The OFT Case

[rdm2006]

do we have an update on what is happening???

[Azazal23]

What happens if the case flops, not that i am being negative or nothing the lets face it the banks are protected from up high. Given the economic uncertanty at the moment i cant see this having a postitive outcome for joe public.

 

Just just to clarify, if it does fail does every case get thrown out automatically. Or if we do win, does every defence get struck out automatically?

 

When is a decision expected?

[Bookworm]

Decision is not expected until May.

 

Both sides are pretty much expected to appeal whichever loses, in which case it is unlikely to be a final decision until what? End 2009 if we're lucky?

 

It's not as simple as every case/defence gets thrown out automatically, no. For starters, this case hinges on the UTCCR, so any case which has used common law as well as/instead of the UTCCR (business claims for example, where the UTCCR do not apply) would in theory not be relying on the test case decision. However, the banks having also asked the judge for a declaration that the charges are not penalties, THAT part is very relevant to most cases as once a precedent is set, the County Court judges will then have something to decide there and then which way to go. How each court decides to then handle the bulk of their stayed cases is up to them, some will still favour the individual handling, some which used blanket decisions before no doubt will do the same again.

[Jamesx81x]

Hi

 

If the banks do lose and they appeal which of course they will do does this allow everyone to claim back their charges in the meantime?

 

If a prisoner gets sent down he can appeal but remains in prison until his appeal is heard, would be along the same lines wouldnt it?

 

[Bookworm]

It is unlikely that the courts will allow any case to proceed until all appeals have been heard and dealt with.

[Zip ty]

It is unlikely that the courts will allow any case to proceed until all appeals have been heard and dealt with.

 

''Unlikely''? :o

 

 

MR THANKI: Our primary position is what your Lordship should be looking to do is see whether your Lordship is willing to make declarations or not on the basis of the pleaded issues.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: But, you see, how then do I deal with -- at the end of this case, this first instance case, a question will arise as to whether I or anyone else should say anything to the designated civil judges and others as to whether the proceedings which are by and large on hold, if not formally stayed, should proceed or not.

 

MR THANKI: That may, of course, be subject to any appeals.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: No, no, no. That's why I say at the end of this case, the first instance, there will be -- at the moment, as I understand it, the DCJs have been encouraged to hold back the county court cases pending the first instance decision. Now, of course, it may be, indeed in all probability it might well be that's to be extended, but if my decision in a sense because of the adversarial process ducks a significant point in the county courts, then it may be that at the very least the designated civil judges must be made aware of that and then when the individual decisions in the individual cases are considered, they will bear that in mind and say this test case or OFT case is not going to deal with this point. Let them go ahead. That's the concern.

 

MR THANKI: Yes.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: That's why, taking on board Mr Rabinowitz's concern in the autumn that the tail should not wag the dog, one cannot avoid the test case aspect of it.

 

MR THANKI: Yes. Of course, the pleadings in the county courts which your Lordship has probably seen

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: No, I have not.

 

MR THANKI: They do not raise any of these points. They are very narrowly focused in relation to penalties and UTCCR questions of unfairness rather than plain and intelligible language and so on.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: I see.

 

MR THANKI: Obviously your Lordship will take your own course. I think what I am saying is that the primary focus should be on the adversarial process here, and if your Lordship makes points which Mr Doctor is willing to pursue and we have time to deal with them, then fine.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: I think the difference between the position you are adopting and what I have heard from other banks so far is that you go on to say, "And as far as the declarations are concerned, you should confine yourself to the adversarial issues rather than ask the banks to refine the declarations they seek". Thus far others have recognised that the declarations must be refined so as to reflect the argued issues.

 

MR THANKI: Yes.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: Do you differ on that?

 

MR THANKI: I don't differ on that, no.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: Right.

 

MR THANKI: Our very real concern finally, my Lord, is not just the stays in the county court but also the FSA waiver. We would have a very big concern about booting off historic terms into the distance. Our concern is to have as much dealt with as possible while we are all here.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: I understand that as a principle, yes.

 

 

 

 

************************************************** ************************************************** **********************

 

 

 

MR THANKI: Also in relation to guidance to the county courts, now that your Lordship has had the paper from the banks as to the outstanding issues, I would as your Lordship to consider whether any further guidance can be given in relation to the county courts on the active case management that your Lordship envisages will be likely after the handing down of the judgment. As your Lordship was told, some of the stays are expiring, and I think there are also applications in the pipeline to lift stays, so that is something the banks will be having to with daily on a pretty active basis from now on.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: What are you inviting me to say additional to what I said when Mr Milligan raised the time matter at the start of his reply submissions?

 

MR THANKI: Really that your Lordship has in mind active case management in relation to the historic position, no more than that. That would be of very great assistance to the banks in dealing with the county court situation.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: I have already said that the reason I felt it appropriate to deal with the current terms at this stage, and not deal with the historic terms, is because there is every indication that to some extent my findings will translate readily to a significant proportion of the historic terms, and that, while nothing is certain, might well lead to decisions on the historic terms being made in very short order, within a month one would certainly hope. I can't go so far as to say that necessarily they will translate to all the historic terms, and one will have to take stock as to what the residue is, how significant they are, and the residue is in terms of number of accounts and customers involved, and the management of the residue can only be considered at that stage.

 

MR THANKI: Absolutely.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: It might even be that if the residue is very small, or a particularly unusual account, one would say that that would best be dealt with in the county court in light of the guidance. But even in cases I would hope that my judgment will, subject to appeal, provide the guidance.

 

MR THANKI: I am very much obliged.

[rdm2006]

Thank you bookie nice to see your still here:grin: Old Faithful

 

Shame they are not as quick to jump on the backs of banks as they are with mobile phones (news earlier tonight).

 

Not that mobile company's shouldn't be jumped on:rolleyes:

[fergal71]

what news about mobile phones?????

[dave]

t is unlikely that the courts will allow any case to proceed until all appeals have been heard and dealt with.

 

MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH: It might even be that if the residue is very small, or a particularly unusual account, one would say that that would best be dealt with in the county court in light of the guidance. But even in cases I would hope that my judgment will, subject to appeal, provide the guidance.

 

 

I would say that that means 'unlikely'.

[edgeofadhesion]

He's talking about the RESIDUE! Just how bright are you?

[rdm2006]

what news about mobile phones?????

 

 

There was something on the 6 O'Clock news about mobile contracts i heard the highlights but missed the actual article sorry

[dave]

I think it may be this: BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Mobile mis-selling

 

Like trolls, it seems that the mobile phone companies don't know how to engage in polite converstation either!

[edgeofadhesion]

If you'd like to engage in polite conversation then perhaps a good start would be to explain to your 180000 users, many of whom are desperate to know the likelihood of thier stayed claims being able to procceed this decade or not, that attempting - abysmally - to justify Bookworm's fax pas to me is more important than telling them the truth.

[Mr Rhodes]

Can somebody who knows for sure please post a concise and up to date status please?

 

Thanks in advance:)

[Gez]

Sure..

The case has been heard and we're waiting for judgement which is expected around July, after which, the losing side is expected to appeal. What happens after that & how long the whole thing will drag on further is anybody's guess.

 

On a side note, someone today received a letter from the court stating that her claim will remain stayed until the outcome of judgement & subsequent appeals so I guess we can expect cases to be stayed for a long time yet..

[kennythecelt]

Decision is not expected until May.

 

Both sides are pretty much expected to appeal whichever loses, in which case it is unlikely to be a final decision until what? End 2009 if we're lucky?

 

It's not as simple as every case/defence gets thrown out automatically, no. For starters, this case hinges on the UTCCR, so any case which has used common law as well as/instead of the UTCCR (business claims for example, where the UTCCR do not apply) would in theory not be relying on the test case decision. However, the banks having also asked the judge for a declaration that the charges are not penalties, THAT part is very relevant to most cases as once a precedent is set, the County Court judges will then have something to decide there and then which way to go. How each court decides to then handle the bulk of their stayed cases is up to them, some will still favour the individual handling, some which used blanket decisions before no doubt will do the same again.

 

Hi Mr Rhodes

Assuming you mean bank charges and not mobile phones as this thread is about the OFT case, I would refer you to an earlier post of bookie's. All the mods and site admin and helpers can be relied upon to provide up to date information.

The situation won't change until May at latest.

Hope this is helpful.

[kennythecelt]

Sorry Gez, my post took a while to get through. Cheers, Kenny!!

[Mr Rhodes]

Thanks for the concise update.

 

It looks like it will be a long wait either way. On the upside the interest is still accruing? Surely the banks will be aware of accruing interest on these claims?

 

Just like their illegal and unfair charges, it will all add up to a vast sum!

 

Are we being taken for a ride here?

[kennythecelt]

You might well say that Mr Rhodes, but I couldn't possibly comment!

[HSBCrusher]

another £150 in charges for me in the past 6 weeks or so from Barclays.

[Bookworm]

On the upside the interest is still accruing?

Yes.

Surely the banks will be aware of accruing interest on these claims?

Oh yes.

Just like their illegal and unfair charges, it will all add up to a vast sum!

Yes and no. a) The 8% allowed by the Courts is considerably less than the round 30% unauthorised o/d interest they charge, which most people won't know or can't be bothered to reclaim, b) For the people who haven't filed their claims at court, the clock is still ticking on the 6 years limit and so many charges will no doubt be falling by the wayside, c)the interest they are making on the money they are not having to repay at the moment and lending it at higher interest instead should more than cover the interest they will have eventually to pay... If they lose, that is, because of course, they are probably hoping that they will win, in which case, the whole interest question becomes a very moot one anyway. :-|

[The Phantom]

I have held back with a claim against HSBC for just under £1000.- (accrued in less than a year) but will file it with my local court next week when I get paid, I will take a gamble that the banks will eventually LOOSE this and if the appeals drag on until next year a nice amount of interest should have built up.

I am not usually a gambler, but will take the plunge with this one.

[kennythecelt]

Yes Phantom, it's a personal decision, but, for what its worth, I would do it myself.

 

They are still unlawful charges and all the banks paid out trying to prevent a case going to court.

 

Best of luck and kind regards, Kenny:)

 

 

PS love the avatar, one of my favourite classics!!

[ppauls150]

I just can't believe that the courts are going to really make an impartial decision on this at the moment especially with all the hype about how banks are really in trouble, then compound the misery that the banks would stand to lose on having to pay back if they lost would really have a detremental affect on the world and would they really take that chance. It is annoying that this could be a factor in the decision.

[Gez]

In sincerely hope not. If any economic factors play a part (which I doubt to be honest), I would hope that with the economy going into slow down & possibly recession, a few £billion put back into circulation might be the better thing to have.

 

Failing that, I would simply hope that the judge gives a ruling based on common sense and what is blindingly obvious.