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

[GuidoT]

Bank charges announcement to be made by OFT - Telegraph

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/12/oft-to-drop-bank-charges-case?utm_source=mainsite&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box

[Bigmac versus]

OFT should have stayed out of this and by their actions have cost consumers a fortune in reclaiming their charges which I now feel is finished. Justice never stood a chance.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Sky news sources are reporting OFT will not pursue banks regarding unauthorised overdraft charges.

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Business

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited December 22, 2009 by TheyrCriminals

[robnfc]

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has decided not to take any further court action over the fairness of bank overdraft charges. Last month the Supreme Court ruled that the OFT could not use a part of the unfair consumer contract regulations to decide if bank charges were unfair.

However, the OFT said it still had "significant concerns" about the way banks operate current accounts.

It said "fundamental change" was still needed in the interests of customers.

"The OFT has concluded that any investigation it were to continue into the fairness of current unarranged overdraft charging terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) would have a very limited scope and low prospects of success," the OFT said.

"Given this, it has decided against taking forward such an investigation."

'Voluntary agreement'

Banks levy charges amounting to £2.6bn each year on their overdrawn customers.

The government said it still wanted the banks to agree a fairer and clearer way of charging customers in the future.

"We're working towards a voluntary agreement with the banks, but we don't rule out further action if this doesn't deliver the kind of changes we expect to see," said a Treasury spokesman

"Through the Financial Services Bill we are legislating to give consumers greater powers and protection for the future, including the ability to take a group action through the courts wherever there is mis-selling or abuse on the parts of banks," he added.

Supreme Court ruling

The banks and the OFT first agreed to stage a legal test case in July 2007, to decide if the OFT had the powers to rule on the fairness of bank charges.

A consumer campaign on the issue had led to hundreds of thousands of complaints which threatened to swamp the UK legal system.

But after the High Court and Appeal Court sided with the OFT, the Supreme Court turned the tables.

The five judges did not rule on the issue of fairness itself.

They decided that the parts of the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) that the OFT was trying to invoke did not, in fact, give it the powers it thought it had.

The judges said that overdraft charges were part of the price that customers agreed to pay for the package of services their banks provided, and as such were excluded from the scope of the regulations.

 

 

ok any chance of the new letter now

[royboy68]

So they are now going to report on the progress at the end of March. What good is that to anyone. They have had two and half years already.

[GuidoT]

OFT announces decision and next steps on bank charges - The Office of Fair Trading

[robnfc]

reading the supreme court letter advising cases will be stayed for people to amend their claims and also the confirmation that the oft are going to do sod all, what about people who dont have claims in yet , can we crack on now and if so has the newly revised charges letter been completed.

 

ta

Edited December 22, 2009 by robnfc

[Docman]

If the Banks had taken one case to court when the campaign started, they may have won quickly and hardly anyone else would then have claimed. Consumers would have taken the usual British action of total inertia ad accepted that they had to pay these charges. Now, the campaign has energised consumers not just against bank charges but other forms of excesss by the banks. With the power of the internet, consumers wll also have the tools to take on the banks and win.

 

The OFT decision is no surprise. All three consumer champions (OFT, FSA & FOS) have ignored their remit and arranged matters for the banks. The OFT's action of restricting their action to one narrow area was irresponsible and the Supreme Court went as far as it could in pointing them in the right direction.

 

The organisation's climb down is predicatable. Just go back to July 2007. The banks had been paying out at the door of the court, arguing that it wasn't commercially sensible to defend one action. Only when the extent of their collective pay outs (£1 BILLION) was about to become known with the publication of the banks financial statements, did action happen. The OFT, the banks and the FOS all lined up as instructed by the FSA, made the announcement of the court action on Thursday evening along with the waiver from the FSA and roll over by FOS. On Friday morning the court actio started. Over the following wk the banks announced thier individual financial results showing the amount of thir cooective largesse. Their argument that it was not commeially sensible to defend a claim was laid bare.

 

Why the FSA? Well, as well as a consumer chapion role, one of its statutory objectives is to protect the financial markets,ie the banks. It was the ONLY organisation which would have had advanced knowledge of the collective position of the banks from their financial accounts.

 

Well, what now. I for one am of the view that whole lot of them (OFT, FSA & FOS) are no longer fit for purpose and should be scrapped. Consumers can take on the banks and win. WE DO NOT NEED THE FSA, OFT & FOS!!

[srfrench]

Well.........half to be expected really wasn't it?

 

I believe the OFT have now given the Consumer Groups carte blanche to return the fight where it should have continued in the first place. I strongly feel that flooding the Courts again will not only force the Banks hands but force a lame Government to pull it's finger out and instigate legislation immediately rather than having numerous inquiries and market studies before handing it across to the OFT, FSA FOS et al.....to totally cock-up through lack of funds / lack of knowledge / lack of power due to the inept handling of the regulations from the EU Courts.

 

On the other hand....why so many regulators?

 

Why can't they all be merged under one title / one roof and with funding from the Government direct with NO link to Govenment will. I would also propose that they staff themselves with some of the best legal financial talent out there to police it.

 

But....hey!....who's going to listen to a rant?

 

I'm now awaiting the opinion of the CAG mods and the docs from Cox QC to amend and re-initiate my claim. I'm furious of the regulatory bodies and this lame Government and I'l............sorry ranting again......

[emandcole]

Lame, lame, lame but yes, completely anticipated by us all. Ok, on the positive side there are now no barriers to a flood of claims once the new argument is complete. Let's hope the new strategy will be as strong as I believe it initially sounded.

 

As for working with the banks to ensure fairness in the future isn't that daft? The banks have just 'won', effectively meaning they can in theory go back to charging whatever they want, with a little extra too to claw back the payouts they already made. What can the FSA do? Squat.

 

"£90 for an unauthorised overdraft? Yes...very reasonable" I can hear them all saying, "We'll even send them a glossy pamphlet with their letter".

 

Not like anyone can complain about it now is it?!

[Seminole]

I was always of the opinion that the OFT test case and the OFT waiver smacked of an establishment stitch up and I was right. I know hindsight is great but I was saying this when the OFT announced it was going to take action but even I didn't appreciate the cynicism of pursuing a case that was so badly defined that it was likely to fail when many other options were open to them.

 

Personally I hope loads of Caggers now amend their claims and launch new ones on the basis of the amended POCs. The banks are in a better position to bully people but I doubt if they will want to fight us on the small claims track.

[Seminole]

Lame, lame, lame but yes, completely anticipated by us all. Ok, on the positive side there are now no barriers to a flood of claims once the new argument is complete. Let's hope the new strategy will be as strong as I believe it initially sounded.

 

As for working with the banks to ensure fairness in the future isn't that daft? The banks have just 'won', effectively meaning they can in theory go back to charging whatever they want, with a little extra too to claw back the payouts they already made. What can the FSA do? Squat.

 

"£90 for an unauthorised overdraft? Yes...very reasonable" I can hear them all saying, "We'll even send them a glossy pamphlet with their letter".

 

Not like anyone can complain about it now is it?!

 

If you want to know what banks are like when they win I can give you a personal example.

 

I recently went overdrawn on a business account. It's the first time I've incurred a bank charge in 8 years. It was completely my fault and I accept responsibility. The amount overdrawn was just over £2 for three days. The bank decided that this meant that it could charge me £88.

 

The banks did win a definate victory on the penalty charges issue in the High Court and, as part of the stitch up, the OFT didn't appeal when it could have won. This has closed the door to most business account claims (at least for the time being). The response from the banks is that they can now screw small businesses even more. No doubt they will now try to take precisely the same approach to personal accounts and ordinary consumers,

[plshelp!]

It is very lame. I have been through really rough year, reclaimed in November just before test case result and had repayment on a business account which was for £1500, this was paid after the test case result. I was advised by my business manager to take this action.

 

I also put in a hardship claim to which I didn't expect a reponse but shock, I received an offer on 10th December for 3k, ran to post office with response obviously accepting thinking xmas may be back on in a small way, would help to clear some arrears.

 

Little did I realise my area manager had other ideas, scrooge at Natwest, as I will name him here, said no, even though he himself states he has nothing to do with the hardship claims , he has no interest in paying any further money to me. He didn't even realise I had an offer in writing ! he blocked the payment yesterday and they now say due to my attitude it has been withdrawn. It seems that even an offer in writing can now be pulled from under our noses.

 

Just another example of the now all powerfull banks !

 

Merry Xmas Natwest !

[kennyh]

I'm now awaiting the opinion of the CAG mods and the docs from Cox QC to amend and re-initiate my claim.

moi aussi

[mailmannz]

To be fair to the OFT, the Supreme Court is already starting to raise eye browes over some of its rulings...and its only been in place for 5 minutes!

 

Back to reality, yes the OFT has shown themselves to be the clowns a lot of people thought they were as far back as the end of the first day of the very first test case!

 

The reality is, the banks will do f8ck all to back down now as they will be agueing from a position of strength, while the OFT will have f8ck all to barter with or power to force change.

 

Sadly this means you and I and everyone will continue to be right royally screwed by the banks as they now know they can legally do what ever they want.

 

Mailman

[kennyh]

Seminoles got it right

Personally I hope loads of Caggers now amend their claims and launch new ones on the basis of the amended POCs.

[mailmannz]

It seems that even an offer in writing can now be pulled from under our noses.

 

Just another example of the now all powerfull banks !

 

Merry Xmas Natwest !

 

I guess the good news is that you have the offer in writing. Seek legal advice mate, you may have a very good case here simply because they put the offer in writing.

 

Mailman

[082stewie]

Couldn’t agree more Seminole and Emandcole!!! The rat started to pong ages back, every statement made by the OFT was double edged. When all comments made were all about charges going forward, nothing about historic charges. The game was up.

 

And of course the banks knew the outcome way before anyone else. Two cases won by the OFT and they push for a 3rd and bought 2yrs of time. The game plan was set-out at the start of the test case. If they had lost in the Supreme Court I have no doubt we would now be sitting with the European High courts. The OFT should have let customers re-claim from the start accepting "good will" offers.

Amazing how the stay was granted to free up the courts. Imagine what the courts will be like now! The OFT is scared of the costs in pursuing the case. I don’t think they realise what the cost to the Tax payer will be to service each claim in the courts.

 

I believe the figure of 2.3billion a year made by banks on charges is low and should be closer to £5 billion. But we will never know as they don’t have to disclose the true costs or profits. And of course it’s a fine/penalty. What are they snorting to think otherwise!

 

The OFT should have given up the ghost ages back and allow class action cases to take place. I do feel this is the way forward. Mass class action legal’s brought against each bank with let’s say 10 000 claims per case at a cost of £50 per person, that’s 500grand a pop, and with over 1.2million people with stayed claims, that’s real power in numbers for sure! Even if only half decide to join a class action campaign it would buy the best money could buy.

 

The waiting game starts again, waiting to see how the few brave souls get on with David and Goliath scenario.

 

I hope we stick together on this one. As mentioned before, we shall all fight together or surely we will hang alone.

[EricTheRed]

THE OFT BOTTLES IT

 

This is an absolute disgrace. The OFT despite being championed as the custodian of consumer protection have not listened properly to the voice of the consumer.

 

I’ve written to my MP, The Prime Minister and Lord Phillips. As soon as I get a response I’ll post it here.

 

“As you are probably aware that the Office of Fair Trading has decided not to take any further court action over the fairness of bank overdraft charges.

 

The Supreme Court ruled last month that overdraft charges were part of the price that customers agreed to pay for the package of services their banks provided, and as such were excluded from the scope of the regulations.

 

Could you please therefore let me know who you think would be responsible in deciding whether or not unauthorised overdrafts are fair? In the Supreme Court case the five judges did not rule on the issue of fairness itself. They decided that the parts of the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) that the OFT was trying to invoke did not, in fact, give it the powers it thought it had.

 

I am of the opinion that the charges are unfair and I am sure the banks are of the opinion that they are fair.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours sincerely”

[srfrench]

Um......on a little note of worry here.

 

I have just been on the phone with the wife of a friend who like me is in the process of claiming his charges back since 2006.

 

He was admitted this morning to hospital after an apparent failed suicide attempt and wanted me to assist in trying to get his mind into a more positive attitude. It really only became clear in the phone call how badly in debt they were despite the "help" of lessened re-payment terms from the Banks.

 

To say I'm unbelievably shocked is an understatement. I know you can't directly blame the Bank in this instance (in all fairness) but would feel it's their policies and attitude that have have led vulnerable people down this route.

 

Well I'm off to do my best for a friend.....

[car2403]

Um......on a little note of worry here.

 

I have just been on the phone with the wife of a friend who like me is in the process of claiming his charges back since 2006.

 

He was admitted this morning to hospital after an apparent failed suicide attempt and wanted me to assist in trying to get his mind into a more positive attitude. It really only became clear in the phone call how badly in debt they were despite the "help" of lessened re-payment terms from the Banks.

 

To say I'm unbelievably shocked is an understatement. I know you can't directly blame the Bank in this instance (in all fairness) but would feel it's their policies and attitude that have have led vulnerable people down this route.

 

Well I'm off to do my best for a friend.....

 

The positivity in the message you need to give him is to get on to CAG, ASAP...

 

Sadly, I think we will lose some folk - those who have never posted, or have simply came here to follow the trials and tribulations of those that are going down the route of reclaiming - plus there's the risk that there are a lot of other people in the same boat as your mate. It's our cause now to get the message out there that this isn't the end, we're not even half way through, to my mind.

 

In these times of financial hardship, its the coming together of like minded folk that will get those in the hardest situations through it.

 

Go, now, spread the word, and watch CAG grow as a result.

 

[kennyh]

'Give us the tools......'

Well at least give us some tools beit SOGASA or CCA; some of us will try and some will lose but the banks will back off in some cases in which case many could win.

[ncf355]

What we need is to get a real, substantial fighting fund together

 

Across CAG, PC, MSE and "The Dogs" there are so many members this ought to be a cinch

 

If everyone gave what they can afford?

[plshelp!]

I guess the good news is that you have the offer in writing. Seek legal advice mate, you may have a very good case here simply because they put the offer in writing.

 

Mailman

 

Thanks, I have left message for solicitor this morning and the FOS have taken up the complaint, not that they have much power to wield.

It seems I have an old school area manager that believes he is in some way related to god and what he says in the bank goes. If he was anywhere near to god as he believes, surley he could turn Natwest or RBS around, oh hang on he's been there a while so he helped manage them into the mess ! He keeps telling me I should be gratefull for his actions !!!!! says enough in my book !

[plshelp!]

Forgive me if I am being nieve here my email shows a message from 'yourbank' which I cannot see on the forum. It states 'good teamwork'. Can you clarify yourbank, is this directed at my post and if so, why is it not in the forum ?