This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Thanks for the advice.

When court proceedings are issued, does the defendant have to sign for the documents before they are deemed as served?

You say we need to apply for a stay, what's the point if she's going to pay it? Sorry if that's a daft question.

My girlfriend has received a letter from Marston's this evening, hand posted at around 9pm this evening, she was in, nobody knocked or rang the bell.

It's regarding a heating oil bill from a previous property, this is the first she has heard about it. I'm assuming a CCJ must have been issued, but as I say, this is the first she's heard. The debt was around £800, they are demanding £1400. A fifa writ has been issued.

Am I right in assuming that we can simply pay the CCJ amount to the original creditor and tell Marston's to do a running jump for their fees?

This from the BBC story at the conclusion of the hearing.

"There is every indication that my findings will translate to the historic terms," he said.

"That could mean a decision on the historic terms in very short order - maybe within a month [of my decision]," he added.

I'm confused. I thought this case was to determine if the OFT had the authority to rule on the fairness of the charges. The judge has said they have, therefore barring any appeal, why are the BBA talking about the court deciding on the fairness of charges? I also seem to remember that the OFT had investigated the banks charges but hadn't published their findings or am I mistaken?

Perhaps the media should paraphrase these banking expert quotes in the following way "if the banks charges are deemed to be unlawful, the banks will be forced to find a lawful way of making a profit without using the poor to subsidise the illusion of free banking."

From the OFT;

 

 

 

As I understand it, if the Court rules that the UTCCRs do/can apply, then the OFT have jurisdiction.

That's how I understood it. As they have already concluded their investigation into the charging structure then they already have a figure in mind and would be ready to impose it should the ruling go their way.

My guess is that the OFT told the banks that the fee they had in mind, and the banks threatened that should they try to impose that fee then they would challenge the OFT's jurisdiction in court.

I though I read somewhere that if the court rules that the charges are penalties, then the OFT would not need to go back to court to determine that the fees were fair, as they would have already have the powers they need to force the banks to reduce their fees?

Yes, we have just reclaimed £7k for a customer who was unemployed when they were sold PPI, Barclays initially attempted to claim she was employed as a 'home maker'. They paid out after the second letter

FOS are slow but get results. I have found that while many companies go through the motions of defending a court claim they settle pretty early on when FOS get involved. For example Citi are renowned for defending card claims but settle when they get a complaint through FOS.

The FOS route is cheaper and less stressful, it just takes a little longer.

£7k PPI reclaimed on a Barclays loan.

Barclays initially refused a refund on the grounds that the claimant was employed as a 'home maker'. Of course this was utterly ridiculous and they repaid after the LBA.

I would have thought that if the OFT win round 1 in January the FSA will come under increasing pressure to lift the waiver.

I run a claims management company and irony of ironies they just cold called me The guy on the phone blatantly misled me by telling me that the OFT's case would not effect my claim. I have reported them to the MOJ.

That's interesting, we are having 100's of claims returned to us, some submitted as early as the 6th of June, however yesterday we received an offer from FOS making an offer on an Abbey claim.

I have no explanation.

They should also be following the FSA guidance by dealing with claimants in Scotland & NI but they've conveniently decided to ignore that bit of guidance.

I guess you have to argue that its a penalty and not a service charge, if you can do that then they would have to prove that £47 was a reflection of their costs.

If you truly don't know, you shouldn't be asked to perjure yourself by guessing. A solicitor friend used that argument and got away with it, he truly could not say with any certainty who was driving.

This law is a perfect example of guilty till proven innocent.

That's just how the FSA have decided things should be. There are obviously different rules for Scotland & NI

If your jurisdiction is Scotland or NI you should, according to the FSA be still allowed to use the courts or FOS. However FOS have decided to ignore this and not deal with any bank charge claim regardless.

The Man responsible for this decision is the head Ombudsman and his name is Tony Boorman. Let him know your displeasure.

One would have thought that as they are now not dealing with bank charge cases they would be able to deal with credit card claims far quicker.

Now the dust is starting to settle it's now becoming clear just who's calling the shots in the ''test case''.

 

Far from the OFT taking the banks to court, it's the banks themselves

who have initiated this move as the BBC makes clear:

''The Office for Fair Trading (OFT) said that the lenders had approached the UK's financial watchdogs in order to sort out the problem and agreed to the test cases in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.''

 

The OFT has been reported to have been negotiating the terms of the case for ''at least a month''. Hardly the work of an iron-fisted regulator.

 

The banks have made this move to pre-empt any cap on charges the OFT were due to make in December and spin it out for as long as possible.

 

Interestingly absent from the OFT's case is any mention of discloser of the

of the bank's charge costs. This is no doubt a condition the banking industry have insisted upon and will no doubt contribute to the already lengthy timetable.

 

So, the banks are quids in. The initial case could take years. Banks will of course appeal any decision that goes against them and only after that

will the OFT ask for disclosure and that could drag on for ages. Only then

can the OFT act on capping the charges.

 

In the meantime the banks have engineered the remarkable situation where they can stop people claiming and carry on charging indefinately.

 

The OFT are being taken for ride. I simply cannot see this being resolved within this decade.

I think you're right, the banks have played a blinder and the OFT have been totally manipulated. Why for example wasn't it stipulated that if current claims are suspended, so should their charging.

It's an independant service that was set up by Parliment, so presume the Government pay for them, but everytime a complaint is logged the business, ie the banks in this case are charged , I believe, £400! Worth it just to do that!! I think they're waiting to get their teeth into this scandal of charges but the banks have so far paid up before they can investigate

Not quite correct, they invite the bank to refund the charges and if they refuse they launch an investigation, only at that point does the bank get charged the £400.

Having just had success in claiming back a percentage of my bank charges, I would like to think that my experience with the Andover Recovery Centre may be useful to others in my situation.

 

This forum is mainly posted on by people who will go all the way to court in order to get their charges back. My personal view is that surely something is better than nothing. Also if Lloyds do chose that I am one of the cases that they will make an example of by closing my account, I will be left with a very basic account due to my credit rating. Not the full current with overdraft, great internet banking service, cheque guarentee card and VISA debit that I have now.

 

Lets face it, this is money that's gone, and the attitude of having gained for example 50% is more satisfying than having lost 50%.

 

If you go through the correct motions and say the correct things, a £750.00 "gesture of good will" is reasonably easy to extract from this bank. The tricky part is to actually contact someone at the Andover Recovery Centre, where most complaints end up.

 

I sent the standard first letter and got the standard reply of "we don't refund anything" letter, so sent letter 2 threatening court action on a specific date. The wording of the letter is important, as is sending it recorded delivery. If you use standard post they will ignor it. I recieved a letter from Lloyds Andover Recovery Centre 3 days before the date I had threatened court action asking for more time to consider my complaint.

 

So now I am thinking, fine, if you need more time there is no point in fighting it, but I need to know how much time exactly, and negotiate a new deadline date.

 

The Andover Centre phone line is a funny thing. Firstly you get the standard Lloyds recorded, "welcome to lloyds tsb bla bla," asking you to press 1 if your call is regarding a bank charges complaint. After a few times pressing 1 and getting nowhere I decided to listen to the other options, of which there are none!! So why press 1 when this is the only option anyway. After pressing 1 it asks you a few more automated questions, which it cutts you straight off if you get them "wrong", it rings a few times, plays a sorry busy message and cuts you off. This must have happned to me 100 times! So don't bother.

 

What i found worked, was sending a very sarcastic fax enquiring as to whether the centre even exists, acknowledging the stall letter and advising that as you now expect no further response by the deadline date, that unless you recieve contact from them within 24 hours with an exact date when a response will be recieved, that you will take court action immediatly.

 

Sure enough it took them 3 hours to call me to inform me that "my case had been reviewed this morning and an offer will b made. A letter has been written which I will recieve within 10 days. No, the amount cannot be disclosed over the phone. Sorry." Anyway within 2 days an offer of the standard £750. Not a bad amount for 2 letters and a fax.

 

Now for me, the money was gone to start with, and getting money back is nothing but a bonus. As much as we now realise that these charges are unjust, at the end of the day we all spent, or tried to spend money that we didn't have, for what ever reason. If Lloyds withdrew our money in mistake we would be the first to demand compensating. Now I'm not saying I agree with the charges, but to get into a situation where we pay thousands in charges over 6 years means some pretty bad money management. A one off, yes. A mistake. 100 times?? For me unnessesary and mainly my fault.

 

Another view on this is that we will probably need services from our banks in the future. If the bank doesn't close accounts they are capable of making life quite difficult in the future. A friend of mine recently got back nearly 3k from Abby. Last week he went overdrawn by 2p, 2p!!! and they charged him £70!!! Lawful?? NO! but he now has to spend another 4 months and possible court action over £70? They will always take now and argue over it later. Surely to graciously take £750 and retain a good current account service is better than nothing, or the alternative. At the time we never expected to see any of it again.

 

For those who have nothing to lose, ie. no overdraft, a couple of quality current accounts, a good credit rating and access to what ever credit you need, then I say go for it and I hope you win. No one wants to see Lloyds out of pocket more than I do!! But the natue of the complaint sugests that the majority of people making these complaints will not be in that situation. Consider carefully whether it's worth it. I have fought my way back to a reasonable financial situation and plan on keeping it. If I lost my account services I would be put back a couple of years.

 

Just something to bare in mind!

Tell me, if someone broke in to your house and stole all your possessions , and then when caught offered to give you half your stuff back, would you regard that as an equally fair outcome?

The bank took your money unlawfully, why should they keep any of it?

Hi,

 

Sorry about be lax over the last few months and not getting my first letter sent to the Halifax (owned by the royal bank of robbers).

 

I send my first letter asking for 1700.64 in charges back, on the 9th of july. Today i recieved a letter saying that thanks for your complaint, but our charges are valid and the totals cannot be told to me as they are commercially sensitive . Is this normal? and can i still send my second letter on the 23rd to get my money back? Im very confused now?

 

Any help is much appreciated.

As already stated, standard response from Halifax. Send the LBA and you should get a partial offer, when you receive this phone them and tell them you want the full amount, they should agree there and then.