Please read

[setmefree]

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT revises bank charge guidance

[gazebo]

From the article:

 

"Before, the OFT had said the aim of the case was to establish if it had the authority to rule on the issue itself"

 

I hadn't appreciated that this was the case. If this is correctl then I simply don't understand why complaints have been shelved and claims have been stayed. If the OFT sticks to its orignal objective then the case, even if they win it, means very little. What happens if they win but choose not to make a decision for a year?

 

I'm completely baffled. Have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

[car2403]

Originally they were taking the case to Court to establish whether the UTCCR apply to Bank Charges.

 

I can't see any changes on that here?

[hilaryfrances]

gawd! talk about jobs for the boys, what a waste of time.

[car2403]

This seems to be suggesting that the OFT is close to "coming to an agreement" with the Banks and wants to make sure they comply with that agreement by getting confirmation they, not the Court, are free to decide the issues in question - which could be perceived as an attempt to "prevent" the Banks from "backing out" of the agreement they have in mind.

 

Cloak and dagger doesn't cover this, IMO - especially with so much riding on it...

[sillygirl1]

The banks think they re going to win hands down as their 'terms and conditions' are fair and reflect the actual costs they would/could be incurred by your default.

 

There is definately some 'behind the scenes' discussions going on at high levels on this - it isn't a clear cut case at all - it could have been had they just turned round and said

 

"Okay, fair hearing without any funny business..." but of course the legal bods don't believe in fair at all when they work for a major bank.

[car2403]

The problem is that the Bank's Legal teams will know that a fair, public hearing isn't in the interest of the Bank! Imagine having to divulge that commercially sensitive information in a public forum relating to their own internal processes and the costs of that process - I can't see that happening, especially with this many rumours being banded around.

[Gez]

The banks think they re going to win hands down as their 'terms and conditions' are fair and reflect the actual costs they would/could be incurred by your default.

 

It is absolutely not possible for them to fight it this way. All banks have changed their T&Cs in preparation for this case to say that there is no such thing as a default anymore and that their charges are simply fees for the service of allowing you to go/exceed OD or the service of making the decision to bounce your cheque.

 

Given that the OFT are only interested in whether the UTCCR apply to their terms & conditions rather than tackling the real issue, the banks have a reasonable defence. It can't possibly be an unfair term to charge for a service.

The question then becomes, is this a genuine service? Well no of course not, we can all see how blatant they are being in trying to circumnavigate the law (disguising penalties as services), but the OFT have already stated that this would be ok by them.

 

If the OFT really wanted to act in the interest of consumers, they should have just allowed consumers to continue to act for themselves. We were doing a much better job and it would only have been a matter of time before a precident setting case was won by a claimant which would have put a stop to charges altogether. This is no longer possible now that the OFT have stepped in to make sure that the banks will be able to continue charging one way or another.