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

[noomill060]

vinegarvera said Egg have reduced their charges to £12.

 

Something very familiar about that figure...

 

Oh yes- same as credit cards, and we all know that figure doesnt stand up in court...

[mailmannz]

imagine them paying billions to the people that put them where they are today - it will kill some banks - hopefully HBOS!

 

You dont want this to happen...if banks started to fall over the people who will be affected the most will be the small people! With banks falling over and other banks not lending money to each other then no one will be offering mortgages OR only offering mortgages to the rich, which in turn means property owners lose out (again, the most affected will be the small people), people will lose jobs...and unlike what Photoman is saying, money will be sucked out of the economy, not invested in to it!

 

Banks falling over, no matter how satisfying personally this may be...would be a very bad thing for the economy.

 

Mailman

[patrickq1]

this wont happen for the simple fact is the goverment have already made a decision to remove the FOI ACT concerning NORTHERN ROCK and its data as being sensitive information,this will also effect the banks ALL BANKS from revealing sensitive information and since the GOVERMENT DECIDED TO CHANGE THE LAW this will set a precedent concerning the bank providing data in how they arrive at the charges,this has happened right under our noses and without so much as a whimper from joe public

 

imho

patrickq1

[photoman]

You dont want this to happen...if banks started to fall over the people who will be affected the most will be the small people! With banks falling over and other banks not lending money to each other then no one will be offering mortgages OR only offering mortgages to the rich, which in turn means property owners lose out (again, the most affected will be the small people), people will lose jobs...and unlike what Photoman is saying, money will be sucked out of the economy, not invested in to it!

 

Banks falling over, no matter how satisfying personally this may be...would be a very bad thing for the economy.

 

Mailman

 

Mailmnz

 

You misunderstood me, and have predicted the other extreme.

 

The banks paying a reasonable chunk of money out to consumers, and thus back into the economy I still maintain would be a good thing.

The other extreme, of banks paying out so much that they themselves start to crumble, or it causes mass economic uncertainty, is I agree, a bad thing.

 

With the way things are at the moment, the vast reserves that the banks have are held by a small minority of corporations or individuals, who either have it in offshore investments, or just sat idle. On top of this the banks are also syphoning off large sums to their foreign owners and investors (eg HBSC, Santander etc).

Thus money is being withheld or removed from the economy.

Money put back into the hands of the consumers would put cash into the economy, and would generate spending and growth.

Of course, above a certain level, there is a danger of it then transforming from growth and into inflation, and spiralling out of control, which would be unwanted, and is why it needs to be a moderate amount.

We all know, that really there is enough legislation and case law etc to make it obvious what the just, lawful and proper outcome should really be.

That by rights, if the law is allowed to follow it's proper just course, to the letter of the law, then all money ever taken from everyone ever, should be refunded without question and also without the need to ask.

We know this, the Banks know this, the OFT know this, and the government know this, but the overriding economic implications, would prompt the government to step in and prevent this from just happening.

However such intervention cannot be seen to be overtly obvious or it would completely dissolve peoples faith in the law. So they really are between a rock and a hard place.

[Gez]

All this would mean that Mr Justice Smith must be being handled in some way.

I can't see that being the case.

[jake44]

Bank of scotland also changed charges !! Now £15 fee instead of £35 - £39 There must be something going on . ? Why change now I would have thought they would have waited on the judgement , its like admitting that they have been overcharging for so long. Fingers crossed x

[JonCris]

The reason is that they can now afford to reduce their penalty charges as they have had plenty of time afforded by the OFT case to introduce a whole new raft of 'service' charges which more than make up for what they might lose

 

I strongly suspect that these new 'service' charges will produce even bigger profits then the infamous penalty charges ever did.....after all someones gotta pay for their world-wide monumental cock-ups as well as their sheer greed

[star_scream]

I also smell a rat!

 

OFT: tell you what, bring charges down to £15, and we will ensure that it becomes legislation ( somehow) and then all you have to do is repay charges less £15. The poor punters ( who we don't really care about anyway) will be glad that after nearly a year , they will finally get summat back anyway. And you save millions.

 

cynical moi?

[breeze1996]

is this for credit card charges or bank charges?

[UK26]

Bank Charges has there has already been a rule that all credit chard companies must not charge no more then £12.50 if i'm correct?

 

Regards

 

Dave

[Bookworm]

It's £12 and it's not a "rule".

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842a.pdf

[mailmannz]

I think we are mostly in agreement Photoman...and I certainly stand to regain nearly £1000 in bank fee's once the banks lose their case!

 

However the judiciary has time and time again proven it is beyond the grasp and control of the Government. As I have maintained all along, the only thing that will lose this case for us will be the OFT's borderline performance during the hearing.

 

Mailman

[Ladidi]

Bank charges ruling due on Thursday | Money | guardian.co.uk

[Guest vortex]

Confirmed by the OFT themselves as well. Thursday will be an interesting day and no doubt appeals will be forthcoming whoever loses the first round.

[stonedecroze]

Director of Finance Online - Bank charges verdict issued this week

 

Verdict to be handed down on thursday ??????

 

 

Has anyone else heard anything about this ??

[Guest vortex]

Yes it has been confirmed by the OFT

Guardian and Mail also have the story

[tifo]

Here Bank charges judgement to arrive on Thursday: OFT case | This is Money

 

Bank charges decision on Thursday

Simon Lambert, This is Money

21 April 2008

 

The long-awaited decision in the bank charges case against major High Street banks will be delivered on Thursday.

The Office of Fair Trading has confirmed that a judgement will be passed down on April 24th on the case which aims to decide whether unauthorised overdraft charges fall under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

 

The test case will not decide whether overdraft charges are fair or not, instead it will establish whether banks' terms and conditions can be assessed for fairness by the OFT, under the Unfair Terms regulations.

 

Claims by those who argue the charges are unfair have been put on hold since the case was announced last summer, after the FSA granted a waiver allowing banks to postpone considering complaints.

 

Banks were estimated to have paid back almost £800m worth of fees in 2007. The case between the OFT and Abbey, Barclays, Clydesdale, Halifax Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Lloyds TSB, RBS NatWest and Nationwide Building Society began in the High Court in January.

 

Until today it was believed that a judgement would not be made until summer.

 

An OFT spokeswoman said Thursday should see a decision on whether the charges can be considered under the Unfair Terms regulations and the watchdog would then decide how to take its case on.

 

Banks have argued that their charges are not covered by the Unfair Terms regulations, which means they can be judged as unfair and thus unenforceable, as they are either a services integral to a current account, or are laid out in plain and intelligible language and so excluded.

 

The OFT blasted these claims that charges are a service, and says not only do bank charges fall under the Unfair Terms regulations, but that banks are actively encouraging customers to go into unauthorised overdrafts by claiming this is a service and then hitting them with unclear charges.

 

Despite the freeze on customers reclaiming charges, banks have continued to levy fees of £15 to £30 per time or more on those who go overdrawn without permission, while also imposing daily charges and high interest on balances.

[tifo]

we know that whichever side loses will appeal anyway ...

[Bookworm]

So much for it being kept under wraps until the judge handed judgment then!

[steven4064]

Guardian story Bank charges ruling due on Thursday | Money | guardian.co.uk

[star_scream]

Should the judge decide that the banks’ current T&Cs can be assessed for fairness, the OFT will then be able to make this assessment. We understand the OFT has already started this process so that the issue can be resolved swiftly should they win the test case.

 

I can see my prediction in post 181 coming true!

[Guest vortex]

News of a judgement and the actual judgement itself is simply 2 different stories. News that is it being given does not state what the judgement will be. Remember, the judgement goes to the Banks on Wednesday 24 hours prior to judgement. I know I am being picky there but it is a moot point.

[Guest vortex]

There will immediately be appeals against any judgement given so do not expect this to be the end of the battle, it is merely the beginning of it.

[star_scream]

I would have thought the judge or FSA would find it difficult to keep the waiver in place if the judgement went against the banks though

[Guest vortex]

They wouldn't on the basis of an appeal by either side.