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

[Bigmac versus]

And go where?

[Bigmac versus]

Ok got you, mass movement would be needed for anyone to take notice, would love to see that happen.

[Bigmac versus]

Regarding the waiver

 

In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse'

 

Many banks have changed their terms and conditions and terms such as fees are now being used instead of charges since the waiver was put in place isnt this a breach of the waiver?

Also another condition of that waiver was that they would keep customers informed of the test case, has anyone had any update from banks concerning this?

 

I wrote to the FSA and asked the following

 

How can I register my concerns that the FSA waiver has been breached by my bank as they have changed my terms and conditions amongst other things which have affected me. For the waiver to remain in place conditions were clear and concise for those firms that for the waiver to remain in place they have to abide by these conditions. This is a breach of those conditions in my opinion and should be investigated.

 

Their answer

A. In the course of our review the FSA found that a number of firms had changed their terms and conditions in relation to unauthorised overdraft charges. In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that t applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse'. The FSA will be closely monitoring how any changes made by a firm will affect customers in practice and whether this amounts to a breach of the waiver. In view of this, we welcome information from consumers which would highlight wider concerns of a firm's use of the FSA waiver. If you would like to provide us with further detailed information, I can assure you that concerns will be carefully considered in light of our regulatory responsibilities.

[Bigmac versus]

Yes a further call was made and I got the impression that it would help if there were a few complaints made regarding this.

 

What we need is a breakdown of each banks changes if any to their terms and conditions then for people who have been affected by this to either make a complaint or become part of a consumer complaint.

[Bigmac versus]

PM its the same with the CB.

£35 for returned D/D before the waiver (one off charge)

After the waiver still £35 but now called unauthorised borrowing also £25 per day after that untill cleared.

The judge on the test case did note that changes had been made to the terms and conditions with some banks since the waiver was in place but said he found them to be ok as they were a request for borrowing.

[Bigmac versus]

persuade the FSA to remove the waiver owing to the lack of progress being made in the test case.

 

Human rights issue could challenge that. (within a reasonable time)

[Bigmac versus]

This suggests to me that certain banks are afraid that a competition investigation might be set off by the OFT's fairness assessment of the charges. after all, that has always been a possibility even if the charges are found lawful, the fact the banks have been pretty much charged identical amounts of money for a "service" with very substantial markups suggests that they may be breaching european competition law.

 

100% agree, Ive always thought that could happen and this could be an attempt to distance thereself from such an investiagtion, too late i feel.

[Bigmac versus]

What is going to happen to hardship cases if they do not lift the waiver -

 

Hardship cases do not require the lifting of the waiver to be dealt with, if the bank refuses to deal with a hardship case then they are abusing the terms of the waiver and the Banking Code itself. A complaint to the FOS can and has made them reconsider the claim put to them. The problem we have regarding hardship cases is that there isnt any clear guidelines you need to meet to be considered and the banks are really left to decide if your case is of genuine harship. They only need to be sympathetic towards you which can be shown by way of a partial offer. Court claims made in respect of Hardship also hit the same problems in respect of what is regarded as hardship, the FSA have added to the confusion by giving some examples but these exclude many things i myself would consider hardship.

 

What about the banks abusing the terms of the waiver?

 

 

There has also been a lot of discussions on this very subject, i have written to the FSA regarding my banks conduct had a response and provided further information as the FSA have requested for them to investigate further.

There is also http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/146952-complain-fsa-about-misleading.html?highlight=complain+fsa

 

There is work going on behind the scenes in respect of how to proceed after this case which covers several outcomes.

[Bigmac versus]

copy

Edited March 5, 2009 by Bigmac versus

[Bigmac versus]

Will the OFT show how they calculate what would be deemed as a fair amount as im concerned they will just give another CC figure they themselves would take legal action at making the whole issue a joke.

 

This is the part that for me will be the proof in the pudding, lets see if the OFT have any teeth or are simply falling into line. I would love to know how they are going to investigate these charges and to see their reasoning for the figure they eventually arrive at.

 

When theres proof of some costs under £2.50, what would be a fair amount based on that information, would this now be the best time for consumers or forums to write to the OFT to give their views on whats fair whilst reminding them of whats already known.

[Bigmac versus]

By the banks actions of appeal on appeal it is fairly obvious they will stop ONLY when there are no further routes to take, they have stalled at every chance they have and will do nothing to speed this whole saga up. If they lose HOL and possibly EC they will fight, stall, and argue whatever amount the OFT say is fair, i wouldnt have believed at the start this would have taken so long and still with no end in sight. Surely with ALL that has been ruled on so far they expect to lose, surely they have been told so by their own legal team its a losing cause and it would be in the banks interest to pay now rather than risk further interest on these claims and that is the part I cant get my head round!

Why continue when that exact route will cost so much more in the end, is there a twist to come regarding all of this, it really wouldnt surprise me in the least. I would love this resolved this year with no deals behind closed doors but im waiting for it. The timescales and protection the banks have been given via the waiver have been scandolous, its a public enquiry thats needed to see whats been going on in all of this.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Bigmac versus

[Bigmac versus]

I also think they are simply incapable to accept defeat once and for all. For years and years, they arrogantly thought they were untouchable and it doesn't come easy to this type of characters to change attitude (look at Goodwin!).

 

Thats a giver however the only people who will lose due to limitations are those who HAVENT either filed at court, started a compliant with the FOS or indeed had their complaint registered with their bank as for these people time will stand still in respect of limitations, (thats a giver) I cant imagine that there are so many people out there with significant amount of charges who havent done anything, that is to say to make it that worthwhile for the banks to continue in this manner, it just dosent make sense.

 

 

Hiya been fed up with the whole bloody thing TBH.

[Bigmac versus]

Banks will never be transparent because they would be embarassed at the public seeing just how much they 'fleece' them. It's a shame when once banks were looked at as the epitaph of integrity and now quite the opposite.

Michael

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Its a disgrace to our intelligence that this test case is allowed to continue at this speed all in the name of justice.

[Bigmac versus]

As I understand it the banks are allowed to change their terms and conditions whilst the waiver is in place as long as they are not to the detriment of their customers. Im sure there have been very little complaints from customers to the FSA in respect of this so its hardly surprising that theres a lack of action from the FSA. IMHO irrespective of how many complaints were made they wouldn't take action, and thats probably why there have been so few complaints. Toothless comes to mind.

[Bigmac versus]

I have to laugh at the 'detriment' part.

Michael

 

If you laughed at that try reading below without laughing.

 

FSA's objectives

 

 

• market confidence
  
• public awareness
  
• consumer protection
  
• reduction of financial crime
  

 

 

Failed in all 4 then.

[Bigmac versus]

The banks deserve whats coming in my opinion, this situation didnt arrive overnight and has taken many years of risk taking and bad management but now we talk about bonus cuts and salary cuts for bankers. What about the years leading up to this when they were collecting kings ransoms in bonusses for supposed great profits, why shouldnt these payments be questioned, the MP,s are at it as well, how long has this been going on for and why shouldnt they be facing criminal proceedings, the layman wouldnt be allowed the same privalege for fraud in their workplace. The banks and their practices have contributed to many thousands of people losing their houses and businessess, and I for one wouldn't lose any sleep over their plight. What goes around comes around and when it does it will be sweet.

[Bigmac versus]

Well I fully expect the supreme court to uphold the earlier ruling and then for the charges to be deemed unfair. The problem comes deciding what is a fair amount, its at this stage I suspect a deal to be done. Since the waiver has been introduced and until the test case is resolved the Limitation Act is in effect frozen, could there be the same regarding judicial interest WHEN its finally over. I could see claims getting interest up till the test case started only, this could be buying the banks time to pay back whats owed.

[Bigmac versus]

Quite probable, however what gets me is that everyone seems to expect that a victory for the banks is extremely unlikely yet those banks seem hell bent on dragging this on and on even after losing twice.

 

It does seem to most to be a one way road, that the banks will lose but we dont know when. Surely it would make more sense for the banks to have paid up before now than paying all that judicial interest when they run out of options.

 

It is that which stumps me, WHY continue? UNLESS they were to benefit from the case taking so long to reach a conclusion. I agree it may be way off the mark but I cant see any other reason to continue, lets not say they expect to win please. Every single day this goes on the interest they will have to pay back is growing. Are the banks legal costs covered by their insurance?

[Bigmac versus]

Its a disgrace the length of time this is taking and probably going to take to its conclusion, I think its one big ploy to buy time, just dont know what for.

I also find it quite strange that there is a lack of media interest in the run up to this ruling.

[Bigmac versus]

Well you would expect some coverage considering the implications of the ruling, it just seems to me that everyone is fed up with the time restraints regarding the whole process and its like " oh bank charges again" , TBH its not even about the money any more (although it would be nice) its more to do with the feeling of knowing you were correct all along and the satisfaction of seeing them scurry behind whatever they can to avoid hearing I told you so.

[Bigmac versus]

mmmm.

 

refunds might not be subject to tax...

 

interest might well be though.

 

fair point, it will be paid in euros at this rate.

[Bigmac versus]

No leak yet so its NOT due soon.

[Bigmac versus]

If the decision on this appeal has been made then it should be handed down there and then and not waiting for a slot, adding more time on to an already lenghty case only adds to more frustration and speculation which we are now seeing on this thread.

[Bigmac versus]

I really do hope that after all this time there is no need for individual court action, payments including interest and compensation for your loss had better be set whenever this is all done n dusted or its been a complete waste of time, roll on black wednesday.

[Bigmac versus]

It is unlikely anything apart from whether bank charge terms can be assessed for fairness will be resolved on Wednesday of next week. The Substantive issues should cover that.

 

Id say its a certainty there will be nothing else covered by wednesday except fairness. But when its all over it had better be worth the wait and include the above without the need for further individual court action or as I said it will have been a complete waste of time.