The OFT Case

[The Phantom]

I would simply hope that the judge gives a ruling based on common sense and what is blindingly obvious.

I dito that !

[Leecabs]

Hi just a quicky I started my claim in Feb 07 it went to court in May 07, now I just want to confirm once you have filed your claim it will be valid for all charges 6 years previous to the date the court file the claim i.e. 6 years previous back from 23/05/07 in my case. That doesnt change does it?

[breeze1996]

I've been watching the Test Case and the OFT are saying wait till July to expect and news, but I also think if the money is paid out we will all just use it to settle old bills and treat our-selves to a bit of luxury.

I also wondered what will happen if we lose, maybe we could all do some thing to show how we feel.

[kennythecelt]

Welcome to CAG breeze!

 

Are you reclaiming unlawful charges? If so, how can we assist you?

 

Good luck, Kenny

[breeze1996]

I'm like most people here trying to claim, Abbey have accepted my claim and just say it is on hold till the case ends. I think what I hate most is the lack of anything being said about the case.

The banks must love how quiet the news is about the charges. We seem to be expected to wait till we are told what to do. i think the judge should have asked them to provide the cost, becasue that is what they don't want to reveal.

[kennythecelt]

I know how you feel breeze. Hopefully it will be good news in the not too distant future.

Take care and best wishes, Kenny:)

[Bookworm]

Hi just a quicky I started my claim in Feb 07 it went to court in May 07, now I just want to confirm once you have filed your claim it will be valid for all charges 6 years previous to the date the court file the claim i.e. 6 years previous back from 23/05/07 in my case. That doesnt change does it?

When you say you started your claim in Feb, but it went to court in May, do you mean you started sending your letters in Feb and filed in May, or that you filed your claim in court in Feb and had a court date in May?

 

The 6 years run back from the date you filed your claim at court.

[Son of Shoestring]

I would add the cynics viewpoint here (again, I guess), that in view of what is happening to the global banking system (Bear Stearns, Carlyle Capital Credit, Northern Rock and many others still to hit the wall), one should not be too hopeful.

 

The government and G7 will not permit the system to fail -- and bad news is going to be heavily curbed. I would offer the perspective that this case, if it goes against the banks, would be viewed as bad news, bringing further pressure on an already fragile market.

 

Yours in cynicism

 

Shoestring

[breeze1996]

I've been Surfing the net alot over this issue, I really do think we won't be getting any refunds this year. If you look the Banks say they will appeal, and so do the OFT. That means more time while someone else decides if the banks can charge us.

 

I was shocked the Judge didn't demand an account of the really price.

I really thought how can he decide if he doesn't know how much we are overpaying.

 

Which then means even if he decideds we should get a refund he couldn't decide what would be a fair amount, to charge in Future.

 

Can't we the public do something to demand to see how much it costs.

 

Because that will be the next stalling tactic of the banks. Yet that's the one thing they refused to reveal.

[texel]

As no doubt the court will be aware of the amount of money involved if we should win against the banks which makes me think that no way will the court let us win!!!

[butty_a]

It isn't just about the cost to the banks but the legality of the charges, do correct me if I'm wrong. So if the charges are illegal then only a full refund will be right no matter what the cost is to the banks

[texel]

I would not be surprised if the court allows a small refund instead of what is due!!!

[Guest wino]

It says in the Mail On Sunday today that the decision on the test case has been delayed for three months until July!

Why is it taking so long?

If I was in court for taking someones money unlawfully I bet the judge would make a decision pretty quickly.

[kennythecelt]

Hi Wino,

 

Nothing on BBC or any newspaper web site that I have been on.

 

This was posted by someone on the media forum, but it was not backed up.

 

Have you read actually read the article? Can you please relate what exactly it says.

 

Are you sure it does not relate to the waiver which lasts until July 2008.

 

Thanks, Kenny

[Guest wino]

Sorry it is not scanning properly but on page 61 of the Mail On Sunday it says

 

Delay over fees verdict by Dan Atkinson

 

A crucial ruling on the legality of bank overdraft fees has been delayed by three months.

With billions of pounds of potential customer refunds in the balance, the verdict, hoped for next month, will not be delivered until July.

It has emerged that should the banking industry lose the case, some banks may be unable to calculate what they owe their customers because full office records stretching back six years will not exist.

 

That will cause a big headache if the banks are ordered to cut past and present charges to a level where they simply reflect the cost to them of an unauthorised overdraft.

 

With no way of working out the costs caused by overdrafts in years gone by, banks may be forced to offer more generous refunds than the ruling requires, according to a top industry source.

 

The delay in a ruling from the High Court case means that a wait for what are thought to be hundreds of individual lawsuits from customers aggrieved over 'excessive charges'.

 

>>THE new banking code comes into force tomorrow and for the first time requires banks to look out for customers facing debt problems.

[kennythecelt]

Many thanks Wino!!

[dave]

It has emerged that should the banking industry lose the case, some banks may be unable to calculate what they owe their customers because full office records stretching back six years will not exist.

 

So presumably their breach of the DPA will be taken into account as well then?

 

6 years is the minimum, in the insurance industry it's 7 years.

 

Oh dear, how have we allowed the banks to get into this position -where their incompetence can dictate the timescale of a ruling on the judiciary.

 

Unbelievable!

 

What's worse is that they probably believe that this is a decent excuse.

 

...still, it's a good sign; in a way. It looks like they expect to lose, but there are deals going on that mean that they will only lose a certain amount due to their incompetence.

[kennythecelt]

Thanks Dave

Valuable commentary.

[Bookworm]

It says in the Mail On Sunday today that the decision on the test case has been delayed for three months until July!

Why is it taking so long?

If I was in court for taking someones money unlawfully I bet the judge would make a decision pretty quickly.

But that isn't what the case is about Wino. This case is about whether bank overdrafts and their regimen of charges come under the OFT's remit, and whether the UTCCR apply to the banks.

 

It is taking that long because some of the points of law are obscure enough that it shouldn't be judged on a whim and I actually think that isn't a bad thing.

 

There was a case in the US recently about the twin towers attack, the WTC's owners arguing that there were 2 separate events and they should therefore receive 2 payouts of $3.55 billion. Their insurers claimed that it was one event and therefore only 1 payout was due. The case rested on semantics, quite simply, and the interpretation of what constitutes an "event".

 

Let's not underestimate how much leeway there is to interpret the caselaw the judge has to go through before making his decision. ;-)

[breeze1996]

I've just been reading someone's emails to the OFT. He wrote several times to them and asked a few points about the stays but it all boiled down to was wait and see.

 

The OFT are the same as everyone else, until the judge says we are all just guessing.

[JonCris]

Anyone who believes the banks excuses needs to see their nursy

 

"No records going back over 6 years" - we ALL know that ain't true - unless of course the devious bums have, in the meantime, destroyed all of those that do:mad:

[Conniff]

And what about those that have their statements dating back to when they opened their account, maybe 20 odd years, that should override any attempt at limiting the claim.

 

If the judge had seen actual statements from customers ie £6 overdrawn and £75 charges, then he would have been able to make a decision within a week of the case ending.

[Bookworm]

If the judge had seen actual statements from customers ie £6 overdrawn and £75 charges, then he would have been able to make a decision within a week of the case ending.

No, as it isn't what this case is about, not in the first instance anyway.

[breeze1996]

I know the judge is just going to decide whether the charges are legal, and the OFT are still looking into the true cost of bank charges.

 

So does that meant if the judge decides the charges are not legal, then before anything else happens the banks could offer a reduction to current charges and give us back past bank charges. I ask this as I know the OFT said they would accept any reasonable offer from the banks. The OFT know this could run for years and the banks really want this finished with.... soon or so I was told.

 

My thinking is along the lines of the banks know it cost less that £5 to clear so they would still make a profit if it was agreed that a smaller amount could legally be charged for fees, so they would have half a cake.

[Bookworm]

I know the judge is just going to decide whether the charges are legal,

No, the judge is going to decide whether the UTCCR apply to the bank and therefore if the OFT has the right to tell them what to do. Am I not saying it right or something? :-?

and the OFT are still looking into the true cost of bank charges.

As far as I am aware, their enquiry is complete, actually, but the publication of their findings has been delayed until the test case is resolved.

 

I ask this as I know the OFT said they would accept any reasonable offer from the banks.

Where did they say that? Can you post a link? I have never seen this said anywhere, so would be very interested to see that. As they are the banks' regulator, I have to tell you I am very surprised that they would have said such a thing.

 

The OFT know this could run for years and the banks really want this finished with.... soon or so I was told.

Actually, both the OFT and the banks are fully aware this could go on for years, but the banks have a lot more to gain by dragging it out than the OFT.

 

My thinking is along the lines of the banks know it cost less that £5 to clear so they would still make a profit if it was agreed that a smaller amount could legally be charged for fees, so they would have half a cake.

Well, yeah, but since that reasoning is flawed from the first, it hardly applies. If the OFT has jurisdiction, it can -and no doubt will- impose a maximum charge. It won't make the previous charges unreclaimable, it won't mean that the banks only have to repay the difference between those amounts (even though I am sure they will try to convince us they can! ).

On the other hand, if the judge decides that the charges are for a service and do not come under the OFT's remit, then we are all screwed anyway and we won't get a penny back.