldn't expect the bank to let the payment through. We have become too complacent, and they have used it to milk us dry.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
OFT Fairness Report Expected in Late 2009
accruing (and claim back effectively from your own pocket
).
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by GuidoT
