Jump to content

Fezzaboy599

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Fezzaboy599

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Because £5 is a limit and you can put limits on the increases. Inflationary for example!!!!!!!!
  2. We have to be realistic ! I took off my rose tinted spectacles a while ago ! The banks will be able to come up with all sorts of complex calculations that will inflate what is felt to be the true cost of probably £2. Equally I have no problem in banks making a profit, at the end of the day they are not a charity, what I have a problem with is the level of profit. Lets say the limit was £5 I honestly would have no problem with that. I think overall that would be a massive victory for the consumer and I for one would be applauding all concerned if that was the outcome !!!!!
  3. Its very simple. Were the oft in a position where they thought they would be left with no choice but to place a £12 limit they would of done it by now. If they lose the case and then enforce a £12 limit as per credit cards they will come under huge scrutiny for wasting VAST AMOUNTS of tax payers money on a case they lost. It will be asked why they didn't do it before embarking on a lengthy and expensive legal case. Equally what will it say for any regulatory body to take a case to court against the very people they regulate and to then go and lose. They look to have no power, no authority !!!!!!! Something not wise in possibly an election year. We must stay positive, the courts are as annoyed at the banks as the consumers over all the wasted court time over the last twelve months and that may help. I can see the courts determining what is fair but that being more between £6 - £10. That is my thoughts on the matter anyway !
  4. Hi Everyone I have a lot of experience of the debt management industry as I currently work for one of the main players. I have to say on the whole there are a lot of good companies out there that do a very good job. I have heard some horror stories however but it has to be said that in all forms of finance there are horror stories. You need to be careful with the fees that are charged particularly if it is based on a percentage of your payment or they are asking for massive up front payments. Yes the CAB do a good job but will leave you to fend for yourself and unfortunatly unlike the bank charge situation it is very stressful dealing with creditors who are chasing for money. Equally I would say to those who are with DM companies take what your creditors say with a pinch of salt. Like the bank charge situation where banks have been as difficult as possible creditors are the same. They hate DM companies because on the whole they will know how the game is played where as if they get there claws into directly there collection agents can often come up with wild and wonderful stories in an attempt to get people to pay. On the whole we are not bad but as with everything you have to be careful who you go with. Generally see how you feel about the person who initially advises you and importantly ask questions such as are they a member of the DRF ( Debt Resolution Forum ), how long have they been operating, and how many current clients do they have not how many have they helped over the years. I hope this is of some help !!!!!!!
  5. Hi Everyone Myself and a bunch of colleagues sent off our letters. Three of them have already had responses, thanking them for bringing it to the MP's attention and that they will be looking into the matter. It could be taken as a fob off but I think that they have responded in 36 hours is preety positive. On another note have you seen that this is starting to gather pace in america as well and the americans are only charged about £18 a time.
  6. Hi Everyone I have just found this great site that allows you to email your MP in about five minutes flat !!! WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free I have also put below the copy of the email I sent to mine. We should all try and make a difference !!!!!!! Dear Sir I would like to write to you to bring to your attention the disgraceful situation involving the recovery of unlawful bank charges. On the 26th July 2007 the OFT launched in the High Court a legal test case to clarify the law on unfair terms in consumer contracts regulation 1999 to investigate whether it applies to this matter. While I commend the OFT on this move I feel that the FSA have acted in a disgraceful manner and I explain below. The FSA have ruled that while this test case goes ahead the banks can hold up any complaints regarding this matter, the FOS are no longer dealing with any complaints and they are encouraging the courts to hold any claims. While initial estimates on the length of the test case were around six months it would appear that realistically with potentially over £10 billion at stake the banks are likely to appeal what is widely expected to be a victory for the consumer and this could have the effect that the case drag on for years. In fact a similar credit card case has dragged on for four years and is still without conclusion. I feel it completely against the FSA mantra of "Treating Customers Fairly" that they have allowed the banks to continue charging people these wholly inappropriate charges.These charges are often as much as £42 for going overdrawn or for having a direct debit returned and while the case goes ahead they are prevented from claiming in cases that have so far paid out the consumer an estimated £500 million. Had the banks felt so strongly against this issue in the first place I doubt very much that a single penny would of been paid let alone £500 million. There are an estimated 5 million people who have either claimed, claiming or have the opportunity to claim on this matter and after the desperate decision made by the FSA if they voted with there feet the outcome of victories at the next general election could be very different. I actually invite you to look at some of the consumer websites, for example penaltycharges.co.uk, the consumer action group and the Martin Lewis consumer website to get a feeling for the swell of support and indeed the number of people involved. I would appreciate that as my local MP you put pressure on the necessary bodies or raise this point in the house to perhaps assist in overcoming these misguided decisions. Yours sincerely,
  7. Guidot This was on penaltycharges.co.uk. Cardiff cc to hear block case aug 14th - Penalty Charges Forum I am confused now ???????
  8. I agree ! The staff while helpful can be prone to mis informing staff ! Get that judgement slapped in ! Another victory hopefully. Oh have you heard, apparantly cardiff courts have a huge amount of cases and have rejected stays in all of them, the judge has said the hearings will take place on the 14th of August. Finally some good news !!!!!!!!!!
  9. Hi Fellow CAG'ers Although this is something I have put on an alternate thread I didn't get a response. Surely we should look to the law as the way around this sorry FSA waiver ruling, after all has served us all well up to now ? The whole test case is based on the UTCCR 1999 law and whether it is relevant in this case. This being clarified is the reason the courts have the power (that it seems they are using) to grant a stay until a decision is reached in the test case. I have found that under the Supply Of Goods and Services Act 1982 any supplier of a service has to charge a reasonable charge. Now we can apply this law with several arguements, firstly all the banks apply this charge so the consumer does in fact have no choice but to pay it because there is no alternative, secondly that conservative estimates puts the cost to the bank at £5 and thirdly and finally as such surely an approximate 700% mark up is not reasonable. It overcomes the current situation because we are applying different law so the test case is no loner relevant. It is also difficult for the banks to argue against because they admit so far that this is a service charge and surely using the above they cannot argue against it succesfully. I am not legally trained however so any input into this suggestion would be appreciated.
  10. With All Due Respect Wild Bill Peoples money is now being held up for potentially years. There would of been nothing wrong with the test case happening but there was no need for the waiver or the courts wanting to stay any cases.
  11. Hi The other banks not included can sign up to the waiver. I am not expecting any of them to not do. The waiver allows them the freedom to keep charging without giving any refunds. It is the courts allowing cases to be heard that is the critical factor, if that can be achieved then the FSA's decision has had no real effect in the short term.
  12. Hi Everyone This is my first post ! I am shocked that this has happened and feel that really all that has happened is that the FSA has allowed the banks to continue with no thought to the consumer despite there "its in the interests of the consumer" comment. As I understand it the test case is thrashing out the merits of our arguments over the UTCCR 1999 and common law. If the courts decide to stay all cases on the basis that this is being explored by a higher court then surely if we can come up with other law that will support our argument then the courts will NOT be able to stay the action. As I understand it there reason for the stay would be the clarification offered by the High Court in London on this peice of law alone ! Not the issue of bank charges in general. However I am not legally trained and this is not advice, I was hoping someone may be able to guide us all on whether this is a possiblilty ????
×
×
  • Create New...