Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sammythebest

  1. The banks would have known the outcome a while ago. Give them time to prepare. The changes they have been making the past couple of months is a sign that they have not won.The comments that have been coming from the banks never mentions that they expect to win. HBOS is a state owned bank of which I and you are shareholders now. I expect them to refund me quickly or I will be attending the next shareholders meeting:)
  2. I have limited knowledge on this, but the banks are only repo'ing on extreme cases of which this does not seem one. There are plenty of things you can do, but i think other people are more qualified on this one.
  3. Hi Nunny Thanks for that. Apprecaite you clarifying it for me Sammy
  4. I have started a DMP for OH egg account last month.It is a concern of mine that they will deceide thay cannot be bothered with it and sell it. This thread confirms that fear. Can I confirm that they agreed Debt Management plans with you for both cards in August and they have sold it? I know I can fight them and win...but I would rather do without the hassle. Cheers
  5. There has been a warning put out about companies hounding people since yesterday to ask them if they want to claim and take a payment up front.
  6. I hope they are getting confused. The HOL have said they will announce this session that the OFT can or cannot rule on whats fair. This session ends before christmas. Therefore the OFT will go way and have a think about whats fair and I have heard that will announced in January. If I am wrong I am going to start to get angry.
  7. Screw tightens on claims management firms - 08/10/2009 Royal Bank of Scotland has secured a victory in a consumer credit case that a law firm said will "tighten the screw" on claims management companies’ practices. Mr Justice Flaux found in favour of RBS in its case against Phillip McGuffick who sought to declare that a £17,000 loan from the bank was irredeemably unenforceable under sections 61 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But in the Commercial Court, at the Royal Courts of Justice, it was concluded that claimants seeking to prove their credit agreements are unenforceable under the Act are still liable for monies owed. During the case it emerged that only two repayments were made to RBS between August 2006 and May 2007, when 10 monthly payments of £346 were due. Since June 2007, the total amount owed has been £15,066. The account was referred to Callcredit, Experian and Equifax and the debt recovery process was referred to Apex Credit Management, but to no effect. It was then referred to Capquest but again no repayments were made. The claimant’s solicitors, MJP Justice, then wrote to the bank in February this year to dispute the credit agreement on the grounds that no reference was made to credit reference agencies in the original agreement. MJP asked for documents relating to the original loan agreement and argued that while the debt was in dispute, no enforcement action could be taken. RBS has received hundreds of similar requests from solicitors and claims management firms for the same purpose. But Mr Justice Flaux ruled that the claimant could not prevent RBS from making reports of the claimant’s non-payment to the credit reference agencies (CRAs). The court was asked whether the passing of information to the CRAs breached data protection law, but the court found the sharing of information to be lawful and legitimate. The case was referred to the Commercial Court with a view to define and clarify the meaning of enforcement in the context of the Consumer Credit Act. Law firm Eversheds said the case succeeded in doing so and it will be "invaluable" to all lenders now dealing with challenges to the enforceability of agreements. The court decided that bringing legal proceeding is only a step taken with a view to enforcement and not actually enforcement. Consequently, steps taken before proceedings start, including demanding payment and threatening legal action, cannot be enforcement. The court also found that demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and bringing legal proceedings did not constitute enforcement either. Chris Busby, partner at Eversheds, said: "The decision undermines the practice of panel solicitors at claims management companies selling their services based on identifying unenforceable credit agreements. CMCs should now be warning customers that running these arguments and ceasing repayment of loans will have an adverse impact on credit ratings." Claims management firm Cartel Client Review, which was not involved in the RBS case, called on the Ministry of Justice to review how claims management companies are regulated. Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel, said: "I believe the MoJ should hold a joint consultation with leading financial claims management companies to agree a set of standards that can be implemented across the industry to protect and better inform consumers."
  8. Thanks Bookworm, I admit I had not read anything on it, I just cannot quite believe that they think they can do that. It just does not get any better. Cheers.
  9. I haven't read too much about this but what I have briefly picked up is that it is unauthorised overdrafts that will be charged £1.00 a day. I think that had better be made clear.
  10. I agree with this. I feel that the banks barristers have already had feed back from HOL and RBS have stepped in to try and steal a march on the others. If what the RBS has done is going to be the verdict then £15.00 will be deeed a reasonable charge.This may complete b.....ks I know, but just a thought.
  11. This reduction makes me think that the banks barristers have tipped them the wink that they are going lose and that RBS have got in first with a damage limitation exercise. £15.00 is still too much for payments over overdraft limit. They should just not pay direct debits if the money is not there in the account. A Current account is not a Credit Agreement-(Court of Appeal Feb 2009)
  12. I had this same problem with Swinton. I was changing banks and the DD had not been set up properly. I got a £50.00 cancelation charge. They blamed it on the insurance company. I went in the office and threatened them with the riot act,while they had other customers in there. There debt collection letter was against OFT guidelines, it stated it was sent recorded delivery and it wasnt. I had not received previous notice of cancellation ect. They agreed to wavier the charge and reinstate my policy. I have since left them.
  13. When card details are taken they the softwear that takes the payments t does not retain the numbers in the system. Unless you write them down while you take them you cannot use them again. To write them down is against the Data Protection act . If companies are doing this it is illegal. My view of financial insitutions is dim at the moment, and if this is happening it is extremley serious. I have heard of direct debits being taken for more than the amount agreed, this can be rectified by a complaint to BACS.If you agree to a subscription over a period on a credit card it can be very difficult to stop the money going out , banks cant stop it, and it is hard to find the source. I would advise anybody never to do that. But on the intial point, it is totally illegal under the data protection act.It is theft ..go to the police.
  14. Sorry Ellie but this is not correct. There are strict guildlines where taking card payments are concerned. Under the Data Protection act the company is not allowed to hang on to them, so another payment would be in breach of the DP act. You are thinking of things like subscriptions on the internet that are monthly that are difficult to cancel. It is safe to use your cards.
  15. Just to let you know I have received another £1.5k off the Halifax for PPI charges incl.compensation and interest. Now received 4K back off them. Must say they have not disputed in either case.
  16. Hes not sorry though! Got a fat bonus at home! You can get money back now that has been criminally gained I think thats a road we can go down.
  17. I can recall pleading with them as they were talking £105.00 per day out of my other halfs account, £800.00 in one month in total. I was having to put my money in to stem the flow, told them we had kids to feed and how much did they want off her....did not care and would not reverse the charges. 35.00 was for a NSPCC charity direct debit for £3.50. I am still angry, all you at HBOS you are probably going to lose your jobs now, and it maybe that when you can't pay your bills you may not get hit with £35.00 charges so you are lucky. If I am not paid back I will go to the highest court in the land, I PROMISE i will be with the baliffs outstanding Halifaxs HQ, and I PROMISE i will make a complaint to the CPS for the [EDIT] taking of our money by the directors of HBOS. Rest assured I will never give up, I will fight on the beaches!
  18. In fact its just come to me that we are paying for their Barrister Vos to act against us! Isn't life ironic:)
  19. Let us hope the Law Lords agree. The banks have been crooks for the past 10 years, better to pay everyone back than have the Criminal Prosecution Service involved.It is cheaper for the Taxpayer, us, who in fact pay these peoples salarys now.
  20. It is a big flaw. I cannot beleive a top barrister is coming out with such an argument, or am I missing the point. 'We have stolen off everyone for 15 years , please dont make us give it back'
  21. Banks face an "appalling prospect" if the Office of Trading is allowed to rule that overdraft charges are unfair, the House of Lords has been told. The banks would receive a deluge of litigation if the decision was made against them, the court has heard. Five Law Lords are hearing an appeal by seven banks and one building society against judgements by two lower courts. The lenders are challenging the right of the Office of Fair Trading to decide if overdraft charges are fair or not. Prices Jonathan Sumption QC, for the banks, said if the previous ruling in favour of the OFT was upheld, the banks would face a deluge of litigation with claims going back many years. THE STORY SO FAR... Nearly a million people have claimed for the return of their unauthorised overdraft charges but their cases are on hold If the banks win this week's appeal, these people are unlikely to get any money back If the banks lose, then the legal arguments should move on to a key stage - a case to determine whether these charges were fair or not Only then will people have a clearer picture as to whether billions of pounds will be handed back to customers Crunch time for bank charges case "That prospect is appalling," he said. He said if the courts upheld the right of the OFT to scrutinise bank charges, then the charges might be deemed unenforceable for a time period dating all the way back to the 1990s. That was because European Union regulations on unfair terms in consumer contracts had been introduced into UK law during that decade. Alternatively, Mr Sumption argued, all personal current account contracts might become unenforceable in total. At the core of the arguments is whether bank charges are exempt from the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) and whether the OFT can scrutinise or regulate the charges. Mr Sumption argued that the price being paid by bank customers for the use of their overdrawn accounts was not something that fell under the above regulations. "Does our case allow extortionate prices? Yes," he said. "The remedy for extortionate prices lies in the domain of competition regulations, not in the domain of contract regulations." 'Consumer categories' Mr Geoffrey Vos QC, for the Nationwide Building Society, supported the arguments of the banks. In particular, he said, the Court of Appeal had been wrong in law to analyse the impact of overdraft charges from the point of view of consumers who stayed in the black. The banks have been outlining their case He pointed out that of 54 million current account holders, 12.6 million paid overdraft fees in any one year. That meant there were at least two categories of consumer - those who paid and those who did not pay overdraft fees. "The typical consumer is one who pays, intends to pay, or expects to pay debit charges," said Mr Vos. "The charges are clearly recognisable as the price for this service for the debit customers." So, Mr Vos argued, the bank charges were necessarily exempt from the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) and the OFT could not scrutinise or regulate them. The hearing is expected to continue until Thursday.
  22. Banks 'not Robin Hood in reverse' Billions of pounds of past and future bank income are at stake The House of Lords has been told that banks are not "Robin Hoods in reverse" when they levy overdraft fees. Seven banks and the Nationwide Building Society have started their Appeal to stop the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) regulating their overdraft fees. Jonathan Sumption QC claimed the banks were not taxing the overdrawn for the benefit of others. However, he told the Law Lords that overdraft fees involved a large element of cross-subsidy. The outcome of the hearing may decide if millions of bank customers are able to reclaim billions of pounds in past charges from their banks. 'Fairness' Mr Sumption, for the banks, argued that existing consumer contract regulations did not give the OFT the power to regulate prices. THE STORY SO FAR... Nearly a million people have claimed for the return of their unauthorised overdraft charges but their cases are on hold If the banks win this week's appeal, these people are unlikely to get any money back If the banks lose, then the legal arguments should move on to a key stage - a case to determine whether these charges were fair or not Only then will people have a clearer picture as to whether billions of pounds will be handed back to customers Crunch time for bank charges case He said that bank overdraft fees were required to be clear but were not necessarily required to be fair. The High Court and the Court of Appeal have both previously upheld the right of the OFT to scrutinise the fairness of bank charges under the 1999 Consumer Contract Regulations. Mr Sumption said both of the lower courts had been wrong, and had both over-refined and overcomplicated the interpretation of the regulations. He pointed out that the regulations were not designed as a mechanism of price control and were not aimed at regulating what services were offered or the price charged. They did not, he argued, apply to the main subject matter of a contract or the price being charged for it - only to ancillary or contingent charges. "The overdraft charges are too fundamental to the bargain to be declared unfair," he said. Cross-subsidy He told the five Law Lords hearing the appeal that overdraft fees involved a large element of cross-subsidy. Jonathan Sumption QC is arguing the banks' case People who went overdrawn without permission were paying part of the cost of providing current accounts to people who always stayed in the black. So the charges exceeded the cost of dealing with an overdrawn customer because "the revenue stream is essential to the whole of the current account structure". Mr Sumption explained that cross-subsidies were common in the banking industries of other countries such as France, Canada, Australia and the US. He said they were common in the charging structures of many other complex sets of services such as airline ticket prices or mobile phone tariffs and were not objectionable. One of the Law Lords asked if it was the case that bank charges included a surcharge to subsidise those who did not go into the red. Another Lord suggested overdrawn customers were being taxed for the benefit of others. But Mr Sumption said it was "tendentious nonsense" to suggest that banks were operating as Robin Hoods in reverse. He went on to say that a victory for the OFT might render all past overdraft payments unenforceable and might lead to "restitution". "The OFT has significantly raised the stakes," he said. "The issues are of considerable importance to consumers and the future of retail banking." Earlier rulings Mr Sumption spent the rest of the day picking apart the earlier rulings by the High Court judge Mr Justice Andrew Smith and the three judges in the Court of Appeal. In particular, he said the Appeal Court had been "fundamentally wrong" to draw a distinction in the regulations between essential terms and prices, which could not be scrutinised by the OFT, and non-essential or incidental terms and prices - such as overdraft fees, which could be regulated. "The distinction between core and non-core prices have no place in the regulations," he said. "No such distinction can be found in the language of the regulations. All prices are by their very nature essential as the contract cannot work if the price is unenforceable." Mr Sumption went on to describe the Court of Appeal's approach as "opaque and impractical" which might lead to "absurd" conclusions. "The courts are not authorised to treat some prices as inessential," he said. The hearing is expected to finish on Thursday.
  • Create New...