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

[JonCris]

They seldom went 'either' way because rather than face claimants in a straightforward fight they refused knowing they would almost certainly lose

 

Now since the belated intervention of the OFT & the FSA ruling which can hardly, even by the banks most avid supporters, be described as balanced the banks have saved many, many millions in refunds & continue to impose their obscene charges one way or another namely under the guise of service charges

 

While all of this continues more & more are being pushed into even greater debt. Also despite their being an agreed moratorium on claiming bank charges the banks still continue with their recovery actions in the full knowledge that many of them include just such charges

 

The fairness & balance expected from our so called regulators does not exist as they are a sham

 

I recall the response of the FSA boss when NR 1st showed it had problems. He blamed the savers who risked losing their money & pensions for not making sure the banks investments had been secure In other words he believed that consumers should understand what an SPV was .......bleeding idiot...........needless to say the interviewer jumped on that remark

Edited August 23, 2008 by JonCris

[yourbank]

JC, could the OFT have applied for a moratorium or applied for an injunction on all banks to prevent charges while the process was going on?

What would the OFT basis in law be?(I know you are legally trained and therefore would be able to answer it better than a layman). Is there precedents that could have been used to back up the injunction if it was possible at the start of the process?

[JonCris]

No they could not have ordered or demanded a moratorium but as their decision was of considerable benefit to the banks they could, to offer balance, have 'requested' the banks stop imposing penalty charges.

 

However had they done so & the banks, as to be expected, had refused it would at the very least shown the banks to be tossers & to a great extent the FSA to be as much use as a chocolate teapot & the farce it is & always has been

[yourbank]

So, did the OFT had no legal basis for asking for an injunction while the test case was on going? Is that right?

[JOSH_IOU]

lol the government had no legal basis for asking an injunction?

There the elected bodies of parliment..

[djgordyp]

No they could not have ordered or demanded a moratorium but as their decision was of considerable benefit to the banks they could, to offer balance, have 'requested' the banks stop imposing penalty charges.

 

However had they done so & the banks, as to be expected, had refused it would at the very least shown the banks to be tossers & to a great extent the FSA to be as much use as a chocolate teapot & the farce it is & always has been

 

Or they could have agreed and then just called them something else or come up with some new way of fleeceing us.

[JonCris]

The OFT like the FSA is NOT the government. Its a regulator that is formed as a limited company. one the idiot Browns ideas

 

Yes if they had made a ruling similar too that for credit cards they could have applied to the court for an injunction which the banks would probably have appealed but no effort was made to try & be balanced. As the banks have completely ignored that part of the FSA ruling which is of no benefit to them ie hardship claims, the ruling should be scrapped

[yourbank]

I am getting lost, JC, which part of the FSA ruling?

[JonCris]

the bit that says they can suspend settlements but should still consider payment to those suffering hardship which of course they are ignoring

[yourbank]

You mean this one? Annex 2 I believe.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/disp_monthly.pdf

 

Even though there is evidence on another site that LloydTSB ARE paying out on hardship claims? I agree on the whole though that the waiver and the poor definition of what hardship actually is, was absolutely appalling on the part of the FSA.

[JOSH_IOU]

We no whats going to happen there going to cap the charges.

Like they did with the credit cards.

 

But even then we can still carry on with our claims.

Think of the interest.

[JOSH_IOU]

We still have this culture of capping things broght in by the government to make it ok.

 

Lloyds tsb are ignroing claims of hardship that are sent to branches and are giving responses like the following.

 

[InformedSearcher]

Heck, a lot to address after a couple of days....

JonChris and JoshIOU kind of sum quite a lot of my feelings up on the sunject. I do have to address the reply to me in the thread though and make some comments.

In theory we all all 'hardship' cases but viewed differently upon vague definitions. Let me suggest adifferent way to consider my 'cahoots' suggestion and that is pure 'convienience' for all. Prior to the FSA 'stay' being put into place people who received a refund got 100%. It's obvious that since that banks (HSBC in my case) have changed their wording etc. to make it seem like 'agreed but unqualified overdrafts'. After all theis, whenever there will be a charge and I doubt anyone would dispute that. With that in mind I'm non too sure say for Credit Cards the £12 was really correct though because even making profit on an automated system costs a £6 fee might be more apt. Financial institutions currently continue to charge the 'same' fees for unauthorised overdrafts probably reserving those fees into interest bearing services within their own communities.

Prior to the 'stay' there was a notable 'quickly mentioned' radio 4 comment of a large group of people who took them to court. At the court the banks' legal people turned up handing out cheques to all concerned so ending that 'mass' case. Amazing how so fast the FSA issued their instructions.

If I go back to hardship cases then if say a bank credits a person with the full amount (which they would) and the court case finally says there's a fee (which they probably will) then what happens to the rest of us? We get refunds minus the new fees or total refunds and start agan from day 1 with new fees? That case alone would be unfair as 'hardship' vs 'non-hardship' must be equal.

What should have been a simple procedure seems now to be getting very complex. You cannot have 2 tier refunds and just when are these fees going to run back to? In my case for example we are well into 7 years so will the 6 year rule be lifted? I'd bet the FI's are deleting over 6 year data so whatever happens they'll have still made a lot from the past. We must not forget that prices have risen over that time so the older the fee effectually the FI's made more (Ill-gained) profit from those same fees.

In closing if I go back to the 'liasons' between government bodies and FI's and the fact their people will be ex-banking employees in many cases. You can imagine the situation as they all sit comfortably chatting about how best to do this both short and long term. None of us should forget that it's 'our' money they have and basically removed it first before telling us in what still is a 'matter of factly' way. Their argument was simply, 'Look at you T&C's' and when the going got rough and they were being challenged decided to go through the 'treacle speed' courts!

Michael

[djgordyp]

I don't know if there is a problem with the forum or what. On both this laptop I'm on at the moment, and my desktop pc this theadi's showing more pages than there actually is. It is reporting 1,162 posts (same as last night) and 59 pages. For some reason I can't get beyond page 58. The last post I can see on page 58 was at 9.01 this morning.

Does anyone know, is there a problem or is it something to do with pemissions or privilages

 

EDIT Just checked and the top ight of this ost says 1,158 but the index says 1,163. Has anyone else noticed this?

Edited August 24, 2008 by djgordyp

[car2403]

I have the same issue - I'll let the site team know.

[Rooster-UK]

I am going to post this in the thread but sending you a PM just in case you can't access.

 

I have just had a look at the thread and it appears to be OK, to me.

 

I suggest that you log out.

Clear your cookies then log in again.

That will often cure peculiarities.

 

Regards, Rooster.

[yourbank]

Rooster there are 5 posts from this thread either unapproved or deleted. I think that is what car and djgoryp. Thread when I post says page 58 yet there is page 59 which I am not allowed to access. Nothing to worry about guys.

 

EDIT: it was at the time I started this post, lol

[car2403]

Maybe this thread should be combined with this one?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/155837-oft-bank-charges-q.html

[JOSH_IOU]

I think the banks are asking for more information simply to see what you have coming in and going out.

 

They will use this information to see if you can aford to pay them any more charges (in my opinion)

 

I do not think there is any more to this than that. If they wanted to help us out they would of put us in touch with a debt recovery or citizens advice company. (if you read the pdf posted above)

 

The fact that they apear to be doing this themselves and giving us another leg to stand on means in my opinion of course that they are shunning the responsibility of the complaint to other authorities.

 

Branches are there to signpost complants rather like citizens advice and the business link.

 

They can however deal with errors they have made themselves.

And of course there youre first point of call if you want to pay cash in.

Many people use the ATM's these days for other things such as paying in money.

 

HSBC have the facility in newcastle upon tyne to deposit money via the ATM. IS this a trial thing or is it widely used?

[jowalshy]

Our HSBC has had an ATM that accepts deposits. Its inside the branch though so you can only use it if the bank is open.

[MARTIN3030]

Maybe this thread should be combined with this one?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/155837-oft-bank-charges-q.html

 

 

 

The update is prob best left as a standalone-because they will likely get bogged down with original content still ongoing.

Besides-the updates are really for those who are already versed on the earlier content-so makes sense to leave.

[car2403]

HSBC have the facility in newcastle upon tyne to deposit money via the ATM. IS this a trial thing or is it widely used?

 

HBOS have been doing that for a while - in fact, because of the type of account I have, (Cardcash, because I was sooooo overdrawn with overdraft fees!) I can only pay cash in via a deposit machine now...

 

Don't use an ATM to pay in, as it isn't funded to the account immediately - these deposit machines actually count the cash, then pay it in immediately, so it becomes available funds straight away. ATM's have to be cleared out, deposits checked, then paid in, which can take a while.

[JOSH_IOU]

 

Don't use an ATM to pay in, as it isn't funded to the account immediately - these deposit machines actually count the cash, then pay it in immediately, so it becomes available funds straight away. ATM's have to be cleared out, deposits checked, then paid in, which can take a while.

 

Your correct to draw attention to this point I think were gearing towards customer service in the branch for business users only.

 

Is this the end of free banking? and the future of banking?

Car is there a limit to how much you can deposit or is it a case that you cant deposit at the cashier counter?

[car2403]

Is this the end of free banking? and the future of banking?

Car is there a limit to how much you can deposit or is it a case that you cant deposit at the cashier counter?

 

Frankly, I don't care about free banking - I'd be happy to pay a fee if (and that's a big if) I get a decent service for the fee.

 

There's a limit of 50 notes per deposit, but you can use the machine over and over again - I often pay in more than £1000 in £20 notes, so it's possible.

 

HBOS will only allow those with "value added" accounts, (i.e., those that you have to pay for, or pay so much in to have the fee waived, etc) to pay in over the counter.

 

Having said that, I have been allowed to use the counter if the machine is on the blink - but that was after the Customer Service Rep tried, twice, to make the deposit for me, then said "oh, the machine isn't working, so you'll have to pay in over the counter" and went on to queue with me to tell the cashier to accept the payment. (Which the cashier promptly did - meaning it is possible for this account to be paid in over the counter, but HBOS frown on it)

 

I can just see it now, as it would be a great advertising coup for the first Bank to use it, "24 hour counter service available at every branch" - but the 24 hour bit is provided by deposit/ATM machines, rather than "real" people. (If you can call them "real"!)

[sparky2005]

:)Hiya

 

This is the first time i have been on here, I have some bank charges and overdraft charges and i haven't even got an overdraft because they refused me one. Can we go ahead and get these charges back or are we still wasiting for the OFT. Also can i claim back charges when the bank have already paid some last time?