for i believe if they do then another "waiver" will be issued and we will have to wait another 2.3 years to find they may have buggered it up again.

its time to tell the OFT to butt out and let the grown ups sort it out

PLEASE USE THE EMAIL ADDRESS AND BY ALL MEANS COPY N PASTE THE LETTER I WROTE

I am with with BBM

I am with with BBM

i will get an email address and write a letter we can all send to them asking politely to BOGOFSKI and stay out of it

[email protected]

Dear sir/madam

I am writing to you so I can put to you my opinion regarding the OFT's involvement in the bank charges test case.

It has now come to light that the OFT has gone down the wrong rout where the test case was concerned. In my opinion the OFT's involvement has hindered the fight for fair charges.

The OFT saw fit to place all claims on hold and allowed the banks not to deal with claims fully due to the waiver. This took 28 months to sort out where we now know the result was not in the banks customers favour.

I firmly believe the OFT caused more harm than good and would like to suggest that the OFT now bow out of this fight and leave it to the public them selves, if enough of us act against the Banks then they will eventually listen and change the charges system.

To recap, do the British public a favour and back out now, your help is not needed or wanted

yours faithfully

The OFT should stick to being bit players on Rogue traders

Do you really want or need an answer? After all, if they had any foresight wouldn't they have included reg 5 as well as 6?

Email sent

Damn this waiting-gotta do zummit so I'm going to use the original template to try to have the stays lifted; then try for judgement since the opposition (how many legals?) must have been aware that this was a mistake; probably won't get it since they'll argue that li'l ol' me should have also known.

Hi,

We have a case against Lloyds that was stayed in 2007, do we need to do anything now as I think I read somewhere that the banks are trying to get the cases that are stayed dismissed off the back off this judgement.

I am worried that our case will just be dismissed without us knowing or being able to do anything.

It won't be...the court will inform you before anything starts and gives you the option to oppose.

Basically, the Court will keep you informed but it's up to Lloyds to ask you first, then if no reply or agreement, they can apply to court. The Judge will invite you to comment/oppose and the Judge will then decide.

All in, just sit tight and don't worry.

What did your stay instructions say?

Thanks for that srfrench,

I was just getting a bit nervous I needed to do something immediately or all that effort preparing the court bundle etc would be wasted.

Our stay instructions said;

IT IS ORDERED THAT

UPON consideration of the file

1) The hearing listed for the 12th September is vacated.

2) This action shall be stayed pending the final decision in the test case between The Office of Fair Trading -v- Abbey National plc, Barclays plc, Clydesdale Bank plc, HBOS plc, HSBS Bank plc, Llloyds Bank plc and Nationwide Building Society ('the Test Case')

3) The Defendant shall within 21 days of the final decision in the test case file at Court and serve on the Claimant:

a) a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of the test case on this action.

b) their proposed directions for the further management of this case.

4) The claimant shall within 14 days thereafter notify the Court and the Defendant whether the proposed directions are agreed.

5) Upon receipt of the documents set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this order, the file shall be referred to the District Judge for further case management directions.

6) Any party affected by this order may apply to have it set aside, stayed or revoked within 7 days of service of the order upon him.

Dated 29th August 2007.

So does that mean that we need to wait for Lloyds to provide 3)a) & 3)b) before we do anything and hopefully the special letters drafted by the QC will be ready by then.

What if Lloyds do not write to us within the 21 days? Does that mean we win automatically?

I still can't believe that the court found in the banks favour - what a crock! It's a shame we can't charge the banks an extortionate fee for all the money they are borrowing from the taxpayer.

That's ok...sit tight.

The final decision has not happened technically yet. The OFT has 14 days from 25th Nov to Appeal. If it does then the decision is still not quite over (technically). If they don't, then 7-21 days after that the Banks must file a response (defence) in Court or risk getting their defence struck out.

Did you have in your POC a reference to UTCCR's? Regulation 5 or just UTCCR or the penalties argument?

i have not heard anything about the stayed cases i have, has any one else heard from the bank or courts regarding the stays

Email sent

see, 2 emails and they went running, the power of email.

bump

I have an email from Plymouth County Court which is based on a post her that they are staying cases for 12 months. That has been confirmed by them. I have heard that there are bulk cases being heard in Leeds in February 2010 I believe.

Got a letter this morning saying that following the Supreme Courts decision on 25 Nov 09, they don't believe there is any legal basis for complaint, blah, blah.

Hi,

I have been sent a loverly letter from Lloyds TSB saying that they are now going to pursue me due to the bank charges I have not paid. This is despite the fact they already started persuing me ages ago..! They started before the case was heard and as per say 'concluded'. But as there is still grounds for appeal then surely it will drag on and on and on...so no need to pay until the bitter end...luckily for me I couldn't give a damn about credit and the likes of scores...

The main thing I want to say is that they are arguing about the wrong thing with me. I am sure there are shed loads of ppl in the same situ as I.

I asked for an overdraft with Lloyds TSB several times...they refused point blank every time. Then they decided to revoke their complimentary £10 overdraft facility kindly given to all csts just in case...this means they made my account only able to go to ZERO if I tried to make payments on my card, or what is the point of having a card if you can just go and take as much money as you like? Trouble is that if you top up your phone with any of the mobile providers they WILL allow you to top up £10 even if you don't have the money..? They won't let you put on £20 or any more so why do they let you put on £10? As I said I had been refused an overdraft SEVERAL times so how can they justify LETTING me go overdrawn when I used an electronic payment system (which they introduced to ensure security and balances not exceeding their limit)!?

If I had a Direct Debit(DD) then fair enough as it would have been my resposibility, but as I tried to make a one off payment I only see this as their premeditated negligence. If I had gone to the cash point and tried to get out a £10 note to go the the shop with then it would have been a refused request as I didn't have the money...but as it was on the phone and a debit payment they are claiming that they don't check payments under a certain amount for 72 hours...Now who is at fault here? Me for being a modern citizen adn using my electronic money system(card) to control my finances, or the bank for creating a system which in turn charges me for its own ability to let me go overdrawn....

Yes I agree it is their fault...but what do you do when you have tried every single communication method possible and even walked into the bank in person..?

I went into the bank in Fulham when this first happened and the manager of Lloyds TSB gave me a full refund and apologised. When it happened again they back tracked and claimed that the first refund was a good will gesture...how come this was not explained the first time? And how come it seems to ba different if you walk into a branch in London rather than the West Country..?

I would like to take them to court for this as it is a tottally different issue to the 'fairness'. Has anyone any ideas or friends who would like to make a joint case for this..?

email me @ [email protected]

Nationwide have responded with, OFT's decision, and they think there charges were fair so not refunding any:(

My stayed claim with HSBC, I have now heard from DG solicitors basically we won you lost ha ha ha....in the SC and that they have asked the Court to now dispense with the claim, well we will see as I am sure a solution will be found.

Same letter from RBS as per others - they think charges are fair.

Glad to see OFT butt out - but we do need CAG. When are we getting the new templates? I know Govan law Centre has got one available - but i would like to know it has the backing of CAG before using it.

We also need to stop banks sending out lying letters saying "it's all over. We won. You lost. High charges don't mean unfair charges. OFT can't help." We need a CAG template to refute these and complain to OFT, FAS and FOS about them lying.

BD

Glad to see OFT butt out - but we do need CAG. When are we getting the new templates? I know Govan law Centre has got one available - but i would like to know it has the backing of CAG before using it.

 

We also need to stop banks sending out lying letters saying "it's all over. We won. You lost. High charges don't mean unfair charges. OFT can't help." We need a CAG template to refute these and complain to OFT, FAS and FOS about them lying.

 

BD

Great post. Absolutely.

You don't need a template, you just need to be able to string a few words together. However, since I'm here, feel free to use this:

Dear xxx,

I am in receipt of your letter dated xxx.

Please note that whilst you may have won the test case against the OFT on very narrow and limited points of law, there are still many issues which remain unresolved.

I am well aware that the Supreme Court has decided that the level of the charges per se can not be challenged, but it is a far cry from saying that we the consumers are powerless to go against your iniquitous system.

I intend to continue my actions against you, up to and including going to the Small Claims Court if need be. Please do not bother sending me any more of your propagandist letters.

Yours etc...

Bookworm

Thanks for your reply. However I don't agree that the SC ruled that "the level of charges per se can not be challenged".

My reading of what I heard on BBC news is that they CAN under another part of UTCCR. that is why I would like a CAG template for this - based on the full written SC ruling - so we don't make ANY mistakes in our rebuttal of their lying letters.

BD