The OFT Case

[ss_collins]

On the flipside we can all start banking with Credit Agricole or whoever

[dannyboy660]

Looking again at that EU 'Unfair terms in contracts' has just reminded me that in most EU member states a court will put a ceiling on the amount a third party Debt purchaser or Factor can claim on the outstanding balance of an alleged debt, as they only pay a fraction of the face value anyway.

 

"A contract term is in principle regarded as unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the party's rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

 

"If you come across such terms you have the right to challenge them or to ignore them - they do not bind you."

 

 

Surely that should apply to the UK as well???

 

I'm drifting off topic a bit now - but the Debt forum people might want to consider that point.

[Bookworm]

"A contract term is in principle regarded as unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the party's rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

Surely that should apply to the UK as well???

 

It does - It's in the UTCCR. (Section 5) ;-)

[dannyboy660]

It does - It's in the UTCCR. (Section 5) ;-)

 

I've just had one of those 'Eureka' moments.

 

Suddenly things just got a lot clearer.

 

Bookie, I love you, and I want to have your babies. ;-)

[Bookworm]

Just give me your postcode, and you can have them, I'll even even pay for P&P.

[rdm2006]

is it not an unfair term and condition if only one side can apply charges then?

[mailmannz]

Really & how much do you reckon they are NOW saving by NOT having to settle claims - or what do you consider it would cost them paying the legal costs - as apposed to having to pay compensation to customers past & present - my guess - settling claims which I'm sure would be many millions if not billions more

 

You are not getting what I am trying to say.

 

You say there is a conspiracy going on here...Im saying bull pucky, if there was one there wouldnt have been a court case to start with AND the FSA would have ruled years ago that bank charges were lovely jubberly.

 

The very fact the banks have had to front up to court and face the music should tell all but the most challenged individuals that any talk of a conspiracy between the banks and the OFT, FSA and Elvis is absolute crap. Crap on the 9/11 conspiracy magnitude!

 

Mailman

[mailmannz]

It does - It's in the UTCCR. (Section 5) ;-)

 

Hence why thank banks were argueing the UTCCR doesnt apply to bank charges hey?

 

Mailman

[JonCris]

You are not getting what I am trying to say.

 

You say there is a conspiracy going on here...Im saying bull pucky, if there was one there wouldnt have been a court case to start with AND the FSA would have ruled years ago that bank charges were lovely jubberly.

 

The very fact the banks have had to front up to court and face the music should tell all but the most challenged individuals that any talk of a conspiracy between the banks and the OFT, FSA and Elvis is absolute crap. Crap on the 9/11 conspiracy magnitude!

 

Mailman

 

I understand precisely what your trying to say but if you think this case is NOT to the benefit of the banks I don't where you have been. It has had the effect, as they knew it would, of bringing to an abrupt halt their having to return millions of pounds to consumers

 

& it was the banks who instigated this action not the OFT - I wonder why

[breeze1996]

I thought it was the OFT who brought the case to court because of the sheer number of people who wanted to cliam.

Test case

 

The OFT has already stated that credit card default charges were unfair and had been set too high. It is now taking seven banks and one building society to the High Court seeking a ruling that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 do apply to bank charges.

 

Banking and credit | Bank charges | Bank charges

 

link from which. I've been reading it and it give quotes to use if you go to court.

 

If you remeber the banks were paying out rather than go to court. if they had a defence they would have used it long ago.

 

Also found this about small claim courts.

It's a fact sheet from which.

 

http://www.which.co.uk/files/application/pdf/0707smallclaimscourt-445-118164.pdf

[JonCris]

No it wasn't the OFT although it was made to appear so at the time this case was at the behest of the banks.

 

Think about it who has it so far benefited to the tune of millions whilst at the same time allowing the banks time to introduce new 'service' charges to current accounts - the banks of course

[paulwlton]

Do we know what month the judgment will be handed down?

[Bookworm]

Latest news say July, but even that is not a definite.

[Guest naffedoff]

Latest news say July, but even that is not a definite.

 

Thats weird because its been announced that the judgement is going to be handed down on Thursday.

 

Hey ho, you can't win them all can you Bookie, never mind eh !

[PKea]

Latest news say July, but even that is not a definite.

 

Glad to see that the senior staff on CAG are at the forefront with the latest news.

 

It was announced that Judgement will be handed down This Thursday (24th)

 

lol,

[Guest vortex]

To give bookworm, her dues, first news broke after she had posted. First news broke 8 minutes later. It is Thurday.

[Bookworm]

Win what? :-? There's a PRIZE? There I was, thinking that the important thing was customers hopefully getting justice.

[Guest vortex]

Bookie sometimes, when someone else has already reproached another user for an inaccurate post, you need to let things lie. Having the last word is not always necessary. As a long standing moderator you must have learnt that by now. Even I spotted the cheap shot for a mile away at you which is why I reproached them for it.

As for Thursday, it is the beginning of the battle and not the end.

[Bookworm]

I wasn't "trying to have the last word", I was answering a post addressed to me.

 

I completely agree with you that this is - hopefully - the beginning and not the end, which is why it would be great to see those who usually gather like bluebottles the moment they sniff a whiff of an argument just go and do their own thing the way they like it done elsewhere. One can only hope.

 

We are on the verge of something which can potentially change the face of banking in the UK and once the result becomes publicised (with or without appeals at this stage), people are going to need so much help, it would be nice not to have to waste energy on other stupid stuff.

[Guest vortex]

I am under some form of moderation and have no bear garden or PM's co cannot send message to MOD. could this be looked into please. Thank you and Thursday is Charges Judgement Day:o

[texel]

I will be very surprised if the case goes in favour of the public in any great extent:( The court will probably, if they do decide to go with the OFT come up with a decision tp allow the banks to charge a fee probably around the £ 12 mark like the credit card companies. Which to me is still far too much considering what it actually costs I hope the OFT has enough guts to really go after the banks but somehow I don't think they have:(

[brown1950]

Correct me if i am wrong but the Bank's already know the Judge's decision ! It was agreed the Banks would be given advance details of the decision (3 days?)

[Castlebest]

I will be very surprised if the case goes in favour of the public in any great extent:( The court will probably, if they do decide to go with the OFT come up with a decision tp allow the banks to charge a fee probably around the £ 12 mark like the credit card companies. Which to me is still far too much considering what it actually costs I hope the OFT has enough guts to really go after the banks but somehow I don't think they have:(

 

The level of bank charges has not yet been put to the court so I doubt that any level will be set at this stage. The £12 figure the credit card companies cling to is also not set by anyone, it is merely an arbitrary figure the OFT set for themselves when considering whether to investigate a consumers complaint or not.

[tiglet]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-consumer-issues/139501-test-case-judgment-due.html to be fair, when info is on different threads, it's sometimes hard for people (mods included) to find the info immediately.

 

Plus, mods do have other things in their life too which can make an individual one very busy.

 

Now, at least we are getting somewhere, so no point arguing any more, is there?

[Castlebest]

Correct me if i am wrong but the Bank's already know the Judge's decision ! It was agreed the Banks would be given advance details of the decision (3 days?)

 

Both the banks and the OFT