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

[rdm2006]

Think about it - if lots of penalty charge paying people up and move from bank A to another bank then bank A will have to introduce fee paying for its remaining customers (or that is what they will have us believe). These customers will see that other banks do not charge those fees and will move also.

 

Bank A then decide "we have to do something about this" and introduce fairer charges and we all move back and the other banks will follow

[dave]

I think a lot of people who could have changed banks wold have done so already?

 

Why would you stay with a bank charging extortionate charges if there was an alternative?

 

the 8 are still representative of most of the other banks.

 

and all those not hit by charges will not move, in other words they wil keep the customers they want and find a sneaky way of charging them instead:(

 

With all due respect, I think you may have missed the point of the idea of moving.

 

The 8 banks (7 and 1 BS) LOST the case that was to determine if the OFT had juristiction over their charges. Rather than take that on the chin and do the decent thing, they have decided to appeal - this process will now drag on for another 1, 2, 3, 4, ? years - all that time banks will be allowed to make the poorest of society poorer by way of charging them what we believe to be unlawful charges.

 

The second thing that happens during the appeal is that they will also be given an extention to the 'waiver', meaning that they don't even have to deal with bank charge 'complaints'.

 

The third thing that happens is that the ordinary person no longer has the right to use the judiciary to attempt to put things right, as most county courts will 'stay' any bank charge case while waiting for the outcome of the appeal.

 

I am suggesting that we punish those greedy 8, who know exactly what they are doing and exactly who it hurts the most, by moving any account that we have with them to a bank that DIDN'T appeal or indeed wasn't involved in the first place.

 

The Co-op appear to charge less than the others, and yes, whilst I agree that for the most part all banks are as greedy and unscrupulous as the next, the Co-op will at least punish you less than the others.

 

It will send the message that the other's charges are too high, and in turn, if enough of us move there, the others may be forced (by market forces) to lower their charges too.

 

It's still not good enough, but at least it's sending the message that we will not put up with their utter contempt for their customers.

 

I can just imagine the conversations after the OFT case:

 

Warwick: "Bugger, we lost that one"

Tarquin: "Oh well, no problem, we'll just appeal"

Warwick: "Brilliant, then we can string it out for a few more years and pull in an extra 7-10 Billion quid."

Tarquin: "Exactly. See you in the club later?"

Warwick: "Bugger the club, I'll meet you on my new yacht."

Edited May 24, 2008 by dave

[car2403]

Did we ever expect the Banks not to appeal? Did we expect the OFT to not appeal if it hadn't gone their way? This was always on the cards, so I'm not sure why we are so surprised.

 

We could be jumping the gun about the waiver/stay continuing - it can't be in the interests of the masses for that situation to be drawn out unnecessarily. I suppose we'll have to wait and see what happens.

 

LJ "whateverhisfaceis" has said he will issue some guidance on how the courts should deal with stayed cases. It's unlikely that the stay will be removed, but his advice will probably fall on deaf ears anyway. In the words of the Judge that stayed my case "this decision is taken higher than [insert LJ "whateverhisfaceis" name here] and me, so the case will be stayed regardless". That's something we've tried to attack already - stay removal process, complaints to MP's, the OFT - but yet the stay remains.

 

Personally, I can't see the point in moving banks. The Co-op has a limited number of branches, so can afford to not charge so much in unfair charges.

 

Anyway, even if they make 7-10 billion during the appeal, that will still be recoverable once it's all finalised. Their intention, it seems then, is to "click" the interest on these billions over these years - it's just a shame that the bloody courts won't injunct the charges while the case is still underway.

 

Incidentally, where is the Government on all this? I wonder how many of us will vote for the party that promises to intervene in this whole process - how soon will they start jumping on that particular bandwagon, I wonder?

Edited May 24, 2008 by car2403

[edgeofadhesion]

You will not persuade enough people to move their accounts to make it work. You'll be lucky to get half a dozen people to do it.

 

It has no prospect of success whatsoever.This is not a credible or constructive idea. It is a naive fantasy and that makes you a fool.

[jansus]

I have not missed the point - I just dont think

 

1) it will have that much of an impact- there is advice on lots of sites already about which are the most cost efective banks to use

2) We dont know 100% what will happen about the waiver until the next CC in July

3) you wanted the legality of the charges tested and that is what is happening this site and others should be proud of that . I know this is only the start of a long process but that is how the legal system works and the banks are enttled to appeal that is their right.If it was an individual in that position you would be championing for their cause.

4) The argument is a long and complex one - if it was not it would have been settled in a court case long before now.

5) Even if the waiver stays in place hardship cases are supposed to be deat with by the banks or the FOS - Therefore as they are not being dealt with why not start by trying to get the terms of the waiver tightened up.

6) the ruling on the historic terms has not yet been decided and the Judge seemed very critcal of both the OFT for not having completed their report on fairness and also he seemed concerned with the customers who are waiting for a outcome.

 

 

So to summarise I am not missing the point I just dont think it wll be effective I think there are other areas that should be concentrated on

 

1) Clarifying the whole point of how the banks can take peoples benefits in charges - in travel girls case the judge was very crtiical of this but said it should be tested in another separate case

2) aim to tighten up the terms of the waiver if it is extended

3) Get bad pubicity for the banks who do not help those in genuine financial difficulties

4) help those in genuine distress when the banks B/S are about to evict them when they are only 2-3 months in arrears - and publisise those cases.

5) I agree keep lobbying MPs - they are really worried about our votes right now

6) i view of the comments so far by the judge - double and triple check the POC and get people to chage them if necesary and yes keep lodging the claims or complaints maybe through the FOS not the courts.

 

IMO

 

and one genuine question Dave - you say CAG may not back you but dont you think people look upon you as CAG - you are an administrator? So what you suggest will be taken as a lead by others on the site?

[JonCris]

Why those who wish to hit the banks where it hurts by moving their account not opening a current account with their Credit Union. I can understand if the local one's don't offer them yet but many do.

 

Is it a snob thing or what?? is the thinking that CU's are only for the completely dispossessed??

 

They aren't & Crikey you even get a photo ID

[jansus]

up to now I suspect it is just because of the DD availability

 

If they do offer that or a custmer does not want this facility then yes I think the CU should be promoted and explained on this site . to help avoid loan sharks if nothing else.

[JonCris]

The whole point of me raising this is because many DO now offer current accounts, loans, cash cards, AND the facility to pay bills via DD

[TideTurner]

I was of the understanding that any claims would be subject to interest at the statutory rate of 8%.

 

If all claims are made and stayed, that sounds like a good investment to me, although it doesn't help those in immediate difficulty. It still represents the banks putting off the inevitable (false economy).

 

With respect to moving banks on mass, how about an email campaign naming the big 8, with a message to "Forward this to at least 10 people or any body parts not used in the next 24 hours will drop off"

[jansus]

The whole point of me raising this is because many DO now offer current accounts, loans, cash cards, AND the facility to pay bills via DD

 

 

how about a new Thread - questions and answers

 

CREDIT UNIONS - are they for me?

 

sounds good to me

 

I saw a piece on a news programme the other night about them - so it would be good to raise the profile even more.

[photoman]

Okay, if the banks drag things on, even whilst knowing that there is a good likelihood that once this business is all sorted they will just simply have to pay back all the charges taken......

 

...... then on the face of it, to a lot of claimants this may not seem to make much sense?

 

But actually, as far as the banks are concerned, when they do have to give back what they took, they will still have profited from the benefit of the money (investing it, lending it out etc) in the intervening period.

 

 

My suggestion is that everyone now revise their claims to include interest at commercial compounded rates as a matter of course.

 

After all the in-depth discussion on CAG and elsewhere about this subject, I do now personally think that there is a way to do this, and that there is enough basis in law. (I shall not post it here, firstly because if someone is serious about doing it, then they must search it out and understand it, and secondly, because I don't want to take this thread off topic).

 

All I shall say is that I know of several business claimants who did indeed get pre-trial settlements paying out interest at such rates (and received some very sizeable sums, with the interest portion often being several times the size of the actual charges received back).

This confirms my belief that not only are such rates chargeable, but that also the banks themselves believe that this could very well eventually turn out to be the case.

 

By claiming using the argument that the money was conceded whilst acting under a mistaken presumption such money was due to the bank, we can also claim that this created an unjust enrichment on behalf of the banks (and it most certainly has) !

 

So If more and more claims are seen to be calling for a total restitution of all the benefit gained from the money, then the Banks may see less benefit in dragging things on ?

 

 

Just an idea ?

 

PM

[jansus]

I was of the understanding that any claims would be subject to interest at the statutory rate of 8%.

 

If all claims are made and stayed, that sounds like a good investment to me, although it doesn't help those in immediate difficulty. It still represents the banks putting off the inevitable (false economy).

 

With respect to moving banks on mass, how about an email campaign naming the big 8, with a message to "Forward this to at least 10 people or any body parts not used in the next 24 hours will drop off"

 

 

I think - and I am sure someone will correct me if I am incorrect the S69 8% technically can only be awarded by the court and is discretionary not automatic. So in theory if the banks refunded outside the court system then they would not be obliged to pay this amount.

 

On the other hand they of course are earning interest on the charges they manage to extract between now and the final hearing decision:(

[Bookworm]

how about a new Thread - questions and answers

 

CREDIT UNIONS - are they for me?

 

sounds good to me .

Or you could add on to this one:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-helpful-organisations/29142-credit-unions.html

 

;-)

[Bookworm]

I think - and I am sure someone will correct me if I am incorrect the S69 8% technically can only be awarded by the court and is discretionary not automatic. So in theory if the banks refunded outside the court system then they would not be obliged to pay this amount.

While this is in theory correct, once you have issued your court claim, you 8% becomes a part of your claim, and you are therefore totally entitled not to withdraw your claim unless both the charges and the 8% get paid back (and fees of course).

[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.

[JonCris]

Well Bigmac your response to the FSA will be more than obvious I assume.

 

They have abused the customer as not only have they altered their terms they have actually increased their charges overall & not by an inconsiderable amount I might add

[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.

[TideTurner]

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, tread very carefully with the FSA, they're a wolf in sheeps clothing. If anything, the FSA should be reported where they fail to act as the regulator they have always claimed they were, or they ever fail the consumer.

 

They are, after all, funded by the banks (£277m this year)! Me suspects the Old School Club here.

[jansus]

Or you could add on to this one:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-helpful-organisations/29142-credit-unions.html

 

;-)

 

 

ah back in 2006 - no posts since

 

yes good idea to bring it to peoples attention again;)

[jansus]

Very interesting post BigMac

 

A&L have changed their terms on charges a lot - still can not work out if they are better or worse!

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

I have searched but I can not find the grounds on which the banks have been granted leave to appeal. As we all know a party can not appeal a court judgement because they simply don't like it, they have to have grounds for an appeal. Does anyone know what grounds the banks submitted an appeal for? Procedural irregularity? New evidence? Judge error?

 

TheyrCriminals

[citizenB]

Or you could add on to this one:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-helpful-organisations/29142-credit-unions.html

 

;-)

 

I did try to post on this one Bookworm, a message box came up to say I wasnt allowed to:confused:

[vogelrok]

I did try to post on this one Bookworm, a message box came up to say I wasnt allowed to:confused:

 

 

i got the same reply.

 

just found my local credit union in portsmouth, they have a current account. so as soon as my house is sold. abbey get a sniff of the money and then watch it walk right out the door. im so going to enjoy that day.

 

abbey have only ever given me one charge and they paid it back, when i rang them, they told me its because they do Bacs transfers between 12midnight and 7am and at the weekend to.

 

so whilst we cant pay money in till 9:30am we have gained a charge for being 2 and a half hours late on getting money in to pay a bill that is due on the same day. surely this has got to be unfair. take the payment at the end of the banking day on the day it is due, not the same day. and before banking hours.

 

this is how a lot of my charges came about. being self-employed and not having funds till the day a bill is due. this is one of the practices of the banks that really needs to be looked at. if we want to go and pay a bill say at the council offices, we have the best part of the whole day to do it depending what time they close. why don't we get this with banks. they want us in an unfair advantage before the banking day starts.

[JonCris]

vog remember to take ID with you won't you:)

[ANDENA]

vog remember to take ID with you won't you:)

i hope we can conquer this one and have one over on the banks.