Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

RED ALERT: FSA & BOE fiddle while Rome burns.


alecmac18
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5937 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

The FSA (Financial Services Authority) is currently in the process of making firms who operate in the industry operate under new regulations which are mean to 'treat customers fairly' - sounds good - right?

 

Lets see if the FSA are treating bank charge claimaints fairly with their 'waiver' for banks that lets them stop paying claims.

 

We have defined 6 consumer outcomes which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers.

 

 

Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture;

 

- Is treating bank charge claimants fairly central to FSA corporate culture?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly;

 

- Does the FSA waiver help banks or claimants? Is this waiver designed to meet our needs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale;

 

- Were we informed or consulted about this waiver? No didn't think so..

 

 

 

Outcome 4 - just waffle

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is both of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect;

 

- Is the FSA performing to expectations? Well Yes actually - but mine were low anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome 6: consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.

 

- Do we have barriers put in place as a result of the FSA waiver? Why Yes.......Yes we do.......as a result of the FSA no less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AHHHHHHHHH - If our own regulator can't treat us fairly what chance do we have.................

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Unless the: Defined 6 consumer outcomes which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers. Becomes a compulsary requirement, then they are not worth the paper they are printed on. :mad:

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I have mentioned this before but now \I think it is much, much more urgent. The failure of the FSA to bring the case in unfair overdraft charges to a close is now threatening to undermine stability within the UK banking system.

 

I don't use these words lightly......but we're going down a dangerous path.

 

Average Uk household income after tax (adjusting downwards by stripping out the top 20% of wage 'earners' and increasing by 10% for added benefits for kids etc)

 

Total = anywhere from £1600 to £700 depending on number of kids, single family etc....

 

BANKS ARE CURRENTLY CHARGING PEOPLE UP TO £300 PER MONTH WHILE ALL COSTS LIKE RENT, GAS, ELECTRIC, FOOD, TRANSPORT ETC ETC ARE RISING.

 

 

What happens when bills get too much?

 

1. Credit cards go unpaid

2. Personal loans go unpaid (witness London and Scottish)

3. Rent goes unpaid (see BTL house prices fallings as a result)

 

Most importantly: PEOPLE REVERT TO CASH: this as a direct result of no longer being able to trust their bank as a result of bank charges eating up any income (income they need to live)

 

Net Result: Massive deflation in asset backed paper and 9x loss of lendable funds to the banking sector.

 

 

Final Result? Meltdown.

 

 

And what just might stop it from happening? (or at least delay it for a while).

 

Yes..........Just refund those charges. There is a legal, effective, immediate way to inject cash into the economy: where it is needed most - in [people pockets. The FSA has the power to do it.

 

 

And if they don't? They might just end up being held responsible for the mess that follows.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I sit here eagerly awaiting the FSA test case I'm getting increasing worried at the stories that keep running accross my screen.

 

I've mentioned the systemic threats to the economy before in allowing banks to continue to charge people massivly inflated charges:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/125984-fsa-risking-breakdown-trust.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/125284-needs-helicopter-drop-fsa.html

 

 

It might be too late.......

 

Look at the latest job cuts.......

 

Weak US dollar forces Rolls-Royce to cut jobs - Telegraph

Robbie Williams to strike over EMI job cuts - Telegraph

Laundry and Cleaning News

Citi turns to its prince again - Telegraph

 

This is a small fraction of the jobs losses announced in the last few days and they span over engineering, consumer goods and financials.

 

 

RED ALERT: Are you listening BOE & FSA?

 

Jobs are collapsing, house prices are collapsing (just look at how popular housepricecrash.co.uk is now), discrecionary spending is gone. Retail stocks are crashing. This is it. This is what systemic risk is made of.

 

Both the BOE and the FSA have a joint mandate to prevent just this type of systemic risk from occuring. JUST WHAT THE HELL DID YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN WHEN YOU ALLOW BANKS TO TAKE £1 BILLION PER YEAR FROM BANK ACCOUNTS?

 

And here is the clincher: Both the BOE and the FSA still have the power to intervene and halt bank charges immediately in 'the interests of financial stability'. If there was ever a time to use that power it would be now. What just might save the UK economy is a cash injection. There currently exists a legal, regulated, and orderly way to make this happen. REFUND THE DAMNN CHARGES.

 

In a few months it will be too late. If this case goes to appeal or drags on there wont be any consumers OR banks left.

 

 

In the meantime the bank that rhymes with Shabby has just displayed its brilliance when commissioning and interpreting in-house reasearch.

 

Unexpected events cause widespread financial hardship

 

From the article:

 

"New research published by Abbey reveals that over the past two years, almost 15 million Britons have experienced some sort of financial hardship because of a life-changing event."

 

Hmmm - 15 million you say? A life changing event? Like.....I dont know.........how about in excess of £500 per year in OD charges from all those 15 million customers. I bet that helped their financial position.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Uk economy is currently standing on a knife edge. Today the FT100 almost touched 6000. House prices are falling and the amount of disposable cash available to people is at an all time low.

 

The OFT test case - while well meaning - has run its course. The sheer scale, level size and frequency of bank charges is now at an all time high. I have regularly spoken to people who have had literally £100's taken from their accounts each and every month. Not one of these people could afford £10 to go missing let alone upwads of £300+ (which is all to regular).

 

However all actions have consequences. the OFT, FSA and the Government might not give two hoots about people on benefits, fixed incomes and pensions. However all these people pay bills which support the wider economy. Gas, electric, SKY TV, supermarkets, clothes shops and personal loan and credit card payments. R

 

All of these payments are connected to the wider economy and support much larger amounts of debt than the £1 billion a year banks charge. But if banks continue to take £1 billion a year from consumers at source (via robbing it from your current account) they will contribute to unmitigated disaster.

 

Without a doubt - and faster than anyone thinks - if the OFT Test case continues in its current form and the banks continue to take the same level of charges - we will witness the biggest ever default accross all financial asset classes. This is 100% guaranteed.

 

What ****es me off is the fact that the FSA is actually (on the face of it) not a bad regulator. Its Treating Customers Fairly doctrine is actually quite good - except for one thing - it does not include bank current accounts.

 

There exists - right now - a legal, orderly and regulated way to put cold, hard cash into the hands of consumers - which will support the wider economy. Its a great oppertunity. The banks can even write it off against tax. It can even be done quickly - and might just help UK PLC trundle along a bit longer.

 

What also ****es me off is the fact that the FSA (along with the Bank Of England) has a mandate to look at the broader picture and see that extreme levels of bank charges will have unintended consequences.

 

I've said it before - but the FSA has the power - at the stroke of a pen - to do whatever it likes with regards to banks charges. The OFT is but a pawn in the game.

 

I've still got hope that they will come to their senses - but time really is running out - very shortly it wont matter - if the OFT case goes on for a year (or even 6 months) it will be too late. Defaults will rise, people will go insolvant and bankrupt, share prices will fall, house prices will plummett and books will be written about the great crash of 2008 and people will ask 'was there anything that could be done'

 

And I'll say (from my cardboard box) "We'll Yes, Yes there was - They could have refunded the charges and propped up the whole damnn system"

 

:-)

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However: Wild Billy, rather than just post pictures. If you disagree with the premise of my post at least say why. Its called discussion.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi alecmac18 :)

 

You might have to ignore the negative energy coming from some peoples posts!! and although everyone is entitled to their own views ,its good to have a healthy discussion on these forums.

 

No disrespect to Wild Billy, but maybe some people are too well orf and dont have charges slapped on their accounts to even bother with the issue of bank charges and the test case, but for the rest of us on these boards who suffer these ludicrous charges, it isnt a joke anymore.

 

I have to 100% agree with your above post Alec, yes, people are suffering and struggling to make ends meet from month to month because of these charges, and as you have said, it will have a detrimental effect on the uk economy, if not already.

 

But as we know, it would be much too easy for all the bigwigs to come to a conclusion just like that, I guess the banks will want to fight it out tooth and nail, after all, the beggars stand to lose their £1 billion a year profits from all of us.

 

it would be fantastic to not have to wait long weeks and months for a result...

Lets just hope the OFT fight it out tooth and nail twice as hard and whip their asses a.s.a.p

 

 

B.Flower xx

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Wild Billy
However: Wild Billy, rather than just post pictures. If you disagree with the premise of my post at least say why. Its called discussion.

 

Most of the threads you start here are nonsense to be fair. I'm not sure how to even begin discussing them- yesterday SKY's shares were going to drop because of bank charges and today 15 million people won't pay their bills because of bank charges. I would say it is scaremongering but I think it is SO ridiculous and SO uninformed that I don't think anyone could possibly take it seriously. The economy may suffer, some shares may fall and people may not pay their bills but if you think bank charges are a central factor then all I can say is this- I'm sorry mate, but you are talking absolute rubbish. Unfortunately, people like you are a menace and you'd be better off thinking a little harder before you post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the theory behaind the thought. Yes if banks continue to take charges from accounts that belong to vulnerable people then those said people will not be able to keep up payments.

 

So what do we do...well telling all who will listen that the floor of the economy will drop out from underneath the UK and we will live in cardboard boxes may be harsh and slightly ;) OTT.

 

But if we help those who are on benefits / low incomes to protect their money by using right of appropriation for the basics in life (and SKY TV IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!!) then the UK will dwindle on and survive the "crash of 2008".

 

Just a thought, Mrs Foot x

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unfortunately, people like you are a menace and you'd be better off thinking a little harder before you post."

 

I find it interesting that you rubbish the post but you don't provide an alternative view. Its one way of arguing I suppose.

 

 

I don't think that bank charges are the main factor causing problems in the wider economy. However stopping the charges could have direct, immediate and positive effects. They certainly don't help matters now do they?

 

 

The far bigger menace Mr Billy is the fact that banks can rip cash out of your account at will and there is bugger all that can be done about it. If you dont think that this will affect the wider economy then you are dead wrong. Every pound that is deducted at source is another that cant be spent elsewhere. If follows that this will cause problems down the road.

 

Perhaps you should think a little harder....If the OFT case carries on for another year how do you think people are going to pay ulilities (which went up 17% the other day) - this is only one example of the EXTREME price pressure going on at the moment.

 

I think it is incredibly irresponsible for these charges to continue. At the very least there should be some sort of emergency mandate to stop charges while the case is in progress.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Wild Billy
I find it interesting that you rubbish the post but you don't provide an alternative view. Its one way of arguing I suppose.

 

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to provide an alternative view. You say quite clearly that 15m people will stop paying their bills if the OFT test case continues. Why 25% of the population? Why not 20% of the population? Why not 5% of the population? What SPECIFIC evidence can you provide that if the OFT test case continues then that percentage of the population will stop paying bills? Which bills will they stop paying? Or will they just decrease their spending? Give me your analysis backed up with some evidence and we'll play tennis but until then you're just serving into the net and looking ridiculous.

 

And why do you say "if the OFT test case continues.."? Your title suggests if the case DOESN'T continue then 25% of the population WILL NOT stop paying bills. But that's nonsense because without the OFT taking and winning the case then the bank charges will just continue and the money will be taken anyway.

 

Do you want me to debunk your argument about SKY shares in the same way? Why pick SKY? Why decide to start a thread specifically mentioning SKY? Why not any number of other companies? The FTSE dropped dramatically across the board today but do you think ANY of that is to do SPECIFICALLY with this test case or bank charges? IF it has an impact at all which I doubt then it is incredibly minor. Shares are down largely on fears of a US recession.

 

I don't think that bank charges are the main factor causing problems in the wider economy. However stopping the charges could have direct, immediate and positive effects. They certainly don't help matters now do they?

 

This is far more moderate than almost anything you have said and has some truth to it. I'm not an economist so I really can't know the effects this would have though. Would stopping bank charges have a positive impact on the wider economy? Would people spend the money instead of saving it or paying bills? If they did all spend it then wouldn't that drive up inflation in the short-term and the BoE might then not make the expected cuts in interest rates over the next 12 months? What would have a more positive impact on the economy? More spending and higher inflation with a possible rise in interest rates as a result or a cut in interest rates? Can you tell me the behavoural effects?

 

The far bigger menace Mr Billy is the fact that banks can rip cash out of your account at will and there is bugger all that can be done about it. If you dont think that this will affect the wider economy then you are dead wrong. Every pound that is deducted at source is another that cant be spent elsewhere. If follows that this will cause problems down the road.

 

Perhaps you should think a little harder....If the OFT case carries on for another year how do you think people are going to pay ulilities (which went up 17% the other day) - this is only one example of the EXTREME price pressure going on at the moment.

 

I think it is incredibly irresponsible for these charges to continue. At the very least there should be some sort of emergency mandate to stop charges while the case is in progress.

 

Aspects of this might be partially true but I've no idea why you bang the same drum in thread after thread. You end up suggesting an emergency mandate, which may be a good idea but the implication is that without it the whole economy is going to go bust and 25% of the population will be living in doorways. What you're doing isn't informed and isn't helpful to anyone. If you have nothing to say then don't say anything. You don't need to invent stuff all the time and then dramatise it. It's fine. Really. We can live without it.

 

I assume you're lonely or bored which is why you feel the need to get some sort of attention and affimation through these threads but it would be better if you didn't. People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why 25% of the population? Why not 20% of the population? Why not 5% of the population? What SPECIFIC evidence can you provide that if the OFT test case continues then that percentage of the population will stop paying bills?"

 

A: Absolutely none. It’s simply a guess. But given that we are experiencing rapid inflation, high real interest rates, job losses and a weakening pound then I think it is safe to assume that the pain will be widespread. 25% could end up being on the low side.

 

"Without the OFT taking and winning the case then the bank charges will just continue and the money will be taken anyway."

 

Not necessarily. It didn't have to happen this way. The OFT taking on the case was the WORST possible outcome. The OFT has taken on a case and managed to string it out going on six months now (and they are saying that we have another 12 months to go). That is unacceptable. There is absolutely no reason why the OFT needed to get involved. The banks could have has their day in County Court. The FSA could have simply regulated the market (as happens with EVERY other financial product bar current accounts). Now consumers who were successful in court have had their claims delayed by the OFT while their bank is still allowed to charge them.

 

 

Why pick SKY?

 

A: Why not. Its one of the first things to go when the money goes.

 

 

"The FTSE dropped dramatically across the board today but do you think ANY of that is to do SPECIFICALLY with this test case or bank charges?"

 

A: Nothing. It’s a wider symptom of a declining economy. I never said it had to do with bank charges. But notice no one bought any sofas in the sales? Guess charges don't help do they? Bank charges are hardly a positive influence on retail stocks.

 

 

"Would stopping bank charges have a positive impact on the wider economy?"

 

A: Yes. 100% Guaranteed.

 

"Would people spend the money instead of saving it or paying bills?"

 

A: Who cares, either way it’s helpful.

 

 

"If they did all spend it then wouldn't that drive up inflation in the short-term and the BoE might then not make the expected cuts in interest rates over the next 12 months?"

 

A: Good point. But inflation figures are already manipulated. Should the BOE cut interest rates? I'm not sure they should. If they do the pound will fall and imported goods will be more expensive. But to say that refunding bank charges would be inflationary.........perhaps they would.......but in a good way since they would back up spending that helps the rest of the economy. In any case - I think we can agree that the money does not belong to the banks anyway. It belongs to the people it was taken from. So inflationary or not it’s a moot point. If that’s not your view then you're probably on the wrong forum.

 

"The implication is that without it the whole economy is going to go bust and 25% of the population will be living in doorways."

 

A: I didn't exactly say that - re-read

 

 

"I assume you're lonely or bored which is why you feel the need to get some sort of attention and affirmation through these threads but it would be better if you didn't. People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither"

 

A: Lonely? No. Board? Today - Yes, I'm working from home. But not anymore in fact this discussion has been great.

 

However I actually assume you work for a bank, The OFT or similar. Nothing concrete but you've only made a few posts and you give the impression that you don't think the banks should lose this case............I may be wrong.......as I said.....it’s just an impression.

 

"People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither."

 

A: You want factual information about bank charges? Okay..

 

The OFT test case has been a disgrace. They would have been better to stay out of it. It has caused millions of claims to be put on hold while giving the banks a license to steal. This is a fact.

 

Another fact: If you think that continuing to levy bank charges won't have wider economic implications.....regardless of what those implications might be then you are sadly mistaken.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Wild Billy
Can we please keep this thread civil and stop the personal insults.

 

If you cannot refrain from such then please do not post anything.

 

I said that quite seriously. A lot of people post excessively on message boards because they are lonely or bored; they just need the feeling of importance, and a sense of community and connection. It's not an insult at all, just a psychological condition so best not to accuse me of anything buddy.:confused:

 

As some sort of moderator, you might want to think about talking to our friend yourself. You could do a lot worse than deleting some of his continuous threads or do you think they are a useful contribution and aid discussion? I'd be genuinely interested to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A lot of people post excessively on message boards because they are lonely or bored; they just need the feeling of importance."

 

Unlike your good self of course.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone understands your respective positions guys. You're just going to keep posting back and deconstructing each other though. You'd probably come to some consensus over a chat and a drink, but textual forums aren't really conducive to that after threads have developed in this manner.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To conclude..........

 

Wild Billy - your opinion as to what will happen on the test case. Banks win, OFT win, compromise deal?? be interested (in no more than 200 words!!) what is going to happen.

 

Alec - your opinion ??

 

Lets just say in how many days / weeks / months / decades it will be interesting to see who go it right!!

 

Be honest guys - no sitting on the fence - your calls

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok....to conclude....

 

Ideal world: The FSA step in (late in the day) and take over the matter. They simply regulate current accounts (as they do every other financial product) They have the mandate to do this if they want to. Politically it would be very embarressing for the OFT but I've come to the view that to allow the case to continue for another year would be disasterous economically. This is what I think should happen. And the FSA aren't daft......they may come round to this view in time. Certainly their (internal) consumer panels have been sounding the alarm bells regarding systemic risk for the last few months so its not outside the relm of possibility.

 

If this happens they will almost certainly keep some form of charge....but they will cap the level. What the level will be I don't know. The banks would rather retain the ability to charge OD fees than lose this cash cow completely.

 

So.......for a prediction.........I'm going for some sort of big resolution in about Apr/May. Probably a 'grand bargain' that helps all involved save face.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Wild Billy

It would genuinely help if you could learn to use the quote function.

 

"Why 25% of the population? Why not 20% of the population? Why not 5% of the population? What SPECIFIC evidence can you provide that if the OFT test case continues then that percentage of the population will stop paying bills?"

 

A: Absolutely none. It’s simply a guess. But given that we are experiencing rapid inflation, high real interest rates, job losses and a weakening pound then I think it is safe to assume that the pain will be widespread. 25% could end up being on the low side..

 

Where to start?

  • You admit you have no evidence and it's simply a guess. Yet you chose to start a thread.
  • The UK is not experiencing rapid inflation. That is COMPLETELY factually incorrect.
  • Interest rates are NOT high by historical standards and actually on their way down. Again you are COMPLETELY factually incorrect.
  • Some job losses but still record employment levels in the UK.

Oh dear.:shock:

 

""Without the OFT taking and winning the case then the bank charges will just continue and the money will be taken anyway."

 

Not necessarily. It didn't have to happen this way. The OFT taking on the case was the WORST possible outcome. The OFT has taken on a case and managed to string it out going on six months now (and they are saying that we have another 12 months to go). That is unacceptable. There is absolutely no reason why the OFT needed to get involved. The banks could have has their day in County Court. The FSA could have simply regulated the market (as happens with EVERY other financial product bar current accounts). Now consumers who were successful in court have had their claims delayed by the OFT while their bank is still allowed to charge them...

 

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

  • The OFT taking the case was the worse possible outcome? That's so blinkered and wrong that I can hardly muster the energy to tell you why. Is it wrong for the millions and millions of people who don't reclaim bank charges, many of whom will be the most vulnerable and elderly? As long as the thousands who have reclaimed successfully or have cases in the pipeline are successful then screw them right? And it's a terrible thing to set legal precedent and put this matter to bed once and for all? Yeah, you convinced me, no need for the OFT to get involved at all. What was I thinking!:-x
  • You obviously have no concept of how long court cases of this magnitude and subsequent appeals take. I'm not sure what it's got to do with the OFT either? Do they set the length of the court case? No.

Why pick SKY?

 

A: Why not. Its one of the first things to go when the money goes.

 

"Why not?" isn't the greatest response. How many people have SKY? How many of those are specifically affected by Bank Charges to the extent they need to get rid of it? Won't other factors have an input too? Couldn't you just as easily say rising gas costs will affect the share price? How many people does it need to get rid of it before it directly affects the share price? I don't know and neither do you. Why start a thread about it? What was the point? What were you trying to acheive?

 

"The FTSE dropped dramatically across the board today but do you think ANY of that is to do SPECIFICALLY with this test case or bank charges?"

 

A: Nothing. It’s a wider symptom of a declining economy. I never said it had to do with bank charges. But notice no one bought any sofas in the sales? Guess charges don't help do they? Bank charges are hardly a positive influence on retail stocks.

 

Nothing?! But you implied it did?! You posted a thread about 25% of the population not being able to pay their bills in a forum about bank charges. And you mentioned the downturn in the economy and linked bank charges (and in other threads too).

 

"Would stopping bank charges have a positive impact on the wider economy?"

 

A: Yes. 100% Guaranteed.

 

100% guaranteed? Wrong. I've already explained why.

 

"Would people spend the money instead of saving it or paying bills?"

 

A: Who cares, either way it’s helpful.

 

Wrong. How does saving money help boost the economy? That's money not being spent.

 

"If they did all spend it then wouldn't that drive up inflation in the short-term and the BoE might then not make the expected cuts in interest rates over the next 12 months?"

 

A: Good point. But inflation figures are already manipulated. Should the BOE cut interest rates? I'm not sure they should. If they do the pound will fall and imported goods will be more expensive. But to say that refunding bank charges would be inflationary.........perhaps they would.......but in a good way since they would back up spending that helps the rest of the economy. In any case - I think we can agree that the money does not belong to the banks anyway. It belongs to the people it was taken from. So inflationary or not it’s a moot point. If that’s not your view then you're probably on the wrong forum.

 

How are inflation figures manipulated? Tell me. It's a bold statement that has no evidence to support it. And if you think inflation is a good thing then you really need to think again. It's the low inflation that will help the economy.

 

"The implication is that without it the whole economy is going to go bust and 25% of the population will be living in doorways."

 

A: I didn't exactly say that - re-read.

 

You quite obviously implied it. That's why I said you implied it and I didn't say you said it.

 

"I assume you're lonely or bored which is why you feel the need to get some sort of attention and affirmation through these threads but it would be better if you didn't. People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither"

 

A: Lonely? No. Board? Today - Yes, I'm working from home. But not anymore in fact this discussion has been great.

 

However I actually assume you work for a bank, The OFT or similar. Nothing concrete but you've only made a few posts and you give the impression that you don't think the banks should lose this case............I may be wrong.......as I said.....it’s just an impression.

 

You're wrong. On all counts. I don't work for any bank, the OFT, FSA or anything similar. And I think the banks are unlikely to be successful.

 

"People coming here need factual information and be introduced to informed discussion about bank charges. You provide neither."

 

A: You want factual information about bank charges? Okay..

 

The OFT test case has been a disgrace. They would have been better to stay out of it. It has caused millions of claims to be put on hold while giving the banks a license to steal. This is a fact.

 

Another fact: If you think that continuing to levy bank charges won't have wider economic implications.....regardless of what those implications might be then you are sadly mistaken.

 

No, you've confused fact with fiction. See my previous answer about the OFT's involvement.

 

I'll leave it there and let others decide whether your thoughts hold much validity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...