VERY interesting stuff !! Particularly like: ....we have concluded that the four largest clearing groups-Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds TSB and RBSG-are together charging excessive prices (including interest forgone on non-interest-bearing current accounts) and therefore making excessive profits, in England and Wales, of about £725 million a year over the last three years with adverse effects on SMEs or their customers.

Robinson Way & Co ltd London Scottish House Quays Reach Carolina way Salford M50 2ZY tel: 0870 6091521 Fax: 0161 839 4307 email: [email protected] ....... If Robinson Way are to be sold off separately, then it will be interesting to see if it sells at all, and if so what price it fetches. This could determine how willing they are to accept reduced offers? ie: If you make an offer now, how confident they are of getting a good price will determine willingness to accept. If you wait and see if and how much they sell for, then that could also be used as a bargaining tool to propose own offer.

I think current events do offer an opportunity for anyone owing LSF money to make their own reduced offers. However, it appears that the collections arm of LSF (Robinson Way) is up for auction separately, and has reportedly been quite profitable. So these debts may not be sold on quite so cheaply, meaning any such buyers may not be quite so keen to accept low offers. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-finance-industry/171322-london-scottish-debt-collectors.html Anyone contemplating making any offer, could either try their chance with RW now, to see how it is received (which they would probably base upon how confident they are of getting a good price) ..... or wait and see if, and what price RW is actually sold for first, then base their offer upon that ? Bit of a game of Poker really ?? PM

Subscribing with interest. I had an old loan with BOS, that was assigned to Robinson Way. The loan now appears to be held by someone called "Chester Loans", although I was never informed of this, I've never heard anything from them, and all contact has been through Robinson Way. I have since been paying off a nominal sum by direct debit, and the payee appears on my statements as London Scottish finance. I am interested to see what now happens here? According to the LSF website, those with loans should continue to keep paying. Which I will do for the time being. However, if LSF goes into liquidation, what happens to the debt ? I presume the administrators are presently trying to sell on these loans to another institution. If so, I don't imagine their being much interest in the current market, or even if sold, they will probably be sold very cheaply. This then presents the option of my offering a low settlement figure. If on the other hand LSF cannot find a buyer for the loans....... does this mean that the debts may just be written off ?? Any thoughts ? PM

Subscribing with interest. I had an old loan with BOS, that was assigned to Robinson Way. The loan now appears to be held by someone called "Chester Loans", although I was never informed of this, I've never heard anything from them, and all contact has been through Robinson Way. I have since been paying off a nominal sum by direct debit, and the payee appears on my statements as London Scottish finance. I am interested to see what now happens here? According to the LSF website, those with loans should continue to keep paying. Which I will do for the time being. However, if LSF goes into liquidation, what happens to the debt ? I presume the administrators are presently trying to sell on these loans to another institution. If so, I don't imagine their being much interest in the current market, or even if sold, they will probably be sold very cheaply. This then presents the option of my offering a low settlement figure. If on the other hand LSF cannot find a buyer for the loans....... does this mean that the debts may just be written off ?? Any thoughts ? PM

Subscribing with interest. I had an old loan with BOS, that was assigned to Robinson Way. The loan now appears to be held by someone called "Chester Loans", although I was never informed of this, I've never heard anything from them, and all contact has been through Robinson Way. I have since been paying off a nominal sum by direct debit, and the payee appears on my statements as London Scottish finance. I am interested to see what now happens here? According to the LSF website, those with loans should continue to keep paying. Which I will do for the time being. However, if LSF goes into liquidation, what happens to the debt ? I presume the administrators are presently trying to sell on these loans to another institution. If so, I don't imagine their being much interest in the current market, or even if sold, they will probably be sold very cheaply. This then presents the option of my offering a low settlement figure. If on the other hand LSF cannot find a buyer for the loans....... does this mean that the debts may just be written off ?? Any thoughts ? PM

You may find this interesting. It's more concerned with home loans, but I think it would be worth mentioning, and stating that if informed the FSA would probably take a similar attitude with regards all other loans ? BBC NEWS | Business | Lenders given 'fairness' deadline

Just a coup;e of suggestions (and probably all the help I can offer) . Have you looked into any Loan Protection Insurance that may be included in the loan (or any other cover you may have elsewhere)? As the period of unemployment is forced and not of your own doing, it could be considered as similar to redundancy or such and you may find yourself covered? Otherwise perhaps speak to the British Consulate, and explain your dilemma, they may be able to offer some advice or even mediate on your behalf ?

Yes, nice to have met you all, and lucky I had the Pub nav. Just to clarify, no I don't do "dodgy" photo's (but I certainly had a few of you going though) ......... I have however seen a LOT of very famous people starkers or semi starkers in the course of work (Cindy Crawford, Jodi Kydd, Sting, Trudi Styler, Marc Almond, Jeremy Irons, Ross Kemp, Kate Charman, Sophie Anderton, Robbie Williams etc to name a few)........ unfortunately didn't always have a camera to hand though, or I'd be quite a rich man !! PM

Hi all. It was great to met everyone, and put faces to names. Sounds like some of you went on to cause mayhem into the early hours after I'd left, and were only on your best behaviour whilst I was about ? ..... so the impression I was left with was how nice and respectable a bunch you all were ? I had a Birthday party I had to dash off to, so sorry I couldn't hang around...... mind you, probably just as well by the sounds of things !! Hope you all had a great time afterwards, and that you've still left some pubs and bars of London that will allow you all back in ? Bestest PM

If you are talking about the interest they have continued to charge upon your account due to the charges, then yes you may be in a position whereby interest has continued to accrue upon the account since submitting your claim. However, once you get a court date through you should be able to apply for an amendment to your claim using an N244 to have the figure revised upto the date of the judgement. As for S69 interest upon the whole sum, then I presume you used a standard CAG POC which stated that such should also be calculated by the court upto the date of settlement? So you should not lose out there either.

Just to comment on the report that Michel has posted: Quote: I don't pretend to fully understand the 'misintrepretation' of the EU directive in the UTCCR regulations that Rabinowitz had, apparently, discovered overnight, as it involved a very technical analysis of how the 1999 regulations compared to the directive. There were aspects of Rabs argument that the judges seemed to understand but appeared to me to be less convinced as to their significance. Rabinowitz discribed it as a ''gaping hole'' in the regulations and while the judges appeared to accept there might be some kind of hole, they wouldn't agree it was ''gaping''. Rab said the significance was not so much the size of the hole but ''the shape of it''. He disputed the OFT's view that the typical consumer wouldn't realise that relevant charges were the price for the package services supplied. Justice Clarke said that a typical consumer would certainly realise that Net Interest Income was part of the price. Rabinowitz disagreed and Justice Smith resonded ''Almost everyone would understand that that the bank would invest their money. They wouldn't think the bank would just put it under the bed.'' One of the arguments the OFT used earlier in the appeal was that the relevant charges were not the price paid for the package of banking services (and therefore could be assessed for fairness) because the payment obligation was triggered by a contingency. Rabinowitz countered it by using yet another analogy, this time an estate agent who would provide the service of marketing a property but the payment obligation would only come into effect if someone bought the house and that the entire price was contingent. You wouldn't get a bill from an estate agents out of the blue (whether or not you had an ongoing sale with them), informing you that unbeknownst to yourself (and of their own volition) they had just sold your house last week, and also that they had already taken their fee. He said that Justice Smith and the OFT were entirely wrong to define declined payment fees as not a fee for a service because there was no benefit to the customer and he again used the silk application example. If Rabinowitz is trying to portray the deal as akin to others, ie. one that normal common people know, understand and accept, he has really chosen a quite an elitist and very uncommon analogy here !! All in all it was a robust performance by Rab. He was very animated throughout and I got the impression he was throwing everything he possibly could at it as the appeal draws to a close.

Exactly. Access to banking services has become an ever increasingly essential part of life. It is near on impossible to survive without a bank account; most employers will not pay their staff via any other means, whilst a lot of suppliers require you have a bank account, and also penalize customers for not paying by DD etc. * Also, even though the banks are supposedly in competition with each other, they are all intertwined at some level, and many customers are not often aware (especially after the recent wave of mergers) that many are of the same group. So the banks benefit from a captive immobile customer base, who are often not even aware of who they are actually doing business with. The banks then maintain and take advantage of this by charging with remarkable similarity, and monitoring and increasing charges in line with each other. None of them are going to break rank and upset their fellow banks or the FSA, so the consumer comes out the loser. All in, this means the banks are left free to operate in a manner just like a cartel. PM * It is also greatly to the governments advantage to encourage this model, as it helps them combat tax evasion, fraud and other crimes, so they will not encourage or legislate to make any other means easier.

I do actually understand how the ruling went regards the whether or not they could be considered penalties at common law due to a breach. However, this judgement was initially only given with regards those current (and recently rather conveniently changed) terms submitted, and then still required further consideration of historical terms. With regards Lloyds (my own particular adversary), having looked at the historical terms the judge has still failed to actually give their previous t&c's a clean bill of health in respect of the penalty aspect. In my own case, the t&C's along with the application and actual presentation (as quoted in my last post) of the charges were at the very least ambiguous, and I do still contend amounted to default charges. This is all now somewhat academic anyhow, as (whether for this argument or some another) Lloyds decided to settle with me, rather than risk contesting such points in court. PM

How can they be the price paid for a core contractual service, when you are also contractually forbidden to be in a situation requiring such a "service" ? Why also did Lloyds send myself letters at such time that explained the charges as such: “Meanwhile I have to make a charge to cover our extra administration costs” Clearly compensatory, and no mention on such occasions of them ever being fees or charges for a service. A point that I was able to argue and successfully win with. Since then, they have now tried to argue that they are service charges or fees arising in such circumstances, but either way they are still compensatory. Thus, whether they be by way of compensation in the form of liquidated damages for dealing with such events, or by way of compensation in the form of charges, then either way they have arisen due to the customers failure to fulfil a contractual obligation. Thus either way, by the terms of the UTCCR such sums cannot be disproportionate. Since such time, the banks have all unilaterally tried the "service" charges tact, by changing the wording of their contracts and defences in an attempt to portray the same sums as pertaining to fees. But, remember that back in 2006 the very same body that is bringing this case (the OFT) had this to say about such attempts to disguise penalties as services: 

“Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit)”. PM

And that is exactly what has been happening. The consumer had a contractual obligation to ensure that there were adequate funds available to cover a transaction. When the consumer failed to honour this obligation then the bank had a right to recuperate their costs involved by way of compensation for losses arising. Compensation being the operative word. ie: they had a right to recuperate the costs involved in dealing with such an event, and then anything more should be deemed disproportionate. Thus the purpose of the UTCCR is to ensure that the consumer in such circumstances is not charged a disproportionately high sum. The next (and more difficult) phase would then be to determine what would actually be a proportionate and fair sum to charge in such circumstances, and how this should be assessed. Without being subject to such an evaluation, then there is no accountability for the supplier to prove it is simply by way of compensation, no restriction upon what levels such charges could eventually reach, and also no option for the consumer to avoid such, due to the uniformity of charges across the industry.

Well done for reminding us of this (and duly clicked). I can see were Waller was going with this line of questioning, possibly leading R into tripping himself up and revealing that such methods of calculation are simply tactics at cloaking the penalties. R nearly fell into the trap too. By starting to admit that there are strict rules governing the rates of interest, this was tantamount to admitting that the banks aims are to make profits from such events, and he could then have ended up having to justify the charges in comparable terms to simply charging interest, which would equate to astronomical rates. Such rates would also have to appear on all contracts, advertising and literature, which would at the very least cause a mass loss of customers, and most likely also have been very quickly capped by the OFT, BoE etc, Incidentally, what really hacks me off about this whole affair, is that the financial well being and fate of millions of customers now comes down to some decisions made by a small handful of men. The banks have well seasoned, experienced and very determined lawyers, who specialise in such areas, whilst we are reliant upon the OFT to comprehend and relay the case for consumers. Why have the OFT not involved, consulted or considered representations from consumer groups and specialists (who have been analyzing and fighting this for years) in compiling their case? Instead, all we can do is watch from the sidelines and hope that the OFT comprehend, analyze and relay such matters in similar ways. PM

Must admit Bookie that this has been playing on my mind too. IMHO he has a bit of a non argument in that: a/ The EU directive surely gives equal precedence to both aims, not one at the expense of the other, or in any preferential order. b/ So what if it is aiming to promote internal markets? How does allowing financial institutions to have carte blanche (more french) to do as they please (at the expense of consumers) and be a law unto themselves promote internal markets? Do you have the relevant quoted section of EU directive that you can post up? PM

Buby, Here is my own take on the current status of business account claims: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/68191-claiming-business-account-lets-72.html#post1758807 Once, you have read that, perhaps go make yourself a BIG mug of coffee and sit down to read the whole thread. Although it may not all be presently relevant or applicable, it will give you a bit of background knowledge and history of business claims to date. Then you should perhaps also subscribe to the thread (use the Quick links button near the top right, and click on subscribe, or just make a brief post on the thread) as a lot of news and updates on business claims often appear on that thread. Best regards PM

"Their only criteria apparantly is that you are not a bankrupt or owe LTSB money". I wonder if the criteria also includes not having previously taken their a**es to court !! They are offering this account to Business' who are having difficulty getting accounts elsewhere ? So, they have obviously identified this group as potentially quite profitable. ie: They will be likely to want overdrafts and loans, and will also be so grateful for having an account, that they will be suppliant and not object to paying high service and transaction charges. They will also likely be the business sector that are most likely to incur default charges in future. So all in, quite profitable for the bank. I for one will never ever run a business through a business account again. Such accounts are astronomically expensive, and there is no legal requirement for a business (sole traders certainly, not sure about ltd co's etc) to be obliged to use such. As long as you keep proper operating accounts and pay your bills and taxes, that is all the law expects. PM

Michael, Actually, I think some of the posts have indeed since been edited. If you look at the thread here: More Payday loan sneakiness - Penalty Charges Forum You will notice: 1/ That at the bottom of post no 1 it states that it was edited at 6.27pm yesterday. 2/ That straight after post 1 there is a strange comment in post number 2 that refers to someone being entitled to their opinion. However there appears to be no post in between that this is referring to ? 3/ Also the Mod Libby then refers to a user (simply loans) that has been barred and had posts removed. I suspect that the bared user may have been the one responsible for the issue, and was also spotted as a tout/ troll etc. Anyhow, this is all academic now. IMHO, I think that anything and anyone that could have caused trouble was removed quite swiftly, and full credit to PCF for doing such. Thankfully this affair appears over now, and hopefully some lessons can be learnt by members of all sites regards taking care what we post, and what is and is not acceptable.

Pt Yes, I'm sure there will be some red faces about. IMHO this also smells rather amateur and so perhaps not something a better informed DCA would initiate ? Yes, agree there is no offence being committed by advising people of their right to refuse to acknowledge and continue paying a debt if no enforceable agreement is produced in response to a request under CCA74. However I believe the OP's implication was that some members were suggesting to others that they now go out and take out loans, with the advance forethought and intention of never paying them back by simply utilizing a CCA request. I'm sure such a plan of action is indeed fraudulent, and so perhaps also is the act of suggesting to others to go out and do so. That said, from what I have seen in the posts cited in the above letter, then I don't think any such advice or incitement to commit such fraud was actually given (subject of course to the fact that the posts may have since been edited or removed).

You can look at news sites such as the BBC. The link is in RGS1 post No. 162 near top of this page. Other good news sites are The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Mail, and the FT. There is a CAG forum for news and discussions on the case here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/ PM

"Laurence Rabinowitz QC, for RBS NatWest, said some of Mr Justice Smith's reasoning was "not justified" and "schizophrenic". " Do they really think that by making such comments about fellow judges that they are going to win over and positively influence the presiding judges ? .... I also think Mr Justice Smith now has a good case (on court record too) for bringing formal actions for libel !!

I think this whole affair has just served to highlight to us all that we should all be careful about what we post. Perhaps the site team would consider posting up a general sticky or reminder to all members about what is unacceptable ? Also, just wondering how the legalities all sit here regards ultimate responsibility for the content of a forum? ie: If members have disclaimers in their sigs, does that absolve the site from responsibility or not? If it does, perhaps some guidance on the format and content for a sig or even suggested template sigs ? If not, then some firmer guidance and reminders on what is acceptable, and also a request that members be vigilant and report any dubious posts.