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

[JonCris]

Being on benefits & having the bank nick most if not all of your money to pay their exorbitant charges Charges in many cases which have resulted in the debtor going overdrawn by ONLY a very few pence (66p in at least one case we know about)

[JOSH_IOU]

Well I am and if I paid all my charges then Id have no money to eat. And I wouldnt be able to pay half them off on the benefitsI am on.

[car2403]

To go back on topic

 

Please do

 

are you guys aware that the FSA are proposing that hardship claims are being defined as £500 worth of charges during the year? I have read this across other forums. The topic is interrelated as the OFT test case was the cause of the FSA waiver in the first place.

 

If that's right, we all need to amend our claims to include contractual interest and compound contractual interest at that - once that's in there, the majority of them would be over £500, I would have thought?

 

Can anyone substantiate this view? Where does it come from and how do we use it?

 

Currently, mine is based on 8% interest, but I haven't bothered with it for almost a year now because of the stay situation.

[yourbank]

with regards to hardship issue, can someone clarify if this is the right thread to continue on with this or should I start a new thread even though it is interrelated to The OFT test case?

[Bookworm]

I think maybe start a new thread. At some point, we'll need to wade through the 54 pages of this thread and split it between the stuff which is relevant to the case and which is not (I suspect that there's more mundane if not downright inane than germane in those 54 pages ) so that people who just want to know about the test case don't have to lose the will to live trying to work it all out, but maybe now would be a good time to start on that FSA stuff in a different thread, since I suspect it is going to stir up the debate. If you don't mind?

[yourbank]

thank you and will do.

[JOSH_IOU]

;)loose the will to live.

 

can you post the link to the thread?

 

And do ya moderation things that you do.?

[yourbank]

Josh, this is where I have put it, but will be subject to being moved http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/150075-fsa-hardship.html

 

....but I think this thread was talking about UTCCR 1999, there was an amendment in 2006 but it was a minor one about Water(cannot find the 2006 amendement to the regulation now that I want it).

[JOSH_IOU]

will have a look for the amendment ive pulled something else off one of the forums thats interesting. I will post it in there to.

[Aequitas]

...it was a minor one about Water.

 

It's here: Results within legislation - Statute Law Database

 

I found it yesterday when Josh aroused my curiosity

[JOSH_IOU]

Thanks aequitas

[matt_smith2000]

Hello

 

Just a suggestion, but after wading through all the off topic stuff, it occurred to me that rather than splitting the thread, (or even if the thread is split) why don't we have stickys that only the moderators can change that provide up to date information.

 

An example is the list of dates that Bookworm provided earlier in the thread. Really, stuff like that should be stand alone, and not part of a complex thread like this.

 

Only a suggestion, so don't shoot me down.........please

[Kinc]

In response to the 'hotel theory' that you have to pay for your room.

 

Quite right, however if the hotel charged everytime a person did not entered your room and prevented people entering your room and then charged you for the pleasure, you might get a bit poo'd off.

[JOSH_IOU]

In response to the 'hotel theory' that you have to pay for your room.

 

Quite right, however if the hotel charged everytime a person did not entered your room and prevented people entering your room and then charged you for the pleasure, you might get a bit poo'd off.

 

 

They do part of that already. Plus they may charge for outsode phone use internet useage by the hour and maybe extra coffee or tea. Depending on what package you charge. (I used to own a travel agent) :rolleyes:anything that pays.

 

If you goto a B& B they may charge you for extra Fruite now lets get into that.

[Kinc]

I might gain from your B&B experience, I only lose with my bank. They are clear cut winners what ever way you throw the dice.

 

I don't get Fruity loops, I get a bill.

 

I wouldn't mind if my oversights we're dealt with more understanding, however the present system favours the banks profit margin.

 

Check this - bank manager advises me not to take out an overdraft because it will cost £100 to set up, stupid me, listens, then works out I'm paying around £300 charges per year. Duhhh!! I was brought up to trust the bank, that's gone.

[photoman]

We all bestow upon banks and similar institutions they mantle of trust, much as we do to real official bodies, such as governments or councils.

After all, they handle all of our money, so they must be trustworthy ?

 

The fundamental flaw in this reasoning, is that they are not actually official bodies, nor accountable (to anyone but themselves) or reasonable (despite how they my represent themselves sometimes) and certainly not our friends.

 

They are not out to to help you, but instead they are just out to make profit.

 

They may appear to be helping you by offering you consolidation loans, or helping out with mortgages etc, but actually it is all just one big contrived plan to figure out and maximise all long term income from yourself.

 

Their trust is undeserved, diminished, and was actually unwarranted in the first place.

 

We all need to start looking at and questioning the small print, and asking whether we really want such megalomaniacal unelected corporations running our country and our lives.

[citizenB]

We all bestow upon banks and similar institutions they mantle of trust, much as we do to real official bodies, such as governments or councils.

After all, they handle all of our money, so they must be trustworthy ?

 

The fundamental flaw in this reasoning, is that they are not actually official bodies, nor accountable (to anyone but themselves) or reasonable (despite how they my represent themselves sometimes) and certainly not our friends.

 

They are not out to to help you, but instead they are just out to make profit.

 

They may appear to be helping you by offering you consolidation loans, or helping out with mortgages etc, but actually it is all just one big contrived plan to figure out and maximise all long term income from yourself.

 

Their trust is undeserved, diminished, and was actually unwarranted in the first place.

 

We all need to start looking at and questioning the small print, and asking whether we really want such megalomaniacal unelected corporations running our country and our lives.

 

 

Well said.

[carter56]

hello everyone just thought i would pop on and see where we are all up to. is it this week that a decision is going to be made or have i dreamt it.

linda

[JOSH_IOU]

today or tomorrow apparently

[brown1950]

Herewith latest news from the BBC :-

 

 

The High Court is hearing the latest stage of the case into the fairness of bank overdraft charges, by studying historic contracts.

Judge Mr Andrew Justice Smith will determine whether charges going back for years can be challenged.

The banks are set to appeal against his first ruling - that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can assess whether fees are unfair - by the end of 2008.

The current hearing is expected to last for three days.

Significant case

The OFT has been seeking legal confirmation that it can rule if bank overdraft charges of up to £35 are fair or not.

Eight banks, which provide about 90% of the UK's current accounts, have been keen to oppose this to protect the estimated £3.5bn a year of income they generate from charging customers who go overdrawn without permission.

Under pressure from hundreds of thousands of customers suing them for the return of their overdraft charges in the county courts, banks agreed to a High Court test case in two stages.

The first was on the authority of the OFT under consumer contract regulations. The second will be on the fairness of the charges themselves, which the OFT has been investigating since April 2007.

Tens of thousands of claims for the refund of bank charges have been frozen in the county courts since the test case was agreed.

Looking back

The current High Court hearing relates to whether overdraft charges levied historically can be assessed for fairness by the OFT.

The latest High Court hearing is expected to last for three days

 

 

The judge's initial decision - that the OFT did have the authority to consider fairness, which is being appealed against by the banks - only relates to current agreements between the banks and their customers.

The current hearing will consider fees from the banks' old terms and conditions for current accounts.

Meanwhile, the OFT is continuing its investigation into the fairness of overdraft fees and is expected to offer the banks its "preliminary views" by the end of July. The entire legal process is expected to last several more months.

[yourbank]

http://www.4stonebuildings.com/pdf/jonathan_crow.pdf

This is the QC for the OFT. The Doctor is not in charge of the case now.

[jansus]

Any other specific reports about what has happened today

 

I hear it was quite interesting?

[yourbank]

Jansus, I have heard that as well, but there are no press sources who have reported the case so far. PC have a report and I haven't checked MSE for their report on the days proceedings. No doubt there will be something on the news wires soon.

[JonCris]

http://www.4stonebuildings.com/pdf/jonathan_crow.pdf

This is the QC for the OFT. The Doctor is not in charge of the case now.

 

All very well & seems very qualified but who's side was he on particularly in the matters of Wilson v First County or Callery v Gray:confused:

[yourbank]

I can answer one out of two so far.

 

Mr Jonathan Crow (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State as Intervenor

Wilson v. First county.

 

will get the other one now.