OFT test case

[FANTASY CHARGES]

cheques are valid for 6 calender months unless otherwise stated ie dividend cheques are normally valid for 12 months.

 

don't want to sound ungrateful but am after some "provenance" to support the statement thanks.

[Conniff]

This is going back to a point made earlier:

 

Milligan returned to his setting out. During this he listed Barclays 4 or 5 ‘services’ for a payment or non-payment:

 

4. If insufficient funds are available the granting of an unauthorised overdraft is considered. This consideration is a contractual obligation.

 

5. If granted, a letter of notice of an unauthorised overdraft stating the terms is provided.

 

point 4, how can you grant an 'un'authorised overdraft? If you grant it then you are authorising it.

 

point 5, a letter is sent informing and stating the terms is provided. If they are stating the terms after the fact, then that must be an unfair way to do it. We don't sign agreements and contracts and have the terms filled in afterwards.

[Conniff]

don't want to sound ungrateful but am after some "provenance" to support the statement thanks.

 

 

I have searched on five search engines and none of them come up with an authorative answer, they all have suppositions and guesses.

[Kinc]

Been watching the case and the stuff spouted by these 8 top QC's 60 solicitors and there many advisors is quite amazing. It's like the OJ trial in England. You have to give them credit they are paid to waffle people out of trouble, though I'm worried as there's eight of them waffling.

 

Anyway, today's service arguments from Barclays were interesting. It seems the banks now want us to accept this whole package of service idea . If they win on this argument then we will all be opting out of these extra services and I would hope the gov would back the population up on this, as thanks but 'no thanks'.

 

When I go to a cash point and there isn't enough money in my account for me to take out I get denied (fine) and they don't charge me. If someone other than me try's to withdraw money from my account I get charged. Hello!!!

 

A direct debit is surely no different than a electronic transfer of cash. In fact the later is more costly.

 

In another thread someone hinted that judges can be bought, I would disagree, they can be stupid sometimes but, if a judge was found to have made lots of money from swinging this case then society would fall apart as justice could seen to be bought. How many reports are there of top judges living it up in Monoco, with much more millions than they earned being a legal begal.

 

Much more plausable is that a political solution is reached after a bad judgment (in banks favour) If judgment against consumer then these arguments will be copied by every lawyer and used by every bad practice business up and down the country to charge increasing penalties without remit or signature. Can they let that happen?

[caro]

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

 

Well you can talk Michael. After Dave led me to CAG and then he and Booky reeled me in you mesmerised me with your A&L claims, and now I can find no way out of your keep net!! Let's hope the test case means we can all escape.

[Kinc]

So far in court the banks have been saying this is a 'package of services', with one downfall, the consumer would never opt in for a 'no payment to creditor but payment to the bank' part as a service. No service has been carried out apart from that of providing the bank with money.

 

It cannot be classed as a service if it constantly deprives you, in fact you should be able to take it back to the shop (bank) and ask for your money back as it only deprived you of your money and did'nt provide a service, how did they sell this service?.

 

If someone can find me in the dictionary where 'customer service' means you are supposed to pay people for serving themselves, I'll be amazed.

[Conniff]

So far in court the banks have been saying this is a 'package of services', with one downfall, the consumer would never opt in for a 'no payment to creditor but payment to the bank' part as a service. No service has been carried out apart from that of providing the bank with money.

 

It cannot be classed as a service if it constantly deprives you, in fact you should be able to take it back to the shop (bank) and ask for your money back as it only deprived you of your money and did'nt provide a service, how did they sell this service?.

 

If someone can find me in the dictionary where 'customer service' means you are supposed to pay people for serving themselves, I'll be amazed.

 

 

So how can the likes of the Alliance and Leicester class it as a service if they charge £35 for that service and then five days later charge you another £35 for that same service. Me thinks they are clutching at straws and have said knickers in the proverbial twist.

[Goldlady]

And by providing you with this dis-service quite often you are charged by the person whose direct debit they returned just to add to your problems:mad:

[HONESTKNOB]

Does anyone actually think that any judge in the country will believe this bunch of twaddle that they are clutching at???

[JOSH_IOU]

Evryone we have informed dose.

[JOSH_IOU]

Does anyone actually think that any judge in the country will believe this bunch of twaddle that they are clutching at???

 

 

 

The troll's are back

[JOSH_IOU]

Well you can talk Michael. After Dave led me to CAG and then he and Booky reeled me in you mesmerised me with your A&L claims, and now I can find no way out of your keep net!! Let's hope the test case means we can all escape.

 

 

 

I doubt the test case will solve anything

[Kinc]

If the banks were to win, it would confuse consumer law, but at this stage they are only fightng over whether the overdraft fee's on accounts themselves can be classed as a consumer product and with that the charges. If the court says a bank can charge what it likes, then ....thats a bit sad!

 

The OFT are taking things slow to ensure they don't slip up, though, having this many banks against them, they surely feel the pressure!! It's very easy to slate a regulator, but they did help the cause with the CC limit of £12.

 

For all you scare mongers, this could be the end to banks as greedy entities.

 

Who know's! Big money always rules the world, but sometimes it's nice to see a shift in power.

[JOSH_IOU]

lol just visit cag

[JonCris]

Yeah, you will have one hell of a time arguing your case in court if you try and argue that your overdraft, the one that only exists because you spent money you dont have, is authorised.

 

Essentially your argument is one where its not your fault you spent money that you dont have...somehow I very much doubt it any judge, no matter how enlightened, will support your position???

 

Again, just because you can do something does not automatically make that something "doable", "right", "authorised" etc.

 

The fact of the matter is you created a certain situation by spending money you dont have.

 

Of course this situation would go away overnight if the banks just refused to allow any transaction to go through where that transaction will take you in to the red without a prior arrangement in place. Then again, there is no money in it for the banks if they actually did this is there???

 

Now, as for the situation where that "unauthorised" overdraft is being created by the banks...well, thats a whole new argument altogether!

 

Mailman

 

The thing is they DO refuse to let things go through - Then charge for the priviledge. If they did let things go through & charged extra for THAT priviledge then many would not be complaining - The banks are effectivley charging us for something they DON'T provide

[ohoh4312]

This is really bugging me, but I wonder if I am missing the point (or just being totally thick!:o ) :

 

Apparently the Judge has stated that he wants to establish the principles of current T & C's, and then apply those same principles to historical ones.

 

The OFT's QC said that their main interest is current T & C's, but the banks wanted all historical ones considered - the Judge has now said that each bank must only put forward one historical set each.

 

To my mind, the new T & C's introduced by certain banks were in direct response to the OFT's PoC - the "breach of contract" and "plain intelligible language" issues being the main factors.

 

Surely 99.9% of stayed cases are claimed under the OLD T & C's? And even new claims for the next six years will be partly-based on the same. And T & C's CANNOT be applied retrospectively - I know that much!

 

So why are the OFT concentrating on the new ones? We all know that they are the same charges, repackaged and rebranded; and why were the banks then so keen to put forward all historical sets?

 

Can someone explain please?

Jo xx

[Guest vortex]

The OFT are concentrating on the new ones because if they can establish that they are indeed covered by the UTTCR's test of fairness then all of the banks T and C's will be classed as unfair. If for example, they decided that T and C's from say 2004 were unfair and the Judge agreed, the bank could argue that they amended them and therefore only charges levied up to 2004 were unfair. so Statute of Limitations would mean maybe 2 years claiming if the case is decided this year.

Furthermore, the Terms and Conditions referred to are those as of 1st October 2007 so any further amendments are irrelevant to the case. If you can establish that the current terms and conditions are covered by the test of fairness in the UTTCR then you have covered all bases.

[mcuth]

Recruited 3 more today - DD's manager (she'd asked me to come talk to him, he was going to pay his SOLICITOR to do it! ), and the 2 chaps at Virgin Mobile when I went to sort out my SIM card.

 

Sheeesh, you never stop do you? Hooking yet more people into your vile & sordid web of addiction

 

Well you can talk Michael. After Dave led me to CAG and then he and Booky reeled me in you mesmerised me with your A&L claims, and now I can find no way out of your keep net!! Let's hope the test case means we can all escape.

 

Hmmph, trying to shift the blame I see - you know that just doesn't cut it with me Caro

(Seems like a long time ago since the A&L claims!!)

 

Gotta say that I'm loving the banks' "defences" to this test case, just hoping the judge is enlightened & sensible...

 

Cheers

Michael

[ohoh4312]

The OFT are concentrating on the new ones because if they can establish that they are indeed covered by the UTTCR's test of fairness then all of the banks T and C's will be classed as unfair. If for example, they decided that T and C's from say 2004 were unfair and the Judge agreed, the bank could argue that they amended them and therefore only charges levied up to 2004 were unfair. so Statute of Limitations would mean maybe 2 years claiming if the case is decided this year.

Furthermore, the Terms and Conditions referred to are those as of 1st October 2007 so any further amendments are irrelevant to the case. If you can establish that the current terms and conditions are covered by the test of fairness in the UTTCR then you have covered all bases.

 

Thank you for that.

 

However, I still have an issue with this: shabbeys' new T & C's came into force on 10th Sept, and another two banks announced their new terms around the same time. This I believe was in direct response to the OFT's PoC, which highlighted all the clauses in contention for the test of fairness. (Hence the amendment to the said PoC.)

 

So what do the banks do? Rewrite those clauses to remove any indication of a penalty.

 

Therefore, if the new T & C's pass the fairness test, then so do the historical ones?

 

Anyone else think the OFT could have shot themselves in the foot, and us in the back over this?

 

And, sorry, but I ask again - if the banks new T & C's were a "fire-fighting" reaction, why were they so keen to produce all the old ones??

 

Jo

[Gez]

This should probably be merged with the existing thread, but your last point is one I have been talking about for a while too.

There can simply be no outcome other than to rule that these are not genuine fees for a genuine service, they are indeed disguised penalties which must be deemed illegal.

Anything other than that will give all the other vultures the green light to get creative with T&Cs.

[rory32]

Threads merged.

[Son of Shoestring]

However, my faith in the justice system of England is not what it once was. If I was in the same lodge, or even a different lodge and I were the judge in the case, and I happened to find the number of a Swiss bank account by my chambers with 150 million quid (15 days worth of 'service charges') in it. I think I'd start to see it the way the banks do.

 

I'm not suggesting that this would happen you understand, I'm just saying that theoretically, if it were to, and I was the judge, then I'd sometimes fly back in my chopper to say hi to a few friends from my helipad in Monaco.

 

...and yes, it would be morally wrong, and wrong to suggest that the banks or the judge would participate in acts like these, but wouldn't we all do the same?

 

I'm sure the thought would have crossed all our minds.

 

Bribery and corruption in the British legal system? Surely not..

 

One concern I have is that all the banks are acting in the same way by charging customers "fees" for bouncing DD's etc. This struck me as a cartel action which is clearly illegal. Out of all the banks that are active in the UK high streets, you would have thought that one, at least, would operate differently and not charge a thumping great bounce fee and therefore, draw in a larger customer base because of that.

 

But not one single one does.

 

Months ago I wrote to the FAS raising this issue of possible cartelisation but, unsurprisingly, got no response.

 

I am actually quite convinced that the major baks do operate an informal cartel arrangement (they certainly have many informal understandings anyway) but it will probably be impossible to prove.

 

I have seen a couple of posts around about the disgraceful habit of banks siphoning off people's benefits payments to cover their charges. One way of minimising this is to have benefits paid into a Post Office account and then withdraw the entire sum in cash and pay into the bank only what you need to cover DD's, SO's etc.

[Kinc]

My thread fault.

 

I was stating in a different thread that when money is attempted to be drawn from a ATM/cashpoint, you don't get charged when denied. Though if a electronic transfer of cash is requested by DD then it gets accepted and returned (charge time!!)

 

Cash points are to the common man more expensive to run, than the computers running them, though the same computers can't reject a DD without it costing £35 when no running costs are involved apart from the same system that gives it to you free.

 

If they wanna play service charges, then this is not fair.

[Gez]

I have seen a couple of posts around about the disgraceful habit of banks siphoning off people's benefits payments to cover their charges. One way of minimising this is to have benefits paid into a Post Office account and then withdraw the entire sum in cash and pay into the bank only what you need to cover DD's, SO's etc.

 

This is another area that needs to be explored to the full IMO. If we could get a list of all the services & best deals that do not require a DD, then we could get a great set of resources together to help people live without the need for a current account. That will kick the banker where it hurts most because regardless of what happens in this test case, there will be a lot less people to fleece anyway..

[Son of Shoestring]

If the banks were to win, it would confuse consumer law, but at this stage they are only fightng over whether the overdraft fee's on accounts themselves can be classed as a consumer product and with that the charges. If the court says a bank can charge what it likes, then ....thats a bit sad!

 

The OFT are taking things slow to ensure they don't slip up, though, having this many banks against them, they surely feel the pressure!! It's very easy to slate a regulator, but they did help the cause with the CC limit of £12.

 

For all you scare mongers, this could be the end to banks as greedy entities.

 

Who know's! Big money always rules the world, but sometimes it's nice to see a shift in power.

 

With the best will i the world, the end of greedy banks is just ot going to happen. My ingrained cynicism apart I continue to hold the OFT in considerable suspicion. This attitude wasn't helped by the fact that the banks and the OFT mutually agreed to this action to clarify the banks position regarding the increasing load of cases in the small claims courts around the country that was swamping the system.

 

To me this has the feint smell of a done deal. There will have to be a compromise to make it appear that the consumers interests are being protected - as the pretense of effective regulation must be maintained at all costs.

 

I just do not see there being a ruling that would enable the huge £22 billion in fees accrued by the banks over the last ten years or so being left up for grabs. This won't happen. Not in a month of Sundays. The government wouldn't allow it. Imagine all that tax revenue collected over the last decade from banks profits...

 

And if this assessment is close to being correct, then t stands to reason that a ruling ultimately acceptable to the banks will eventually be arrived at.

 

Shoestring