OFT test case

[JonCris]

It would seem RBS's QC is not in possession of the full facts.

 

& are even misleading their own legal counsel - much like they do the consumer - hard habit to break I suppose

[nobodys fool]

Of course if the average customer goes overdrawn 3 times a year.... and 80% of customers don't go overdrawn that means the 20% that do go overdrawn do so 15 times a year...

 

Ahh the use of the English language to twist stats... so very much like lawyers.

The typical customer, if 80% don't use unauthorised overdrafts, doesn't use the facility at all...

 

It all depends what you mean by average... the mode and median customers don't use the facility... the "mean" customer does..

..which just serves to demonstrate how heavily some elements of society are penalised and exploited to subsidise others.

 

>

[Conniff]

However, whichever side loses is expected to appeal, possibly all the way to the House of Lords, meaning the issue may not be resolved until next year.

 

I find this a bit scary. The further up the chain this moves, the higher salaried are the decision makers and the further away from the real world they are, and that don't bode well for an OFT success.

[mailmannz]

Dont be so sure, there are a number of recent cases decided in the House of Lords that went the way of the small guy (Arctis comes to mind!).

 

Mailman

[JOSH_IOU]

& are even misleading their own legal counsel - much like they do the consumer - hard habit to break I suppose

 

Your absolutely right.

 

Cheers for the laugh.

[patrickq1]

we can only hope the council for the oft are not as stupid as the rbs council is and are making serious notes on all the contradictions that have been made so far could do with answers in reply to be passed to the oft council just so they make good the notes passed to them and go for the jugular,i am worried in case like we are seeing oft counsil are just as backward

patrickq1

[notwatson]

The BBC article from above states:

"Mr Rabinowitz went on to deny that the banks' current terms and conditions - some of which have been rewritten in the last few months - were a cosmetic attempt to disguise the truth."

 

Our household has recently received 3 sets of updated terms and conditions (from 2 banks) and they have changed and reduced their charges and certainly seem to be concerned with the multiple charges per day issue - I have a case stayed with NatWest and on many days, I received multiple penalties (or do I mean charges for services ?!? - er, NO !) - NatWest, have certainly changed that part of their terms and conditions.

 

My feeling is that each and every bank has changed their terms and conditions in some way or another, in an effort to dilute what may be coming and cover their backs. I sincerely hope that this goes the OFTs way and am trying to follow the case in the media (sometimes tricky, as there's plenty of mis-information around).

 

I am resigned to the fact that this will take many, many months to resolve, but am heartened also by the fact that so much has already been repaid to so many - I can't remember which wise owl on here said it, but that feels like a precedent to me too !

 

Onwards and upwards and let's all shout our support for the OFT whilst this case is in progress.

[Son of Shoestring]

Yes, it is still going on and here is some news

BBC NEWS | Business | Overdraft fees 'core' to banking

 

I hope the judge is knowledgeable enough or wise enough to see that the barrister for the Royal Jock is trying to pull the wool over his eyes.

 

The argument that providing customers with "unarranged credit was a 'substantial and valuable service'" is true so far as it goes. But the counter-argument is that if "the average Royal Bank of Scotland customer went overdrawn without permission three times a year", then, clearly, the banks are engineering the situation in their favour and should increase the level of the overdraft facility provided to their customers, so that the "substantial and valuable service" is in line with customer needs and not the banks profit and loss account.

 

Doing so would also effectively evaporate, in one stroke, any problems concerning the banks concerns, according to the barrister (ho, ho, ho!) about guaranteeing debit card payments.

 

If is is the "critical" argument used in the banks defence, then they have a very, bloody weak case... providing the judge is aware, or is made aware, of the gobbledegook arguments being deployed.

[Bookworm]

Well, if you read the OFT's response to the bank's defence, you would see that they are actually making mince of both the service argument AND of the core part. They make the extremely good point that the contract can actually stand and keep on functioning without the o/d charges and therefore can not be deemed to be a core element.

[Conniff]

You're all wrong. You all love having charges and this site has made you go against what you like best and reclaim, against your better judgement.

 

Current account customers like the present system of charges under which they only pay when they are in the red, the High Court was told.

 

Have we got a jokes forum to put that one in?

[JOSH_IOU]

What about the chief exec interview I thought thats what the theme was for this test case.

 

To be humorous.

[Bookworm]

Yes. Yes, it's true. *hangs head in shame* 'Twas us who brainwashed 167000 people down that path, they didn't want to do it, but we told them that they'd look cooler if they did, that they'd pull more easily and that all their mates would envy them.

 

Oh, how sly CAG was. First, it was: "Go on, just try one bank, you'll see, what harm can it do?" Then, once hooked, on to the hard stuff, non-enforceable agreements, Sales of Goods Act... Now, they can't leave, and you see hopeless CAGgers trying to sellotape back the old statements they had shredded to try and find one more charge they might have missed, talking to people in the pub and trying to hook them too.

 

Oh, the shame.

[JOSH_IOU]

hey i beat you to it booky this time

[alecmac18]

"Twas us who brainwashed 167000 people down that path, they didn't want to do it, but we told them that they'd look cooler if they did"

 

[dave]

Now, forgive me for being stupid here, but if you don't have enough funds in your bank and you attempt to pay for goods using a debit card it gets declined (as it should), usually within about 30 seconds of putting the thing in the machine.

 

Yet apparently, this isn't the case, and the banks don't have the technology to make it happen (despite the fact that it actually happens now).

 

Surely lying in court is purgery?

Without it, he argued, customers would not be able to draw on cheques until six days after they had been paid it to allow them to clear. And if the possibility of unarranged borrowing did not exist, then debit card payments could not be guaranteed by banks.

Retailers would be forced to phone banks to check every transaction before allowing them to be processed.]

...as for the cheques thing - good luck with that one, when you have big players like Shell and Texaco saying they are no longer accepting cheques, I can't see them being around for that much longer in any case. Secondly, I don't think I've ever had a cheque clear in less than 6 days ever. Put a cheque into a bank on a Wednesday and see if it's cleared by the following Tuesday (The bank will tell you it has, but you try and draw on it!). I was paid by cheque each month for the best part of a year - I never had one clear the day they said it would, and I never had the money in my hands within 5 days.

[photoman]

Yet another shrouded attempt at garnering sympathy from those who have never had to suffer the snowballing onslaught of these charges.

Hint that it's actually the big bad claimants who have brought this case about, and once it's over will be the ones responsible for having brought about the end of "free" banking.

Not the banks greed.

Do their quests for profits know no boundaries ?

They should be made to reveal just exactly how much of their annual 10's of billions is down to these charges.

They are NOT pivotal and NOT essential to providing other services. They barely scratch the surface.

It's like saying that the fines issued by the Inland Revenue pay for running the HMRC !!

[photoman]

.... or without car tax fines, then pedestrians would also have to pay to use the roads !

[JOSH_IOU]

well they certainly do have the facility to. Its obvious since they pay up when the court says they have to.

 

And when you ask the branch manager they say sorry there hands are tied by the bank and thats the end of the story.

 

I ain't seeing any of the customer services this female is talking about.

 

Banks want to keep there customers she say's. Well maybe they shouldn't steal my benefits and keep food off my table and i might stay with them.

[JOSH_IOU]

and why a further test case for bank account's?

 

The oft have already ruled they wont chase penalty charges over £12.

 

I don't see the difference between a bank account and a credit card.

[Justforfun]

Now, forgive me for being stupid here, but if you don't have enough funds in your bank and you attempt to pay for goods using a debit card it gets declined (as it should), usually within about 30 seconds of putting the thing in the machine.

 

Yet apparently, this isn't the case, and the banks don't have the technology to make it happen (despite the fact that it actually happens now).

 

Surely lying in court is purgery?

 

 

...as for the cheques thing - good luck with that one, when you have big players like Shell and Texaco saying they are no longer accepting cheques, I can't see them being around for that much longer in any case. Secondly, I don't think I've ever had a cheque clear in less than 6 days ever. Put a cheque into a bank on a Wednesday and see if it's cleared by the following Tuesday (The bank will tell you it has, but you try and draw on it!). I was paid by cheque each month for the best part of a year - I never had one clear the day they said it would, and I never had the money in my hands within 5 days.

 

On 16th February 2007 your account went overdrawn by £xx.xx when the debit card transactions you had previously made debited your account. when a debit card transaction is processed, each indivudial company have a floor limit in place. if a transaction is processed for an amount under this limit then the payment is immediately accepted. a referral is not made to us and we therefore do not have the oppertunity to decline the transaction when there are insufficient funds in the account.

 

When a Visa Electron card is used, all retailers should have a nil floor limit set in place. in theory, this should mean that every transaction is reffered to us for authority. however, some companies have set a higher floor limit, which can result in transactions being authorised even though there are insufficient funds in the account.

Unfortunately, we cannot control individual retailers floor limits. ultimately, it is the individual customers responsibility to manage the transactions on their account.

 

And that's come from the office of the chief executive...so now what was RBOS defence (LMFAO)

[FANTASY CHARGES]

JUST abit of insight here into what once happened with a credit card and the ruling !!

 

http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/1981/1981-009-lambie.pdf

[JOSH_IOU]

Just tried asking a supervisor at LLoyds TSb What the diference between a bank account and a credit card charge is.

 

He could not get passed the standard defence.

 

Whats going on i don't remember being that stupid when i worked in northern rock.

[JOSH_IOU]

what's to stop us going back to the banks and saying why did you refund the penalty charges? when you said you would not.

 

Has any one tried that?

[mcuth]

Yes. Yes, it's true. *hangs head in shame* 'Twas us who brainwashed 167000 people down that path, they didn't want to do it, but we told them that they'd look cooler if they did, that they'd pull more easily and that all their mates would envy them.

 

Oh, how sly CAG was. First, it was: "Go on, just try one bank, you'll see, what harm can it do?" Then, once hooked, on to the hard stuff, non-enforceable agreements, Sales of Goods Act... Now, they can't leave, and you see hopeless CAGgers trying to sellotape back the old statements they had shredded to try and find one more charge they might have missed, talking to people in the pub and trying to hook them too.

 

Oh, the shame.

 

I knew it - it's all CAG's fault - and you, Booky, you're the main instigator of my brainwashing & addiction! () There must be a claim to be made there somewhere...... :D

 

Cheers

Michael

[JOSH_IOU]

I knew it - it's all CAG's fault - and you, Booky, you're the main instigator of my brainwashing & addiction! () There must be a claim to be made there somewhere...... :D

 

Cheers

Michael

 

silly little boy