H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[Thailand]

My word, I just read it....are we that bored?

 

People like me need links, damnit.

 

Can a pro tell me why I needed to read that business? I am stupid, I admit it.

[yourbank]

cos there is loads of reference to bank charges case and the next stage is about unfair terms....could mirror the next stage of proceedings.

[InformedSearcher]

What strikes me as funny in the OFT vs Foxton's is that a High Court apperance was made on April 9th. Why the different time spans as the Banks one? In fact why a lot of things where the two are quite comparable?

Michael

[yourbank]

The decision was from July 2009. There wasn't an issue as to whether the terms were assessable under UTCCR 1999. Foxtons and the OFT both agreed that they were. Remember, the reason we have spent 2 years(OFT test case) is that the banks do not agree that their terms are assessable for fairness under UTCCR 1999 which is why we are still at the first part of the OFT test case.

[JonCris]

There is no 'law' that says you have to be paid via the bank and not in cash.

 

I believe the law is that you have no right to be paid in any particular way, ie; you can't demand it in cash and you can't demand it goes into the bank.

 

You can't demand payment of your wages in cash. The employer can refuse & require you to accept either a cheque, draft or payment via BACS

[JonCris]

hence the statutory right of manual workers to demand payment in cash, enshrined in the Truck Acts, was removed in 1986.

[InformedSearcher]

I think all this refers to PAYE. Self Employed people with eveidence as such might be paid in cash. These days however it's tsandard for BACS, drafts or cash. The flip side for NMRC is that they can track stuff.

Another pointer is that cash/cheque payments into a personal account are automatically advised to HMRC by banks when they exceed £5,000.00 as a single deposit. That's to stop money laundering, illegal dealings generally and attempts to avoid paying taxes and whatever else the government of the day wants to/expects to extract from you.

Michael

[Bookworm]

OFT v Foxton's

 

New thread here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/209256-oft-foxton-discussion-here.html#post2288008

[simonjohn]

The initial question of whether the banks have a right to charge for returning an S/O or D/D is also intertwined with the question of whether they have a also right to charge if they do clear them?

 

If the clearing of such is done at no cost to the consumer, and the two go through much the same process (i.e. the same resources and infrastructure), then the refusal should be without charge too.

 

On the other hand, if you agree that there is a right to charge for refusing, (even just at cost), then the argument then raises the issue of whether the clearing of such should also be charged.

 

You see where I'm going here?

 

There should be a parity of cost for two.

If you feel that there is a right to charge for one, then the same applies to the other.

Likewise if you feel one should be free, then the other should be too.

 

Agree that there is a right to charge for refusing one, with no clearly demonstrable additional cost over the other, only leads to the question of whether the other should be charged for too ?

 

Thus raises the ogre and threat of an end to "free" banking.

 

All valid points but if i banked with say natwest... and have Life insurance with them, paid by direct debit. My account is 0.02p overdrawn then on the same day I have a D.D for their life insurance due to leave my account on the same day, I will have 2 charges. 1 for being 0.02p overdrawn, then one for £30+ for the bounced D.D

[simonjohn]

They did take the figures from confidential information supplied to the OFT. I have been able to see the document which was provided under a Freedom of Information Request(I would reproduce it but all of the figures and information are blanked out since they are exempt from the FOI requests).

There is a cost to the bank but I think the issues when the HoL appeal is done will be around possibly 2 or 3 issues. Cost of an item, the relationship between charges ie how one charge causes another(and therefore the fairness of this) and furthermore, whether a term is really required(guaranteed card payment fee/referral fees).

 

May I ask how you obtained the info under the Freedom of Info act as this appears to be out of the reach of us mere mortals

[simonjohn]

May I ask how you obtained the info under the Freedom of Info act as this appears to be out of the reach of us mere mortals

 

Considering that, as we have been lead to belive that only information in the public domain can only be released to the public domain.

 

As I understand on here many people have requested info from the OFT, only to be told that they can not release this type of information under a Freedom Of Info request.

 

Either you may be lying or the OFT are...... Please clarifiey.

[car2403]

Considering that, as we have been lead to belive that only information in the public domain can only be released to the public domain.

 

As I understand on here many people have requested info from the OFT, only to be told that they can not release this type of information under a Freedom Of Info request.

 

Either you may be lying or the OFT are...... Please clarifiey.

 

Blimey, give him a chance...

[simonjohn]

Considering that, as we have been lead to belive that only information in the public domain can only be released to the public domain.

 

As I understand on here many people have requested info from the OFT, only to be told that they can not release this type of information under a Freedom Of Info request.

 

Either you may be lying or the OFT are...... Please clarifiey.

 

 

If insofar as post 2253 this info is the subject of a freedom of info request, then why are the main contents hidden,if this is a true freedom of info request then all information should be provided, otherwise this makes a mockery of the initial F.O.I.A.

[yourbank]

post was misunderstood and I have removed it in its entirety.

Edited July 15, 2009 by yourbank

[simonjohn]

Blimey, give him a chance...

 

Sorry to appear to be Champing at the bit, but the post gives the immpression that there may be two tiers of the F.O.I.A.

 

1) The first one for us mere mortals, who, may be given the info we need.

 

2) The second one, for those that it may be of more benefit to have more accurate info.

[yourbank]

Removed post(by me) as it was causing misunderstanding....

Edited July 15, 2009 by yourbank

[simonjohn]

Ok, fair dos then, Site rules forbids me from linking(and permission to reproduce them here was not given due to the time and effort it took to get them) so I'll be a liar here and truthful elsewhere. I can live with that.

 

Shall we move on since the info was on credit cards and not bank charges so is technically off topic.

 

Dont take it personaly, did not mean to call you personally a liar, even if the post may have given that impression. more to the point that the OFT have given the Immpression that F.O.I.R are only the subjeject of government bodies

[InformedSearcher]

Yes I did 'yourbank'. The FOIA seems to define carefully between 'commercially sensative' and 'personal/security' and therefore when someone wants to hide something they can. You are right with reference to MP's (as an example). If I recall normally when asking for information there's a £450/£650 value limit on allowable expense for data production per application. With regards to the 'fee' department it was over and above as a 'special' case where they tried to be transparant but someone 'steamed ' it over. However as rightly said anything viable was blacked out (just going to show how the general public is hoodwinked all the time).

We should all remember there are documents that people will 'never' see in probably for to save embarassement than security. The nice novel one though was I think 1957 when France requested to be part of the commonwealth (and were refused)!

Michael

[jotty]

Yes I did 'yourbank'. The FOIA seems to define carefully between 'commercially sensative' and 'personal/security' and therefore when someone wants to hide something they can. You are right with reference to MP's (as an example). If I recall normally when asking for information there's a £450/£650 value limit on allowable expense for data production per application. With regards to the 'fee' department it was over and above as a 'special' case where they tried to be transparant but someone 'steamed ' it over. However as rightly said anything viable was blacked out (just going to show how the general public is hoodwinked all the time).

We should all remember there are documents that people will 'never' see in probably for to save embarassement than security. The nice novel one though was I think 1957 when France requested to be part of the commonwealth (and were refused)!

Michael

OFF TOPIC!!!!!!

[Bookworm]

OFF TOPIC!!!!!!

Tell you what, why don't YOU go through the whole thread, make a note of the number of every OT post, then hit the report button and ask the team to move all said numbered posts to another thread? That should keep you busy for a while, and since no-one is expecting anything much to happen now until October, you have plenty of time anyway. ;-)

[the_shadow]

Tell you what, why don't YOU go through the whole thread, make a note of the number of every OT post, then hit the report button and ask the team to move all said numbered posts to another thread? That should keep you busy for a while, and since no-one is expecting anything much to happen now until October, you have plenty of time anyway. ;-)

 

 

[snigger]

 

Sorry couldnt resist

 

S.

[jotty]

Tell you what, why don't YOU go through the whole thread, make a note of the number of every OT post, then hit the report button and ask the team to move all said numbered posts to another thread? That should keep you busy for a while, and since no-one is expecting anything much to happen now until October, you have plenty of time anyway. ;-)

Not sure what that will achieve, I am now one of the few who remembers when this topic had some relevance and didn't get lost in jargon and unrelated opinion.

I appreciate your passion for the subject Booky and like many on here have been grateful for your advice but people should be encouraged to start up their own threads and not hijack one like this, especially with totally non-sensical arguments.

 

As far as I am aware the thread is "House of Lords Appeal", so YOU the mods need to get a grip and try and steer the ship back otherwise I can see this thread going down the route of many on less informed sites.

 

I am now going back into my box as I don't want to get into a keyboard fight.

[Bookworm]

ME not a mod, nor have I been for nearly a year, so not up to me. ;-)

[InformedSearcher]

well 'jotty' it was just idle (truthful) banter whilst we wait. If there's a need not to post then I guess it'll be 'dead' until the decision. My apologies if you considered my 'off topic' post a problem but my intention was not to upset but to while away the time. This is also 'off topic' but I have to say being in the world of the unemployed does not cheer me up at all!

I will refrain from posting again till the results at least.

Michael

[jotty]

well 'jotty' it was just idle (truthful) banter whilst we wait. If there's a need not to post then I guess it'll be 'dead' until the decision. My apologies if you considered my 'off topic' post a problem but my intention was not to upset but to while away the time. This is also 'off topic' but I have to say being in the world of the unemployed does not cheer me up at all!

I will refrain from posting again till the results at least.

Michael

 

Michael my point exactly, please start your own thread then we can all choose to join in and pass comment.

We are all desperate and now very impatient to see this conclude, but I'd rather not read over 2000 posts mainly having nothing to do with the topic.

See you have all got me at it again - nurse Nurse NURSE !!!