The OFT Case

[Betty2]

Just a quick reminder peeps to use a little common sense and restraint when posting anything that can be taken as personal or libel....it goes without saying that this topic of all should remain within acceptable content-and this of course includes named individuals.

 

 

Good grief Martin, grow a pair will you, your an embarrassment to St.Helens and rugby league in general.

[Michael Browne]

The appeal finished yesterday afternoon even though it was listed to continue today

 

It is not known whether the banks were granted leave to appeal Justice Smith's judgment on Plain Intelligible Language.

[Bigmac versus]

Just a quick reminder peeps to use a little common sense and restraint when posting anything that can be taken as personal or libel....it goes without saying that this topic of all should remain within acceptable content-and this of course includes named individuals.

 

Use a little common sense? what about tact? Where is the personal or libel comments cause I must have missed it/them Martin.

[MARTIN3030]

There was 2 reported posts as a result ones been unapproved-thats why you cant see it.

I didnt make the site rules,but I know how important it is to uphold them-I have better things to do than debate the issue I can assure you.

 

And Betty-as a sponsor of St.Helens Rugby club,you dont have to tell me about Rugby and I dont see any connection with this here.

[Bigmac versus]

Agh thought i was going mad there.

[MARTIN3030]

BM you should know me better.....I just happened to be the first to see the reported post-it could easily have been another team member.

In fact I have been enjoying the banter.

[Bigmac versus]

Well i was quite surprised, maybe for future reference it would help avoiding such situations by saying that the offending posts have been removed or edited. Not ideal without knowing.

[Rooster-UK]

Well i was quite surprised, maybe for future reference it would help avoiding such situations by saying that the offending posts have been removed or edited. Not ideal without knowing.

 

The problem there is that if a post is unapproved, we could put what we liked on the post, but only the site team would see it. It would be totally invisible to other users.

If we posted to say that a post had been unapproved, it could be 20 posts back so the comment would be out of context. Everyone would be wondering, "Which post was that, then?"

We couldn't refer to it by post number because unapproved posts are not numbered. All the following posts are renumbered to follow on from the post prior to the unapproved one.

 

Regards, Rooster.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

Can I please ask why my one sentence post, Post#246 above, had to be approved by a member of the site team before it was allowed to be displayed?

 

All I was posting was a simple question to see if there was an update on the appeal?

 

I don't understand why this may have caused a problem.

 

TheyrCriminals

[Betty2]

There was 2 reported posts as a result ones been unapproved-thats why you cant see it.

I didnt make the site rules,but I know how important it is to uphold them-I have better things to do than debate the issue I can assure you.

 

And Betty-as a sponsor of St.Helens Rugby club,you dont have to tell me about Rugby and I dont see any connection with this here.

 

Typical mangina response.

[Bookworm]

Hi,

 

Can I please ask why my one sentence post, Post#246 above, had to be approved by a member of the site team before it was allowed to be displayed?

 

All I was posting was a simple question to see if there was an update on the appeal?

 

I don't understand why this may have caused a problem.

 

TheyrCriminals

It might have been unapproved by mistake when they were dealing with the other posts which were moved. ;-)

[Shuff]

So after this week, does anyone know the next date we should be looking out for, for the result of the hearing?

[Michael Browne]

10.04 Posted on LB by EXC:

The OFT have confirmed that the 4 banks in question were granted leave to appeal on Plain Intelligible Language, that was originally refused by Justice Smith in the lower court.

 

The OFT have been given no indication as yet when the appeal judgment is expected to be handed down.

[Deso]

This is a pure waste of time and money.

This decision will be fixed all at the expense of the consumer disguised as a fair judgement.

I no longer have any hope for the small consumer versus big corporations.

[determindator]

It is a little worrying the focus at the moment seems to be on the reasons for the test case and the consquences for the banks.

Once the OFT have deemed the terms unfair (if it is carried over that the UTCCR applies) then the OFT will not do anything about past charges (ie its not in its power to order refunds) and this is where a second test case will come in, which will decide on the elements of refunds and if charges can be refunded as the terms are unbinding on the consumer. So long long way to go.

 

Does that mean 'on the day of judgement' all cases will not be stayed and we can all get back into Court with our individual cases backed up by the OFT saying penalties are unfair:D

[car2403]

Does that mean 'on the day of judgement' all cases will not be stayed and we can all get back into Court with our individual cases backed up by the OFT saying penalties are unfair:D

 

We're lead to believe that guidance will be issued to County Courts once the Judgment is known.

[Betty2]

Bankers: Some quotes by people who knew what they were talking about. ...

"The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson

"You (International Bankers) are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out. If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." Andrew Jackson

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." James Madison

"Whomsoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." James Garfield

"I am afraid that ordinary citizens will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people." - Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the Midland Bank in London.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen...At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties." John Hylan, New York City Mayor, 1922

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes...Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." Napoleon

[Boobaby]

Bankers: Some quotes by people who knew what they were talking about. ...

 

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson

How absolutely true!

[carpman]

Realistically, WHEN will the stay on reclaiming be lifted? know its due to be reviewed early next year, but if it depends on when all appeals are done and dusted it sounds like it could be kept in place for many more months. And from reading alot on here and from other sources, it sounds like its all a big con. the O.F.T are in communication with the banks, but what contact have they got with consumers? seems to me theres no balance, and have the O.F.T really got the interests of consumers at heart, because i certainly don't believe the fsa has. I realise i know very very little, but this is how things appear to me. I think if someone could state, very simply, where things stand and some sort of timescale on how things are LIKELY to go, it would be very helpfull for people like me, who aren't legal eagles or missing alot of the true facts. because, from between hearing about our human rights being infringed on the length of the stay, and appeals could go on for years yet, i haven't a clue when the ball on reclaiming is likely to start rolling again.

[car2403]

The "ball", as you put it, on reclaiming has never stopped rolling. If you haven't made your claim yet, because of this stay, YOU ARE LOSING OUT. Sorry to have that in uppercase, as I know it's shouting, but it's something worth shouting about. They stay shouldn't put you off claiming, as you are losing out on charges over 6 years old plus interest on them. Get claiming... now...

 

As for the stay, how long it a piece of string? If it goes to the wall, the High Court Judgment will be appealed to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal Judgment to the House of Lords and the House of Lords Judgment to some European Court, depending on how much the parties are willing to push it. From what I've seen, that's likely to be the case. Ultimately, it could take another 1-2 years, all in all - maybe more. What you don't want to be doing is losing money hand over fist while you're waiting.

 

Incidentally, remember that this case came around because the Banks and the OFT couldn't agree between themselves. Had the banks been cooperative, I'm sure we wouldn't be in this situation right now. How likely is it that the OFT get Judgment saying that the UTCCR regulations do apply, then the OFT - not the Court - decide, in cahoots with the Banks, what level of charge under which they will not investigate as they see it as being fit? For me, this is very likely. If that does happen, the Banks will have to settle all the stayed claims out of Court or go ahead with them and have Judgment against them for the same value applied.

 

Whatever happens, you need to claim... now.

[carpman]

I have and the interest is mounting, i was just trying to find out whether the stays would be likely to be lifted in the new year, or is it going to drag on and on. there seems to be so much conflicting info, i've got lost with it all. Martin Lewis makes out its near an end, people on here are talking years. gets very confusing.

[car2403]

I have and the interest is mounting, i was just trying to find out whether the stays would be likely to be lifted in the new year, or is it going to drag on and on. there seems to be so much conflicting info, i've got lost with it all. Martin Lewis makes out its near an end, people on here are talking years. gets very confusing.

 

I can't speak for Martin Lewis, but this is from the BBA's website;

 

BBA – British Bankers' Association - Banks and Building Society Appeal Hearing in OFT Test Case

 

The Court of Appeal will give its Judgment some time after the Court hearing although it is not possible to confirm when this will be. We will update you about what is decided as soon as possible but further Court hearings will be required before the test case process is concluded.

 

I can't see this being resolved this year.

[Fred_Funk]

If that does happen, the Banks will have to settle all the stayed claims out of Court or go ahead with them and have Judgment against them for the same value applied.

 

car2403

 

Hi. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say the banks will have to go ahead with stayed claims and have 'judgment against them for the same value applied'.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[car2403]

car2403

 

Hi. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say the banks will have to go ahead with stayed claims and have 'judgment against them for the same value applied'.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

 

If the UTCCR apply and the OFT sets a level that they consider fair for bank charges, the stayed cases will have to be settled out of Court, or they will have to start again looking at the difference between the level of charges the OFT considers fair and the actual amount charged. If they OFT say £12 is fair and you've been charge £35, £23 will be recoverable per charge applied. The point I'm trying to make is that it must be in the banks' interest to settle out of Court for the £23, (plus interest) rather than continue the claim for the £23, (plus interest) as that will save them more costs in attending/defending the claims.

 

It looks obvious what will happen, in that case, with the banks settling, but the question posed was when this would happen.

[Fred_Funk]

car2403

 

Thanks for your explanation which, as it happens, is exactly what I thought you were suggesting

 

However, I understood that, ultimately, either the historic charges would be deemed lawful or otherwise. And that if the ruling went in the OFT and the consumers' favour while a threshold of, say, £12 may well be set for future charges, any historic charges woule be unlawful and, therfore, reclaimable in their entirety.

 

This was certainly the case with credit cards.

 

If, as you suggest, this won't be the case with bank charges then can someone please elaborate - for the benefit of simpletons such as myself - why not?!

 

Thanks in anticiaption

Fred_Funk