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.
It seems likely they will decide on some sort of cap (I believe) but will this really change anything?
I mean with credit cards you're still free to challenge the amount of £12 as nobody has said this refelcts costs. The situation would surely be the same with bank charges?
I only mention this because I'm sure Martin Lewis suggested, on the tonight show, that once the OFT made its decision people wouldn't be able to claim.
i dont think he said you wouldnt be able to claim entirely but he did seem to indicate that you would only be able to claim the difference between the charge and £12. As you have indicated many people are already claiming full refunds on credit cards despite the cap. Inmy view nothing changes.
If the charge is deemed unlawful, then the whole charge is unlawful, which is why people are still claiming the credit card charges back even if they've been charged £12. The same would apply to Bank Charges. Besides, the OFT can't decide if a charge is lawful anyway!
Martin said a lot of things in that program which differs from the advice given on this site, unfortunately. You need to judge for yourself whose advice you follow, but take a look at who has had the most success and provides the most information and support.
Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.
"Some people say The Stig chews on spark plugs and drifts while walking. Some say he is terrified of ducks, and that there is an airport in Russia named after him. All we know is that he is really barracad from The Consumer Action Group" - Jeremy Clarkson (allegedly)
Yes although OFT will have an effect in court!!! basically this sets a fair practice code of charging £15, although not law , the courts may regard that as authority for the banks to charge that amount, OFT is a extra legal body as it called.
So claim now, it is possible upon OFT ruling you will only get back the difference between 15 and 30 ie 15, halfing your claim!!
Yes although OFT will have an effect in court!!! basically this sets a fair practice code of charging £15, although not law , the courts may regard that as authority for the banks to charge that amount, OFT is a extra legal body as it called.
So claim now, it is possible upon OFT ruling you will only get back the difference between 15 and 30 ie 15, halfing your claim!!
Absolutely not.
In the OFT's own words (credit card report, April 5th 2006):
What costs were in the reasonable contemplation of the consumer would be a question for the court to decide.
Please be aware that only a court can decide whether a term is unfair and what is stated here is just our view.
Furthermore, if a term is deemed unfair, it will be deemed non-enforceable in its entirety. That's how it goes. ;-)
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april
Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april
Loverboy, on what basis should we trust you - do you have inside knowledge or are you employed in the legal profession ?
Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april
Trust you?
On what basis?
I repeat:
If a term is deemed unfair, it will be deemed non-enforceable in its entirety.
That's the law.
I also repeat that the OFT themselves advise that they can not decide a level at which a charge would be deemed lawful, and instead advise customers to go to court if they think they have been charged penalty fees.
So, if you want me to trust you, I suggest you'll need a bit more than blind faith. ;-)
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april
Citicards have already tried this saying that £12 is the industry standard asd set by the OFT and in court last week the judge ordered that Citi provided full disclosure of their costs, as the OFT did not and cannot say that £12 is a fair charge, it is up to me/the court to decide the issue of penalty charges, and I cannot to do so without a full Breakdown of their figures.
Funny thing is one week before court hearing, I tried to settle out of court and Citi's legal team said trust me Mrs Gizzmo you will lose!
Im a law student , you are right if a charge is unfair its un fair and unlawfull, what im saying is it will no longer be looked at as unfair, by the courts,
yes but what im saying is OFT are going to make a ruling on what is fair to charge, hence change is on its way,
As bookie has already said the OFT cannot and have already said they canoot make a ruling on waht is fair and what is not - only a court can decide this.
We are not suggesting that default fees should be set at £12, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.
I really don't see how else to make it clearer then the OFT themselves did...
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Wrong!!
The court will take the arbitrators view of what is fair, the norm of industry will be upheld.
The OFT does not set the law agreed, but the courts will refer to thier recomendation when deciding, trust me, watch after april
As everyone else says - WRONG!
The OFT will only advise, and they are very careful not to jeopardise their position by adding the rider - TWICE - that only the court can decide what is fair, and only the court can decide what is legal...additionally, when they add this rider they imply that a court will decide on a case by case basis, and that therefore there is no "blanket" fair or lawful charge...
Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.
All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
When I was a student, although not a law student. I was told in a series of lectures on mainly business law as part of a Business Administration course on an an engineering degree course that only Parliament and Judges can make laws. A judge can set a precedent in court, the precedent can then if the Government of the day wishes be incorporated in an Act. The banks are afraid that one day soon a judge will order a full disclosure of their internal costs relating to refusing to pay direct debits, cheques etc. In fact it gizmo111 has reported that a judge ordered Citicards to disclose their internal costs, I assume they didn't and just paid up. A bank will not want to disclose it's internal costs as I suspect that refusing a direct debit only costs a fraction of a penny and they don't want to confirm a lot of peoples suspicions that they are profiteering and risk having a lucrative revenue stream cut off for good by a new Law.
The OFT have no powers to make Law they can interpret law just as the rest of us can, they can make recomendations, they can state their own rules that govern if they themselves will take action to enforce the Law. The OFT like the Police or the Health and Safety Executive have to bring evidence to a court for learned council to argue the case and a Judge and if appropriate a Jury to decide using the presented evidence to decide on an appropriate order or ruling. The OFT cannot make a ruling in the same sense that a Judge in court can.
I'll now get off my soap box and wait for someone to say I am wrong
I have represented myself in an arbitration hearing in front of a District Judge in a money claim case in the small claims court. Although I won, the Sheriffs Offices I instructed to enforce the order the Judge made for the defendant to pay were unable to enforce it. The defendant did a "runner". One thing you can be sure of when you win against a bank is that they won't run away!
The OFT have no powers to make Law they can interpret law just as the rest of us can, they can make recomendations, they can state their own rules that govern if they themselves will take action to enforce the Law. The OFT like the Police or the Health and Safety Executive have to bring evidence to a court for learned council to argue the case and a Judge and if appropriate a Jury to decide using the presented evidence to decide on an appropriate order or ruling. The OFT cannot make a ruling in the same sense that a Judge in court can.
I'll now get off my soap box and wait for someone to say I am wrong
I say you are right...and agree especially with this paragraph...it looks familiar, have you posted it on another thread somewhere?
Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.
All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.
When I was a student, although not a law student. I was told in a series of lectures on mainly business law as part of a Business Administration course on an an engineering degree course that only Parliament and Judges can make laws. A judge can set a precedent in court, the precedent can then if the Government of the day wishes be incorporated in an Act.
Correct, but a county court ruling would not set a precedent.
The banks are afraid that one day soon a judge will order a full disclosure of their internal costs relating to refusing to pay direct debits, cheques etc. In fact it gizmo111 has reported that a judge ordered Citicards to disclose their internal costs, I assume they didn't and just paid up.
Order made last week, they have 28 days to disclose, I suspect that they will not disclose also.
The OFT have no powers to make Law they can interpret law just as the rest of us can, they can make recomendations, they can state their own rules that govern if they themselves will take action to enforce the Law. The OFT like the Police or the Health and Safety Executive have to bring evidence to a court for learned council to argue the case and a Judge and if appropriate a Jury to decide using the presented evidence to decide on an appropriate order or ruling. The OFT cannot make a ruling in the same sense that a Judge in court can.
Absolutely my understanding also. Bookie has made all the points also further up the thread.
I'll now get off my soap box and wait for someone to say I am wrong
Won't be me
The defendant did a "runner". One thing you can be sure of when you win against a bank is that they won't run away
How will the OFT decision impact on CAG?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by loverboy
