Jump to content


OFT anouncement - what are the implications?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5362 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I've been wondering what the implications to all of this might be if, as expected the OFT anounces a £15 cap on penalty charges. Some of things I've been pondering include:


    Will it be retrospective, or will it be interpreted as being 'from now on'

    How will the bank react vis the actions which are currently in progress. Will they offer to refund the balance of any charges which are over £15?

    How will it sit with the argument we're all using that their charges are not a 'genuine pre-estimate'? Will it matter? If it doesn't cost them £15 to bounce a DD, then presumably our position still holds.

    Won't a £15 cap be a disaster for the banks? Will that not be 'official' recognition that their charges have been too much and leave them defenceless against anyone who comes after them for anything over £15?

    Might it make it easier to get all your charges back? After all, if the OFT puts a cap at £15 it will probably muddy the waters sufficiently that 99% of the people seriously considering going after them won't bother. Would this mean that they would no longer be facing a huge payout, in which case they might be more relaxed about refunding those people who do make the effort?

 

Does anyone have any idea of exactly when the OFT is expected to speak?

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it will probably muddy the waters sufficiently that 99% of the people seriously considering going after them won't bother. Would this mean that they would no longer be facing a huge payout

I'm not so sure it would put most people off. Looking through most of the threads over the last couple of weeks, I would imagine that the current average claim is somewhere between £1500 and £2000. If anyone was serious about getting that amount back, I think they would be just as determined for a sum equal to half that (although the reality is that they would still go for the higher amount)

 

I suspect that the really low claimers (

 

In all honesty I believe that a cap of £15 would only strengthen the position of the group members, provided it was a cap, and not an allowable charge. Additionally, they would need to redefine the charge - penalty charge is still penalty charge, and therefore contestable to the point of justification.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a thought re this. Could this be why Barclays have started to offer 50% as if the £15 cap was placed, they could be seen to have been honouring this.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - I think that does have some bearing on it (Barclays behaviour that is).

 

Although, Abbey started to do this after you started proceedings, long before the OFT tipped them all off about their annaouncement, so it could be that they are just trying to limit the damage to them - after all, I'm sure some people have taken the 50% offer - thus, they ahve saved themselves 50%.

 

Can't really blame 'em for chancing their arm - I mean, faced with how they are.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely the whole point of this group is that because the banks say the charge is fair, and the OFT agrees that a lower limit is fair, it still does not make it lawful (or, indeed, fair)

 

The OFT could put a really low cap on charges (say 10 pence) - would the banks agree to that. No, they wouldn't, and anyone who quoted OFT cap would get a 'don't care, prove it' response.

 

The only real solution the banks have (if they wish to maintain a customer base long term) is to demonstrate what is a fair and reasonable cost. If that ends up in the region of a fiver, then so be it. As has been argued elsewhere, this demonstration needs to be made for the banks long term strategy and for the consumers satisfaction.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only real solution the banks have (if they wish to maintain a customer base long term) is to demonstrate what is a fair and reasonable cost.

 

You are making it sound like they are trembling about their loss of customers. I think the reality is, they aren't trembling at all at the moment. Things like this have been going on for years. I have been a member of Lloyds for some 19 years. The banks made 3 Billion last year from charges alone. A million pounds given back to the few potestors like us, is pretty much a drop in the ocean, as long as they can show that it is a lot of hassle to take them to court.

 

The media attention that the banks are recieving just now, will eventually fade away as it become a little too often, until the either, the law steps in (which is good for us) or the consumers stop actioning (which is bad for us).

 

I personally think, that the bank will come up with new ways to slow down our progress and hence restrict the number of people willing to do all the paperwork to claim their money back. Most people I talk too aren't bothered by it, which winds me up a bit.

regards,

 

InterSimi

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a fair point, and I agree, the loss of a few customers is not a problem to them. After all, where will the customers go...so in balance no customers are lost to the banking industry (what a bizarre and obscene situation...)

 

However, their reputation and good name (good name? did I just say that for the second time...) will suffer long term if it is perceived that they abuse their customers and their position. They will have their work cut out for them if every customer queries every charge...much better to draw a line under it, demonstrate a (small) measure of moral responsibility, and then move forward.

 

Most people I talk too aren't bothered by it, which winds me up a bit

And I am right with you on this one...I feel like saying "why not claim it back and then give it to charity..."

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunaly, most people have a mind set tht BAD THINGS will happen to them if the callenge their bank. There are plenty of people out there who think that banks operate a blacklist and that if they do anything to pi** them off they won't be able to bank anywhere. Also, you just need to look at the way letters from the bank are written - very confident sounding, and often with just enough of a hint of manace behind the words so that people get the message not to challenge them. The thing is that once you do see through them and their letters, and you realise that they are nothing more than a bunch or rip-off merchants - who are petrified of going to court and being found out - you will never look at them the same way again. How many people contributing to this post will ever be intimidated by a bank again?

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many people contributing to this post will ever be intimidated by a bank again?

Well, I certainly won't, and I think that the best thing about this whole forum is that people reinforce confidence, and therefore cascade the 'fight back' feeling. Whilst this is my own personal view, I reckon that if everyone didn't claim any refund, but challenged EVERY charge in the future then the aims of the forum will have been achieved.

 

Additionally, bank staff will be less inclined to be intimidating on the phone or face to face. It could even mean that frontline banking will get a long-overdue makeover.

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5362 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...