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

[kennyh]

I shall join in the rejoicing so long as the OFT take into account the actual cost of charges as shown by the Yorkshire Bank expose and so long as the reduced charge rates are backdated -fat chance of that happening. Also be interesting to see whether 'they' entertain interest charge refunds on the difference between the new, presumably lower, charges and those levied by the banks. We really do need something less than the £12 employed by the CC companies.

[kennyh]

D1cky -When you do get your cheque through the door (and I hope it is quick) don't forget those on CAG that helped make it possible!

[kennyh]

Welcome to the wonderful world of unfettered computer systems AJ

[kennyh]

Gizmo - nice to see a name that's helped me in the past. I just don't have time to watch a vid that has clearly generated the amount of dirision on show but, I wonder, how do you see the time line playing out when we can at least go for the jugular on unreasonable costs. Are the banks going to the House of Lords?

[kennyh]

Bigmac - did the OFT illustrate how they arrived at the CR Card figure? If so I, for one, would like to see how they arrived at it. If they didn't would the 'workings' have 'Commercial in Confidence' stamped all over them to keep them away from our prying eyes?

[kennyh]

Fair enough, we'll have £12 set as the limit and I am sure everyone on CAG will not sue their banks. Right?

We ARE still using the basic argument that OFT can fix whatever figure they like (as with the CC companies)-Yes ? But we then deploy the argument that OFT word is NOT law and then invite the offending parties to "show and tell" which, of course they don't. This remains the case - yes?

[kennyh]

The only issue will be where the other Banks don't accept the analysis of the "pilot"/"water testing" and challenge their own, end-to-end.

 

That's OK 'Car' - then one of us can 'invite' them to court for a 'show & tell' session!

[kennyh]

So unless a miracle occurs (Doubt very much that it'll be in my lifetime) we'll be back to "show and tell" in court; paralleling what we currently do with the cc charges - yes?

[kennyh]

But if wotever bank denies the existence of documentation (following an SAR) then, hopefully, they cannot deploy any residual documentation surreptitiously in later court actions - can they?

[kennyh]

Sorry Jon - I seem to have spent an inordinate number of my 67 years online but hadn't come across those instances - but if it happens to me then you can bet that an almighty stink will ensue with quotations from any denials that they have issued for the SAR!!

[kennyh]

Thanks Car; they know there's a loan & ppi involved so if the info isn't forthcoming I'll go after the Data Controller and distruction certification (if that's what they contend) before going after any pecunary satisfaction and I shall 'push' the non-compliance issue should it turn out that way.

[kennyh]

dragging it up to the House of Lords, the country's highest court

Surely they won't stop there with Europe to go at - YES I know, Yourbank, it's undoubtedly their God given right to appeal to anyone, anywhere, but I still believe these legal costs should be ringfenced, NOT funded directly or indirectly by Tax payers, and heavily challenged at AGM or even an EGM; really somebody within their tight boardroom circles should be held to account - heaven only knows they don't appear to have been to date!

[kennyh]

Guido- it's just not fair; this arriving on a Monday Morning an'all!!

[kennyh]

Hi Camdenite,

very good, and would be fun trying.

Just to be a 'tad' optimistic -

"and WILL be fun trying"!

[kennyh]

Page 101 won't come up - 'elp!!!

[kennyh]

an' i wos holding me breath too!!!

[kennyh]

There are a few I would commit to the firey furnaces

[kennyh]

The redoubtable Mr Crow

denied that victory for the OFT implied there would be a deluge of litigation in other industries where cross-subsidies were common in pricing tariffs.

Any idea which areas of finance might be covered by this rather broad statement?

[kennyh]

Talking of which - agroup of financiers is, I believe, a wunch of bankers

[kennyh]

Oh COME ON - we discarded 'fairness' generations ago!!

[kennyh]

Hi YB,

Unless you relish the 'swishing' sound of wrists being slashed I'd keep stumm! Even if OFT decree a level of fairness and it's greater than zero, it still won't be accepted by many and, hopefully, since the "OFT decision doesn't carry the weight of law" (or so I've been telling banks & CC agencies for years) we'll still challenge?

[kennyh]

OK, YB, they may have a 'right' but then we're straight into 'fairness'.

Question, will this OFT study for 'fairness' carry any more legal weight (which, as I understand it is nil) than the one they carried out on credit cards?

[kennyh]

Hi JonCris,

it costs them little about 41p if that Also the 41p I quote is for manual intervention so the cost of electronically rejecting payment must be infinitesimal

It's been some years since the beans of the Yorkshire Bank were spilled- is this figure from that exposure or from another source?

[kennyh]

Apart from dealing with inanimate objects eg. to negotiate the hazards on the road.... negotiation involves discussion with other concerned parties.

I don't necessarily accept that 'take it or leave it' is negotiation.

[kennyh]

The sole question is: is any particular charge (however much it is) intrinsically unfair? If the answer is "yes" then the charge is unfair and cannot be levied. If the answer is "no" then the charge can be levied and no enquiry may be raised as to the amount so long as the term is couched in plain intelligible language

OK folks - AND the answer is???