Bank Charges - Any News

[Bigdebtor]

Suzi

 

SR is right - that is why it is always a good idea to go through FOS first - if you win the bank MUST do what they are told. If you lose - you can still risk the courts - but you will also have cost the bank a lot of hassle and £450 for the privelige of dealing with your complaint again - properly - with FOS - so always worth going to FOS once Bank has said "final word - get lost mr/mrs non-valued customer"

 

BD

 

PS - looking forward to seeing your FOS letter!

[pmahonc]

Just had a look at Moneysavingexpert page and apparently the OFT are going to make an announcement on tuesday 22nd December about what their next move is going to be in regards to the bank charges.

[suzieblooz]

Just had a look at Moneysavingexpert page and apparently the OFT are going to make an announcement on tuesday 22nd December about what their next move is going to be in regards to the bank charges.

 

Roll over and play dead?

 

PS - Bigdebtor, haven't had time to figure out how to scan in the letter. I'll type it out word for word if that'll help - Suz the technophobic

[Night Owl]

Yep 07.00am! Tuesday 22nd.

OFT sets date for announcement on its next bank charges move - MoneySavingExpert News

[suzieblooz]

Ok, here goes, not exactly scanned, but typed out word for word (apart from names)

 

 

Dear Mrs Blooz,

 

Your complaint about Bank Of Scotland PLC

 

I am writing regarding your complaint to us about the unauthorised overdraft charges made to your current account.

 

The Office of Fair Trading brought an important legal ''test case'' to establish if it could assess whether the amounts the banks were charging were fair. As part of this legal ''test case'' the Court was also asked to consider whether these types of charges amounted to ''penalties''. (written in a tone that makes me feel about 5 years old!)

 

As you know we decided not to deal further with bank charges complaints until the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading's ''test case'' made the law clearer. This letter is to tell you what happened during the legal case, and to let you know why it now looks as though we will be unable to help you with your complaint.

 

Put simply, during the course of the legal ''test case'' the Courts ruled that these sort of charges:

 

. did not generally amount to penalties; and

. cannot be challenged on the grounds that they are too high

 

This means that The Office of Fair Trading lost its case. The legal action ended in a decision by the Supreme Court - the highest court in the United Kingdom - on 25 November 2009. The decision, and a summary of it, can be found on the courts website (at www.supreme court.gov.uk).

 

In the light of these decisions by the Courts, and the information you have already provided I do not consider that the ombudsman could uphold your complaint, and so I propose to close our file on your case. (even although with same info on the same bank but different account you found in my favour 3 years ago. And they keep saying courts, it was only one court that found in the banks favour, the other 2 sided with the OFT)

 

However if there are individual factors or circumstances particular to you - or to the way your bank operated your account at the time the charges were made - which you feel should be taken into account, then please

write and let me know by 8 January 2010, so we can assess whether they are likely to make a difference.

 

There is more information about our approach to complaints about bank charges on our website (at FAQs complaints about bank charges).

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mrs Chocolate Teapot

Team Manager

Account charges Team.

 

 

So, apart from being extremely patronising and talking down to me in a school teacher tone, please feel free to point out everything that is wrong with their reply.

Suz

Edited December 19, 2009 by suzieblooz
took out something I said that was wrong, had a blonde moment!

[bobinky]

Received a similar one from HSBC today.Basically says that the courts ruled the charges were not unfair and they wont be paying anything.Wrong and misleading and very patronising especially as I never asked for charges to be returned,what I did ask for was a CCA.Bunch of ******s.

[Vyppa]

Hi, first post so hope i get it right

 

i applied about 6 months ago for £700 in bank charges, my questions are

 

1] do i still have a chance of getting this money

2] i have racked up more charges since this application...can i claim this as well

 

i thought since the oft lost their case i wouldn't be entitled to anything

 

thanks in advance

 

K

[Bigdebtor]

Suz

 

I think you should complain to your MP about this letter. It is so biased and misleading. Even the boss judge said he was not asked to rule on "fairness" - just on a very narrow part of the law (who set the appeal up like that - Beginning with B****?). Even in his summary he hinted at the way ahead to get the bank charges declared unfair under another part of the Unfair Terms act - which the OFT should have known about in any case and not fallen into the B**** trap!

 

BD

[yourbank]

Suz

 

I think you should complain to your MP about this letter. It is so biased and misleading. Even the boss judge said he was not asked to rule on "fairness" - just on a very narrow part of the law (who set the appeal up like that - Beginning with B****?). Even in his summary he hinted at the way ahead to get the bank charges declared unfair under another part of the Unfair Terms act - which the OFT should have known about in any case and not fallen into the B**** trap!

 

BD

 

You mean regulation 5 which was in the POC of the OFT at the beginning of the case?

The same one in which the Banks' tried to get a declaration on and was declined, is that right?

 

Hmmmm, interesting stuff, eh?

[Bigdebtor]

YB

 

I'm good at remembering perceptions gained and messages given - but not the details. I think it was Reg 5. Are you saying that this WAS part of the original OFT case - but the Banks went to Supreme Court on the other "core charges" bit only? If so then surely the OFT can pick up easily on Reg 5 again?

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

So the OFT has caved in to its "smarter" pals in the big banks - despite the BIG hint given by the Supreme Court on what to do next.

 

Personally I think we can each do a better job on our own by following the Supreme Court's nod and wink. We were doing fine with most claimants getting out of court "ex gratia" settlements before OFT butted in and the cases got postpooned for over 2 years.

 

If we ALL put put our claims in NOW - with the threat that we'll all go to the Small Claims Court at the same time then the Banks will be swamped. They can't get enough QC's to be in every SCC in the country at the same time (or even in the same week/month/year) - so let's get cracking with our reworded claims NOW!

 

CAG - can we PLEASE get the long awaited new template ASAP?

 

BD

[lovejoy]

Following the news from the OFT today that they are not going to take this forward, good news in my opinion.

When will the revised templates be ready?

[Bigdebtor]

LJ

 

I totally agree.

 

I wonder if the OFT are smart enough to realise that this could be death by 1000 cuts for the banks if we all prick all of them at the same time - rather than the OFtTs single (blunt) dagger - which may again fail to penetrate their multi-QC-provided armour?

 

BD

[IainHL]

I have to say BD I am inclined to agree with you, in fact I posted to this effect a week or so ago.

 

Yes, it is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/238203-bank-charges-any-news.html#post2649608, and you agreed with me then, too!

[amber]

Just come across this on MSE: BBC urgently looking for reclaimers with charges on hold - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

BBC urgently looking for reclaimers with charges on hold

 

BBC News is doing a story on The OFT's decision to give up the bank charges fight (read the MSE News Story)

 

The BBC are urgently looking for a reclaimer with bank charges on hold to come into the studio this afternoon and talk about what’s happened to them.

 

You would need to be available at 4-30 – 6pm today. It would be at their studios in London, Manchester or Birmingham (or if you know you're near another BBC studio, they might be able to work something out).

 

If your interested, please send me a private message (to MSE Jenny) with your name, phone number and where you’re based.

 

Thanks

 

**I don't have anything on 'hold' at the moment myself or I'd go for it. Good luck if anyone takes this up.

[caro]

 

CAG - can we PLEASE get the long awaited new template ASAP?

 

 

You'll get them as soon as they're ready, but I'm sure you'll agree it's better to take time and make sure they're right now, rather than rush and risk losing in court.

[Bigdebtor]

Caro

 

OK thanks. I do agree it is better to wait a short time longer and get something fireproof - but I thought this was actually done and sitting in the wings awaiting the OFT decison whether to fight or flee?

 

Any idea of timescale?

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

Caro

 

As well as a template to claim from the Banks I am sure many of us would welcome a template with which to write to FOS as our claims were put on hold or effectively dismissed by FOS pending the court case resolution.

 

I for one am unsure of exactly what the FOS's role is meant to be (I know what it SEEMS to be!) and such a template setting out the curremnt situation as CAG sees it and calling on them to use their powers would be very helpful.

 

BD

[caro]

As far as I can make out, the amended POC have been drawn up but the possible arguments are being discussed. I've asked for some clarification.

 

Regarding the FOS, most people on CAG have long held the view that they're a waste of time and not worth bothering with. If you've had an unsuccessful claim with them, just take the bank to court (when the templates are ready).

[IainHL]

I would agree concerning the FOS. My feeling is that when the banks write rejecting our claims (my partner and I have 6 pending between NatWest, Halifax and HSBC) I want to send a Letter Before Action setting out the current thinking and giving them 14 days to pay up. Then when they don't go down to the County Court and submit a claim.

 

To date only HSBC (First Direct) have written.

[Bigdebtor]

Iain

 

I am not a lawyer - but I thought the risk of using the County Court was if the bank fields a QC - and they win - you are lumbered with £0000's of their fees to pay - whereas the Small Claims Court (SCC) can deal with claims for up to £5000 and the Banks can't claim much in the way of costs even if they were to win.

 

I also think there is precedent (which the Clydesdale Bank lost when it tried to fight bit) that you can divide your claims up into smaller packets (less than £5k each) to ensure you CAN use the SCC - and if you win you can go back for a second or third bite of the same cake!

 

Hopefully other CAGGERs can confirm this - or correct any wrong impressions I have?

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

As far as I can make out, the amended POC have been drawn up but the possible arguments are being discussed. I've asked for some clarification.

 

Regarding the FOS, most people on CAG have long held the view that they're a waste of time and not worth bothering with. If you've had an unsuccessful claim with them, just take the bank to court (when the templates are ready).

 

Caro

 

I also hold this view - but would still like to know exactly what the FOS role should be - apart from inflicting a £450 charge on the Bank when they get involved - before ineveitably saying they (like Fawlty Towers' Manuel) "can do nothing".

BD

[caro]

Iain

 

I am not a lawyer - but I thought the risk of using the County Court was if the bank fields a QC - and they win - you are lumbered with £0000's of their fees to pay - whereas the Small Claims Court (SCC) can deal with claims for up to £5000 and the Banks can't claim much in the way of costs even if they were to win.

 

If the claim is under £5k they can't claim costs if you lose. They may send a solicitor or barrister but they have still not really argued the cases.

 

I also think there is precedent (which the Clydesdale Bank lost when it tried to fight bit) that you can divide your claims up into smaller packets (less than £5k each) to ensure you CAN use the SCC - and if you win you can go back for a second or third bite of the same cake!

 

Clydesdale did have some success in Scotland when some people went back for a second bite of the cherry, so the advice then for Scottish claimants was to go via the FOS, but success has been limited and in most cases still waiting to hear from them.

 

Hopefully other CAGGERs can confirm this - or correct any wrong impressions I have?

 

BD

 

It is a risk going to court which is why it's so important to get it right. Govan Law Centre are heavily involved in the plans moving forward so I'm sure advice will be forthcoming for Scottish claimants too.

 

I hope that helps.

Edited December 23, 2009 by caro
Correction

[Bigdebtor]

Caro

 

OK Thanks for this. Just to totally clarifiy. (I'm old, tired, poor and thick). Are you saying the risk of the court case is limited to losing your right to reclaim your unfair charges etc. - but no risk of getting lumbered with the Bank's QC or other legal costs?

 

BD

[caro]

If the claim is under £5k in England or Wales, or £3k in Scotland and allocated to the small claims track (as the judge is most likely to do), then you do not risk legal costs other than your own for bringing the claim.

 

If you lose in court you cannot then go to FOS.