Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


34 Excellent
  1. Hi Everyone, I thought I would update you all on the progress of our case. With teh new waiver in place, I took a chance and emailed ashurst to ask them re negiotiate settlement under the waiver rules. They replied with an offer of 65% which was declined staright away. They then came back with an offer of 95% of total claimed without interest. But as the new waiver rules protect you I took this knowing I can still reclaim any difference owed should the case go in the consumers favour. The cheque for the amount agreed arrived this morning and is safely in our bank account awaiting clearance. I say to anyone wanting to have go. Do you never know you may be pleaseantly surprised
  2. You need to file a dispute with the bank and make the account in dispute and ask for all information relation to your account eg bank statements for past 6 years if you banked with them for this long and if you dont already have the statements and state that you are going to be claiming back your charges they have applied to your account. It will cost you £10 for the bank statements. All information relating to letters and claiming back can be found on this website. As soon as Abbey acknowledge your claim the debt collection agency have to send it back to them with the account being in dispute.
  3. This was also being reported on the BBC news website.. BBC NEWS | Business | Deadline set on bank charges case
  4. I found this useful peice of information on penalty charges made by BW... In a nutshell: The banks will formally make their appeal on the UTCCR fairness issue tomorrow. The OFT may appeal on PIL but won't appeal on the penalty issue. The Judge will now look at historical T&Cs and make a declaration on whether they are penalties or not during the next CMC on 7-8 July. The judge will make his rulings on a bank by bank, term by term basis. Because Nationwide T&Cs have not changed the judge will not consider them. Also, in the same hearing he will decide whether his ruling that current T&Cs can be assessed for fairness also applies to historicals. He said that any reccomendation to stayed litigation in the County Courts on the UTCCR fairness issue would only be made after the conclusion of the banks appeal. Having said that the judge did seem very keen to keep things moving for the sake of a speedy outcome to the stayed cases. He was critcal of the OFT QC for having no idea when they will make their decision on fairness and urged them to hurry up. The FSA representitive also said the same. The OFT QC blamed the banks for the delay as they kept changing theit T&Cs and that of the eight banks they requested information from to be submitted by now, only 2 had. Tomorrow the banks and possibly the OFT will submit their appeals. It is expected that the appeals will be heard in October/November. Obviously this is not good news for people wanting their stays lifted soon. The only glimmer of hope is that that if he rules that the historical T&Cs are penalties, it could mean the claimant could seek an ''injunctive remedy' which means that the claimant could apply for an injuntion to prevent further charges being applied pending appeals.
  5. Today, 16:33:PM this post was posted by BUDGIE on LB site VIP Member Golden Retriever Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 253 Thanks: 74 Thanked 180 Times in 77 Posts My Mood: Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) Continued............. The judge expressed on several occasions that he was unhappy at the potential delays and uncertainty with regards to timescales as already reported in Ame's earlier posts. Before lunch he had requested that the OFT provide a more definite indication as to when they might expect to produce their PCA report and to progress further with the Banks on the fairness issues. The Judge, during an exchange between himself and Malik ( Abbey QC ) hinted that a injunctive remedy may be applicable for people with stayed County Court claims who are still having charges applied to their accounts. More information to follow once we receive transcripts. After Lunch the OFT QC, Richard Coleman reported that it is the OFT's intention to engage seriously with the Banks on the issues of fairness after the CMC on 7th / 8th July. If no disagreement with the Banks then the OFT would hope to be able to come back to the Courts in the period between October and Xmas having identified certain aspects requiring decision by the courts. This was obvioulsy still very vague although slighty more informative than the response given before Lunch. Obviously this all depends on how the appeal proceeds with respect to the original UTCCR judgment. The FSA representative was also not very happy with the lack of information supplied by the OFT. They were expecting more discussion to have taken place at the CMC with regards to Phase 2 ( the hearings to argue whether terms are actually unfair or not ). The FSA were certainly expecting more definitive timelines to have been agreed and had been disapointed by the OFT's response before lunch. The FSA said that matters were now a little clearer however they did expect matters to proceed with the utmost expediency and wanted markers put down. Our Comment - We found it quite remarkable that the FSA have actually been put in a postition that they are compalining about progress ( or lack of it ) being made by the OFT. The Judge indicated that it might be necessary to hold an additional CMC towards the end of July if it proved not possible to lay down a firm timetable going forward at the CMC already organised for 7th / 8th July. Apparantley the OFT and the Banks had agreed prior to the CMC that a judgment / declaration would not be required in relation to PIL for historic terms. However this may change if the OFT decide overnight to appeal the original PIL judgment. At the end of todays events the Judge made an announcement regarding stayed County Court Claims. He said " Regarding claims that have been stayed, pending guidance from this litigation, at each stage I have been considering whether this has changed. The reasons that those actions should not recede seem as strong as they were and will remain so until any appeal by the Banks regarding UTCRR 1999 has been resolved." but hope that it gives people an insight in the meantime. ( Apologies for spelling mistakes above )
  6. Ok everyone I must inform you that all post that I have pasted in here are from L E G A L B E A G L E S ON BEHALF OF AMETHYST. I did try to post the links but for reason they are not allowed in this forum. I just want to make clear I have been keeping you updated through sources of another website. Our very kind regards and thanks to Amethyst and all the others on the forum who have been allowing us to use the information they have posted in order for me to able to update you all with information to use at your discretion. Ladidi
  7. Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) OK Proceedings have finished for the day and we are back at the Bunker. Here is a summary of the key points from todays CMC Banks are appealing against judgement regarding UTCRR 1999 issues OFT are not appealing Penalty charge aspects for current terms OFT will decide tonight and advise Judge tomorrow if they will be appealing the PIL judgment for current terms. The official applications regarding the appeals will be heard tomorrow. Judge will hand down declarations regarding historic terms ( inc basic accounts ) at the CMC to be held on 7th/8th July. Banks and OFT have basically agreed that UTCCR judgment will be carried over to historic terms and the OFT tried to suggest to the Judge that he should accept that agreement, however Judge wishes to do this properly so as to give correct guidance to County Courts ( basically in his own words - how can he be expected to make a judgment on something that he hasnt read or listened to arguments on ). However, he felt it likely that his view would be in line with that supposedly agreed between Banks and OFT. With regards to Penalty charge aspects in relation to historic terms. OFT have produced an updated version of G1 and G2 annexes, taking into account initial judgment and issued this to the Banks yesterday. OFT are still working on this list and will continue discussion with Banks and submit final list to Court on 5th June. This list will determine which of the original terms the OFT identified as possibly being Penalties are no longer such ( as a result of the initial judgment ) and terms which the OFT still consider are penaltys. The list will include reasons and the OFT hope that this will be of assistance to the Judge. Judge wishes to handle both the Penal aspects and the UTCCR aspects in relation to the historic terms together , in one exercise at the meeting on 7th/8th July. More to follow
  8. The TC has worked backwards to be fair. Historicals should've been dealt with first, then current but it's gone the other way nicely for the banks. With the ruling on historicals still to come 7/8 July, I'm not sure the stays will be lifted unless Smith has spotted something he can genuine slip out. If he does it will be based on the fact he's found the current terms open to UTCCR and therefore it's assumed by all, even the banks, that ruling will pass to historicals. So stays could be lifted on that basis - even if elements dealing with penalties for historicals are still held over for TC Judgment. The Courts can proceed on some issues and not others should they wish. And we all know, lift the stay, set a trial date IN BULK and the banks will settle again. CMC is scheduled for today AND tomorrow. Hopefully by close today we'll know roughly what's on the billing for tomorrow.
  9. News from the CMC (OFT v Banks yep I'd agree with you....need to have a look at the T&Cs from nationwide. Like I said will try clarify at next break. and no its not a ''judgement''. Answer nice one. Just wish the OFT had appealed the penalty aspects, but they aren't interested in those at all are they. The good thing is, it's already been said the Judgment on Penalties for current terms can be ignored because it flies 'so' in the face of history it's unbelievable. But Smithy finding that they can be looked at under UTCCR because they aren't 'really' service fees, coupled with the OFT's disinterest in penalties means 'we' can if you are up for the argument, still forge ahead on penalty issue it just would be a more convoluted argument in Court now and not as simple as befire.
  10. Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) Oh that's a new spin then, so that's an OFT judgment not a Smithy Judgment. In that case I'd say Nationwiders can still use penalties, but need to be prepared to argue against the OFT decision - keep it on track of, easy to sort out - disclose your costs. But that definitely means now for Nationwide T&C's are needed and the appropriate bits highlighted properly. Then again I do like straws! lol
  11. How has he concluded Nationwide aren't penalties - wasn't it Nationwide unless my mind has gone that admitted they were and the QC had to say their leaflet was wrong? ANSWER The OFT issued the banks with a list of terms to which the banks had to respond. Only two did, one of which was Nationwide and the OFt have concluded that none of Nationwides terms either present or historical can be deemed penaltys under common law. Its not a judgement I think just an indication of what the OFT have found - so UTCCR only for Nationwide.
  12. IMHO I think the Judge should just ask the banks to declare their true costs to avoid any more time wasting and use his Judgements based on the facts they present to him and inform that either the amount should be reduced to £? or all refunds should be given back to the consumer until the OFT & the Banks can come to some resolve on the issue no more monies can be collected from the consumer until a fair and just amount is in proportion to their true costs!!
  13. Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) OFT pressurised over bank charges By Ian Pollock Personal finance reporter, BBC News, High Court Thursday, 22 May 2008 13:37 UK The High Court has been the seen of the latest legal battle A High Court judge has told the Office of Fair Trading to reveal when it will decide if bank charges are fair or not. Mr Justice Andrew Smith made his comments as he granted eight banks leave to appeal against his earlier ruling on the issue. Last month he decided that the OFT had the power under consumer contract regulations to rule if bank overdraft charges were unfair. Thousands of bank customers will have to wait for their cases to be heard. 'On hold' An agreement between the OFT and the banks to use the courts to resolve the legal issues at stake has seen all current and new claims put on hold. It is thought that there could be tens of thousands of bank customers waiting to see if they can pursue their claims. We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims Justice Andrew Smith The appeal by the banks against the OFTs jurisdiction in this matter is likely to be held by the Court of Appeal this autumn. The Judge said uncertainty about the length of the OFT's investigation risked being unfair to people whose refund claims are currently suspended in the courts. "How long should we hold up the county court litigation?" he asked. "Are we talking months, years or weeks?" "We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims." When asked if the OFT would conclude its investigation this year, the regulator's QC said he did not know. "The investigation is ongoing and substantial further work and consultation with the banks has still to be undertaken," he said. He explained that recent changes to the terms and conditions of some banks' current accounts had extended the timescale for the OFT investigation. The OFT has been investigating the fairness of bank charges for more than a year.
  14. The banks are DEFINATELY appealing UTCCR 99 and judge has accepted this appeal. Judge was critical of the QC for OFT - the OFT still have no idea when publication of PCA report will be and he couldnt pin it down to being within a year. The QC is taking advice from the OFT on this for this afternoons session - and the Judge seemed keen to put pressure on the OFT to get this report completed. The hold up is the Banks keep changing T&Cs so the OFT keep having to refer back to banks to get info on new T&Cs on 20th May all banks meant to have responded but all but two have asked for extension. 7th and 8th july hearing the judge will be making decisions re the penalty issues and UTCCR 99 on historic terms and basic accounts. This will be a declaration ( handing down of judgement ). The Judge cannot say if Historic terms are subject to UTCCR 99 cause he hasnt looked yet but he has said he would be suprised if they were not broadly similar. Penalty charge aspect of Historic Terms - OFT have been working in last couple of weeks on a revised list of terms that the OFT still consider relate to penaltys under common law. The have issued these to the banks for their responses, which will be in and submitted to the court by the 5th June. No NATIONWIDE building society terms either present or historic can be considered capable of amounting to penaltys. Therefore Nationwide customers CAN NOT use the Penalty charges arguments under commmon law to reclaim their charges. The Judge wants to consider penalty and utccr on historic terms at the same time - thus is pushing for the 5th June for the OFTs submission regarding terms in historic agreements it percieves could be deemed as penaltys under common law - in order to make the declaration on the 7/8 July. The Judge was questioning how the claims currently in the county courts system are structured - re are they mentioning specific terms in banks T&Cs or just general claims that the terms are penaltys. He did not appear to have seen any POCs from the thousands of claims currently in the system. He once more expressed his concerns over consumers money being held up in the courts system. He seems quite keen to get the stays lifted as soon as possible.
  • Create New...