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

[HSBCrusher]

I guess it was inevitable the waiver would be extended.

 

I agree, I would have been exceedingly suprised if it wasnt.

[HSBCrusher]

NatWest historical terms are penalties - Official!!!

 

 

The Consumer Forums - Welcome to the The Consumer Forums

[PGH7447]

so what is this then?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/179335-bank-charges-claims-delayed.html

[barry_2008]

Be warned banks are sending in solicitors on claims as low as £500 be warned.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Don't really know where to begin with this one. I have a friend who has written to HSBC requesting his claim be considered for financial hardship under Annex 2 of the FSA revised guidelines, he ecnlosed proof of his financial situation. He was sent income/expenditure forms to complete which he returned two and a half months ago but hasn't heard anything back from them since. What is the best way forward for him.

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

[InformedSearcher]

Hmm, I think they must reply within 8 weeks maximum! Of course in reality they aer not really bothered as they'll simply say it was an oversight.

 

BTW in my own case I went to the ATM and the card was retained. That means they have effectively cut off any cash I could get and now I've now no way of getting any money! Quite shameful to say the least regarding HSBC but I'm sure they are not bothered in the slightest!

Michael

[Mr lex]

Hi TC

 

If the eight weeks are up, it's time to report them to the FOS.

 

This is easy, The procedure with the FOS is this;

 

Call them and explain briefly your situ-they will allocate you a complaint number.You can ask them to write to the Bank ...within a couple of days you will get a complaints pack from the FOS.In the meantime the Bank must respond to you following the FOS letter to them.

 

The complaints pack should be filled in and sent back to the FOS with any proof or docs.If you already have had a final response from the bank you can return it right away with a copy.

 

If the bank have taken adverse action while you are disputing the account,such as selling on debts defaulting or closing accounts-then this is in breach of banking codes criteria and also OFT guidance-you should complain about this too.

 

Many Courts are refusing to lift stays making decisions without hearings-its better to apply on notice using N244 and requesting a hearing-there is a charge but free for those who are eligible under fee remission.

Its advisable to submit the detailed waiver agreement which can be found on the OFT website.

 

I would also inform the FOS if the banks are opposing your lift of stay after you have made them aware you will be citing hardship.

 

Full details can be found here :-

 

our complaints procedure and how to complain

 

Hope this helps,

 

Lex

[jclancy]

Memo from the Banks - "Thanks for saving us, but we will fight for the right to be unfair, and use your money to do it!"

 

Professor David Bailey of the University of Birmingham Business School and I (John Clancy), a longstanding member of CAG, have just posted a joint Blog on Professor Bailey's highly influential and widely read Blog (which often crosses over onto the hard copy of the paper) on the Birmingham Post Website Business Blog called: 'Memo from the Banks - "Thanks for saving us, but we will fight for the right to be unfair, and use your money to do it!"'

It's here.

 

It makes the point that as we as taxpayers have bailed out the banks we are effectively now paying for all sides of the OFT 'test' case: all the lawyers for all 8 banks, the OFT's lawyers, the judges, the court staff, the expenses etc. Just for the banks to pursue a case that they are allowed to be unfair!

 

It argues that the government through UKFI (the body set up to protect the taxpayers' investments in the banks) should order the Banks and their huges teams of lawyers now effectively subsidised by the taxpayer, to drop the appeal against the High Court decision that their charges should actually be subject to the test of fairness.

 

It also argues that the banks should similarly be ordered as a matter of policy now (not legal argument) to return all bank charges which would involve a much needed boost of liquidity into the economy. The money to be used for bankers' bonuses can be used for the great bank charge payout.

 

It would be great to have CAGers here also comment on the Birmingham Post website on this rather hard-hitting campaigning approach with a new angle on the debate. Obviously feel free to reply here too!

 

Professor Bailey is a very well respected commentator and academic, it's great to have him on board.

 

I have also started a separate thread here. Sorry if that's not protocol: if any site moderators would like to either reposition this thread or place it where it will be seen by more viewers that would be great. A good number of comments in response to the blog on the Birmingham Post website would also be a coup for our campaign here, I think and help push the agenda forward.

 

John Clancy

Edited February 9, 2009 by jclancy
missed point

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Mr. Lex,

 

Thanks for the above post, very helpful.

 

TheyrCriminals

[choco]

Ok what is this the UTCCR argument? YOu may think its ignorant of me to not be reading to find out, but when your case has been ongoing for almost 2 years then maybe you'd understand. I have lost all enthusiasm and the initial adrenaline has been lost, I no longer log in every day and have this website open all day every day, I've had enough and I just feel so p-ed off to put it bluntly!

SO in a nutshell my understanding of this new development is that there's another defence for us being this the UTCCR argument? Someone please enlighten me as to what this means, even if just means forwarding a link to me, thanks.

[Mr lex]

The main throust of the arguments now relied on by claimants relates to the fact that the terms imposing the charges represent unfair terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

 

Nobody believes that it costs a bank £25 to £39 to return a DD, SO or cheque. It is purely a money making scheme, and a lucrative one at that - last year Which! estimated that the top 4 UK high street banks made £3 Billion from these charges alone. One in five bank customers incur these types of charge, and because its a bank imposing them, most assume that the bank must be legally entitled to do so.

 

An interview by Radio 4 with Peter McNamara in 2004 has been transcribed and is in the library. Peter McNamara had previously been the Head of Personal Banking at Lloyds. In his interview, he makes it clear that charges are used to fund free banking for the whole population.

 

The full argument for UTCCR can be found here, Section 4 (b)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html

 

Hope this helps,

 

Lex

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Choco,

 

I know it is a frustrating business all this but stay with it, even though it may take more time many believe, indeed as does Marc Gander believe, that the final outcome will be in favour of the consumer, although one can not say this for definite.

 

Let me try to explain the legal arguments for you. Ever since bank charge reclaiming began there have been two legal avenues for claimants to pursue. One is that these charges amounted to a penalty and therefore under common law (not statute) these charges would have been legally unenforceable so you could have claimed a refund. With the exception of Royal Bank of Scotland plc (owners of Natwest) the judge has found in favour of the banks on this point. As the OFT does not want to appeal on this point these charges therefore are not unenforceable penalties, so that particular legal avenue, for most, has been closed.

 

The second legal argument which only consumers can rely on is that these charges are unfair within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 or UTCCR's. These regulations were introduced to ensure more fairness for contracting parties. The judge found against the banks on this point back in April last year which meant the charges could be assess by the OFT for fairness. If there had been no appeal this would have meant the OFT reducing the charges to a more fairer level. However the banks were allowed to appeal. The appeal hearing concluded at the beginning of November last year and the judgement is still awaited. I don't think anyone really knows when the judgement will come through but I for one am waiting eagerly for it, to say the least, as Im sure millions of other people are.

 

Try not to be too disheartened and remember if you have put in a court claim there is a little bit of compensation for the wait - an increase in your statutory interest, which in actual fact for some is quite a lot of money.

 

Hope this has helped,

 

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited February 12, 2009 by TheyrCriminals

[choco]

Thanks to both for the above, very helpful, thanks.

 

I guess my statutory interest is some comfort, as the charges that I was initially claiming back would only have covered my overdraft; which I always sensibaly planned to pay back once I got my fat cheque from Higley (those were the days...!) So I guess now after 2years of waiting the statutory interest must be quite high, so once it's over at least I can treat myself. On that note I think I'll dig out my spreadsheet and see exactly how much the interest has risen to as of todays date!! ;-)

[Mr lex]

Hi Choco,

 

Please tell me you have filed you case at court ?

 

I say this on most bank charge threads I am subscribed to and don't think it will go amiss here for anyone who is just starting and who has just found this thread.

 

'' Remember there is a test case ongoing with the OFT over Bank Charges, when you start to send off your letters, they will probably try to tell you you can't claim because the case's are 'stayed' It is important that you ignore this and carry on, only the courts can put a 'stay' on your claim.

 

Although the banks have a ongoing test case with OFT there are a number of reasons why you should start to claim at court now.

 

Any older charges (coming up to 6 years) could be lost if you wait for the OFT case to end. Start your claim now and those charges are protected.

 

When the stays are finally lifted, you will be one of the first in the queue to get paid.

 

You get 8% interest.

 

While the banks are protected by the stays, we the consumer, have no such protection and charges continue to mount up.

 

For some people this may mean going into default. If it is clear that the default was made in respect of charges and that it was lodged after a charges claim was begun then these users have a really excellent chance of having it removed. ''

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Lex

__________________

[choco]

Hi Choco,

 

Please tell me you have filed you case at court ?

 

I say this on most bank charge threads I am subscribed to and don't think it will go amiss here for anyone who is just starting and who has just found this thread.

 

'' Remember there is a test case ongoing with the OFT over Bank Charges, when you start to send off your letters, they will probably try to tell you you can't claim because the case's are 'stayed' It is important that you ignore this and carry on, only the courts can put a 'stay' on your claim.

 

Although the banks have a ongoing test case with OFT there are a number of reasons why you should start to claim at court now.

 

Any older charges (coming up to 6 years) could be lost if you wait for the OFT case to end. Start your claim now and those charges are protected.

 

When the stays are finally lifted, you will be one of the first in the queue to get paid.

 

You get 8% interest.

 

While the banks are protected by the stays, we the consumer, have no such protection and charges continue to mount up.

 

For some people this may mean going into default. If it is clear that the default was made in respect of charges and that it was lodged after a charges claim was begun then these users have a really excellent chance of having it removed. ''

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Lex

__________________

 

Oh yes it's gone through all the stages, I was so close to getting my money, I basically was unfortunate as they just decided to do this stay business when I was due to get my payout!! I got my measley offer from higley and I turned it down!

I did appeal to have the stay lifted at the court back in Jan 2008 but I wrte back to the court telling them I didnt want to go ahead with it, because at that time everyone that was appealing was losing the case; it was clearly a time waster then, and a year on it's still the same thing!

[Aretino]

Is it still worth starting a claim? I have been stung this week for almost £260 of charges for last months oooopsies and then for 4 DD to Paypal which were returned unpaid, all of which were for less than £10

[car2403]

Is it still worth starting a claim? I have been stung this week for almost £260 of charges for last months oooopsies and then for 4 DD to Paypal which were returned unpaid, all of which were for less than £10

 

It sounds like you're suffering financial hardship, so maybe you should consider the FOS first, (get in a long queue) or even Court with an application to lift the inevitable stay for the OFT TC outcome on these grounds.

[bella mia]

Start a claim through the bank and IF you are experiencing hardship (as defined by the FSA waiver Terms) explain this to them and detail any arrears and details of your hardship, and if you can enclose a copy of your income/expenditure sheet. Having such high charges can be an indicator of hardship but won't consitute hardship on its own. The bank aren't obliged to pay out and should offer assistance in other ways, such as moving to a basic account, allowing repayment installments on overdrafts/loans etc. If they do offer a payment then you can accept as an interim measure and the remainder of the claim will be sorted at the end of the test case.

 

They should reply to you with a final decision on hardship status within 8 weeks.

 

If you aren't suffering hardship then yes, get your complaint into the bank but expect to wait a while.

[determindator]

There seems to be a problem with regulating Bank Bonuses and this is where we can assist the powers that be in this dilemma. As we now effectively own large percentages of the Banks and contributed to the coffers with extortionate charges taken from us, it's time to refund. There should be a marked difference in Bonuses next year if the right thing is done this year.

[InformedSearcher]

There seems to be a problem with regulating Bank Bonuses and this is where we can assist the powers that be in this dilemma. As we now effectively own large percentages of the Banks and contributed to the coffers with extortionate charges taken from us, it's time to refund. There should be a marked difference in Bonuses next year if the right thing is done this year.

 

With respect I think you'll find that these 'failures' by banks will not facilitate the moving forward of the court case. In fact it would seem all the more reason for the opposite as the same finanial institutions will say they cannot afford it. Of course the argument 'well you could when you did it' but alas whilst personally I need these funds desperately but the attitude of banks have not changed. I feel I'm (together with everyone else) going to be in the queue for a long time to come.

I've done two failed financial hardship claims already. I know that the FOS will back whatever the banks say so unless someone can suggest otherwise I'd feel it a bit of a pointless task to even bother with.

Michael

[determindator]

Don't you just laugh when they say they can't afford it! Have you seen the new Halifax advert, the one where they're giving out fivers, The advert costs a packet itself ,have they gone stark raving mad! Well, they all went mad many years ago so no change there then:-x

[djgordyp]

Don't you just laugh when they say they can't afford it! Have you seen the new Halifax advert, the one where they're giving out fivers, The advert costs a packet itself ,have they gone stark raving mad! Well, they all went mad many years ago so no change there then:-x

It's our money they're using, what do they care what it cost. They just ask for a price then write the cheque.

[InformedSearcher]

LOL The Halifax commercial - you need to read the fast moving bits at the bottom of the advert. I'm sure it says you have to pay in £1,000 a month......

Now sliding over to their web site 'spot' the overdraft 'con' (from their on-line details):

 

Do you know how much interest you pay if you go overdrawn? Not many people do, so we're keeping things simple. We'll use a fixed daily fee that's easy to track. Staying in control of your finances has never been simpler.

Arranged overdraft upto £2500 - £1 a day

Arranged overdraft over £2500 - £2 a day

UNarranged Overdraft - £5 a day

 

Swift calculation, so no fee but interest at 19.5% (keeping £1,000 overdrawn) for a whole year is, oh, £195. vs their (super duper) offer of £365 (at a £1 a day). Okay go to £2499 and it seems a great deal. Erm,what's the betting they have thought this up to avoid it being called unfair charges and fees? See even our blessed government probably thought that one up for them?

 

Let me turn my cynical mode off! LOL Sorry we have moved way off thread here.

Michael

[d1cky]

whats the latest news?

[389shell]

LOL The Halifax commercial - you need to read the fast moving bits at the bottom of the advert. I'm sure it says you have to pay in £1,000 a month......

Now sliding over to their web site 'spot' the overdraft 'con' (from their on-line details):

 

 

Lol! The thing that hit me when I first saw it was 'another bank following in the steps of RBS', it took all those staff on however much per hour to give each customer £5, there must have been about 50 of them. If it was me they were giving it to, I would have screamed at them, then pushed the top person off and watch the rest of them fall. They are blatently telling us that they are totally wasting any money given to them hmmmm, good market staff yer have there........

 

Let 'em rot!