How do you assess ' reasonable' for their service? The old cow on telly says that when anyone goes into and unauth situation, there has to be credit checks and all sorts done ( yeh right) and that is where the charge is justified

so each bank to serve & file an acknowledgement within 7 days. Each bank to suply the OFT copies of current T&C's for current accounts by 1/8/07 and any other historical T&C's relating to previous charges. Each bank to serve its counterclaim by 26 OCTOBER 2007 The first CMC to be held on the first available date after service of counterclaims. ( prob 2011) THEN Directions only to be sought at this first CMC to dicuss timings for getting togehter evidence. ( prob 3011)

The claim they are filing today is: for a declaration that the relevant terms are not excluded from an assessment for fairness by reason of reg 6(2) (a) or (b) The bank has to provide today a representative selection of the historic relevant terms and relevant charges of each bank of a kind that is in dispute in the County Court claims. (b) The relevant terms applicable to each banks personal current account currently in force and each banks current relevant charges © in cases where each relevant terms /chrges are to be replaced supply the replacements Will that not suffice ? surely that's what we were wanting to prove they wwere penalty charges

So... Oft are saying that the charges are unfair for the purposes of the UTCCR of certain terms contained in each banks personal ( so not businesses) current account arrangements providing for charges to be imposed upon customers who seek to make payments for which they do not have available funds. The banks are going to counterclaim with:; (1) the terms fall within regulation 6(2) of the regs and do not fall to be assessed for fairness. (2) If they do fall to be assessed for fairness then the banks must as a precondition be shown to have contravened the requirement of good faith (3) The charges are for a service not a breach of contract, therefore, not a penalty at law.

The case will take at least a year. Then if the banks win, they will appeal and take another year. I may be a pessimist, but I think that the bank reclaiming thing is now history

All offers are to be honoured according to the FSA

NOW I BLOODY KNOW WHY THEY DEFENDED!!!!! Jeeze talk about shafting the consumer. A letter to my MP is on its way.

The OFT's Mission statement on their web site: The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive Now where's that number for the advertising standards authority?

From what I have read, there are over 100,000 claims in at the present. Would 100,000 + letters to your MP telling him that you will most definately not be voting for him if he does not get the decision by the FSA overturned?

JMHO

Surely this is a breach of human rights anyway. It is our legal right to challenge people in a court of law WHATEVER CASE IS GOING THROUGH, and this is a breach of that fundamental right.

Why would it need a court to rule? The FSA didn't need one. This would be pressure for the FSA to do a u turn on the waiver of processing charges, not a law

Early days yet, you watch and see

Just spoke to the guy at my court. He has heard nothing yet and says the claims go on as normal. However, I suppose it is early days yet. he seemed to think that a decision is going to be made today. And we get advice from these people?

Is there nothing in th Human rights can prevent them doing this?

And to force the banks to process claims pending the outcome. I presonally have got around £15K in court with Abbey & Barclies, now I have to wait 2 bloody years to ge tthat back. That's if the ruling goes against the banks, and I think there are now a lot of people now coming to terms that this just may not happen

Josie beat me to it!

So now we lose the next 2,3 yrs of charges pending the outcome, meanwhile the banks carry on charging and grossing up fortunes whilst this government allow them to do it. Jeez no wonder there are so many ex pats I would have thought if enough people put pressure on the govt to at least process claimd whilst this is going on, they might just relent and order the FSA to withdraw this shambolic regulation

On another note, I understand from a few people that Abbey were offering 65% of the claim prior to the AQ being sent back, something they never did before. And I also hear that LLoyds were settling just as the summons hit the desk. Could this have any relation to this case?

Maybe that 'fair charge' scenario will now be out on hold pending the outcome of this case. And even if it did happen, as long as the banks refuse to divulge the actual costs we would still be able to reclaim all of it like credit cards. I'm afraid I think these folks have got into bed with each other and the judicial system to 'agree' what should happen, and I think that most of it has already been agreed. ** Thank you Mr OFT- You can pull your pants up now! Your welcome MR Chief Exec banker!** Anyone for another Ferro rocher and a rather large cuban? James, can you have security remove that rabble from outside? God knows who these consumers think they are! Do they not know that we care more about lining our pockets than them? tut tut when will they ever learn?

Notwithstanding the fact that now the banks have a major upper hand. They make a poultry offer ( although I doubt they will make any offer now) and you have to decide whether to accept it. If you don't, AND THEY WIN, YOU LOSE EVERYTHING!! If the OFT are on the consumer side then why introduce such a stupid clause?

The banks must now be laughing their socks off! Just goes to show what happens within the hierarchy with this country, where we cannot be a part of. I said a couple of days ago in one of my threads that I felt that 'something was going on' that we were not privvy to, and now I know! I have just been having a look at the new POC's, but isn't it a no brainer now? You pay your court fees and the bank get a stay and you have to wait 2 yrs for your money? I assume the only way forward for the time being is to show true hardship, and the banks still have to act.

Finnicky Old Sod ( clean version)

and without prejudice to matters stated above and what exactly does this mean?