OFT test case

[Bookworm]

Is it me, or is this bloody thread just getting silly..........

Nothing wrong with your perception, JM.;-)

 

Well, what do you expect? The Devil makes work for idle hands, and I refer you to my earlier post about the OFT v banks case and when to expect a result of any kind... With nothing much else to do in the meantime, some elements are bound to try and occupy themselves best they can.

[Castlebest]

I don't see why anyone would want to go to Fleet Street unless they are showing support in an organised demonstration.

 

As Bookie said the important people are the OFT, the banks and the judge, no one else will have any effect on this case, the Judge isn't going to turn around and ask if the pressure groups have anything they would like to add to the arguments .

 

As for witnessing the case the press are far more qualified to record the events and report them (within the bounds of their editorial mandates).

 

So nothing would be achieved by having a CAG representative in attendance.

 

pete

[johnnymitch]

Thanks Mods! It would be nice to be able to discuss the merits or otherwise of the case -but as it only started (apparently) about 2 hours ago -we'll have to wait awhile - maybe until about May as you said LOL!

[dave]

...and let's not forget that this case is just to see if the case can be brought to the high court using the OFT's existing argument.

 

It's not (as the media would have you believe) that it's a case to decide if what the banks are doing is legal.

[johnnymitch]

Ah! Welcome to the fray pete!

[traceyrmj]

been wondering what was going on here, i got all my cases settled before the chop, but i have been scouring the news for any reports of this case and found nothing yet. now i know why thanks guys fountain of knowledge as always

[Michael Browne]

As from Monday 21st January there will be a video link availble in Court 65 at the Royal Courts of Justice. Room apparently for 50 people, so anybody who's interested enough should be able to get a seat.

 

Be interesting to see the take-up, I tend to think it might be a rather empty courtroom

[dave]

Maybe we should make an announcement of this on this forum.

[Camdenite]

ah, back on topic. This thread was all getting a bit People's Front of Judea.

[JOSH_IOU]

Aren't they doing free lunches?

 

Shame they aren't doing free tickets I might even leave the sales phone alone for a day.

[dave]

ah, back on topic. This thread was all getting a bit People's Front of Judea.

 

 

F*** off!!!! We're the Judean People's Front!

[srfrench]

No.........it's peopled by the Judean Peoples Front. How many members have you eh?

[srfrench]

Bugger! Dave beat me to it LOL

[dave]

...by less than a minute!

[Camdenite]

Did I just get my reputation enhanced by that last post? They get given out like sweets nowadays. Time was, you used to have to earn them. LOL

[Thailand]

Lawyers blaming OFT for us claiming lmao

 

Future Of High Street Banking In Balance In High Court |Sky News|Business

[photoman]

I don't see why anyone would want to go to Fleet Street unless they are showing support in an organised demonstration.

 

As Bookie said the important people are the OFT, the banks and the judge, no one else will have any effect on this case, the Judge isn't going to turn around and ask if the pressure groups have anything they would like to add to the arguments .

 

As for witnessing the case the press are far more qualified to record the events and report them (within the bounds of their editorial mandates).

 

So nothing would be achieved by having a CAG representative in attendance.

 

pete

 

Agree wholeheartedly

 

A massive public presence would probably only serve to irritate the judiciary, and would actually more likely just have a negative effect upon their perceptions and sympathies.

Although it should not, as initially this should be simply about the law; the UTCCR, and it's applicability and interpretation.

It should not be decided as applicable simply as a result of measuring what proportion of the public show up and declare it is applicable.

Just as much as it should not be swayed by what proportion of the Banks believe it is applicable.

However, my own concern (shared by many) when I heard about the limitation upon space, was that without the watchful eye of the media the public could not be afforded the comfort of knowing that matters had indeed been handled properly and transparently, thus ultimately leading to a proper interpretation of the law. Whatever the outcome.

It was not because such limits would reduce the appearance of the strength of public opinion, or stifle the influence of the media/public.

 

Hopefully the new extensions to access for the press will ensure that these stages are now reported properly.

 

Once this initial stage is decided, and if it is decided that the law applies and so it warrants a fuller trial, then public and action group opinions will matter more, and so then they should be entitled to relay such opinions, and put pressure upon the OFT (our representatives) to have them considered.

After all, at such time, the Banks will themselves be entitled to relay opinions and will put pressures upon their own representatives.

 

So lets hope the OFT do listen to us at such time, rather than just conduct the case in a way that they themselves decide upon.

 

Let us also hope that further stages are conducted upon a scale more reflective of their importance and significance.

[dave]

I like the way they say the comments are 'misguided', yet fail to offer any explanation as to why.

 

As far as I can see, the law is black and white on this issue. I fail to see any misguidence at all.

[JOSH_IOU]

Have you seen this on skynews?

 

Future Of High Street Banking In Balance In High Court |Sky News|Business

[JOSH_IOU]

My thing is dont they have to put charges on the screen if your gona be charged for using the ATM?

[johnnyjoeflyer]

Who is going to ask the question to the banks of, "if you so firmly believe that all your charges are lawful, fair, above board, reasonable etc, then why on earth have you paid out so much in returned charges prior to this case?" and then demand an actual answer to the specific question.

The fact that they have settled out of court on so many claims has to have made some form of prescedent that the banks have voluntarily agreed to as a result of the return of the charges, thereby indicating that they believe they are on very thin ice when it comes to justifying their charges, again something to date that they refuse to openly do.

The test case is fine and I hope the OFT really do seek answers to questions such as this, as well as many more. We will wait to see!!

[dave]

Well, my thing is, that I believe if they start charging everyone for a bank account, then effectively we've been forced into buying a third-party product by legislation (The Wages Act (1984)).

 

This is a direct contradiction of the ECHR laws.

[dave]

Who is going to ask the question to the banks of, "if you so firmly believe that all your charges are lawful, fair, above board, reasonable etc, then why on earth have you paid out so much in returned charges prior to this case?" and then demand an actual answer to the specific question.

The fact that they have settled out of court on so many claims has to have made some form of prescedent that the banks have voluntarily agreed to as a result of the return of the charges, thereby indicating that they believe they are on very thin ice when it comes to justifying their charges, again something to date that they refuse to openly do.

The test case is fine and I hope the OFT really do seek answers to questions such as this, as well as many more. We will wait to see!!

 

They will claim that they were gestures of goodwill.

 

I personally don't see having to take your bank to court and for some people that is a very real and frightening thing to do as a gesture of good will to their customers.

[JOSH_IOU]

Well, my thing is, that I believe if they start charging everyone for a bank account, then effectively we've been forced into buying a third-party product by legislation (The Wages Act (1984)).

 

This is a direct contradiction of the ECHR laws.

 

Cheers for that dave.

[johnnyjoeflyer]

They will claim that they were gestures of goodwill.

 

I personally don't see having to take your bank to court and for some people that is a very real and frightening thing to do as a gesture of good will to their customers.

 

Thats a hell of a gesture of goodwill from an industry only known to act in their own best interests and stuff everyone else.

If any representative in a bank ever asks if they can help me I am instantly concerned that they believe they can screw some money out of me for their own benefit.

 

Once had a cashier advising me that as I had a certain level of funds in my account, just sold house, that they would like to help me invest it. Yeah right, into something that I cannot access or have to pay a charge to use.

Told him it was none of his or the banks business.