About the OFT (not so) impending report - PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU'RE WORRIED

[monkey_uk]

Thanks, Nattie... Now, if you feel like having a real battle, go and shout on MSE... Because I'm giving up now. I can only hope that people won't just stay there and swallow that line whole and lose money because of it. The ones who come here can be set straight, but the voices of the people spreading the misinformation are drowning us there. :-|

 

Aye we've tried our best the two of us haven't we bookie?! hehe!

 

 

@The_Phoenix - that'd be a really funny thing to do, I can imagine it'd wind little Martin up something chronic! do it do it! hehe!

[Spiceskull]

I can imagine it'd wind little Martin up something chronic! do it do it! hehe!

...just to set them straight like, just to set them on the straight and narrow...

[HSBCrusher]

...just to set them straight like, just to set them on the straight and narrow...

give that man a pasty!

[Spiceskull]

I like all your Dalek avatars...did I ever say I was a Dr Who nerd? As such I can say, with certainty, that is not a real Dalek - it only has three rows of knobs, not four...

[HSBCrusher]

Well, your alkaline earth element Beryllium atom should have the electrons arranged in 2 layers thus.....

We all know that the first energy level or "shell" in any atom only has 2 electrons in it (except hydrogen of course which only has one)

 

 

Oh, by the way, I'm not worried by the OFT thingy....

[Spiceskull]

Well, your alkaline earth element Beryllium atom should have the electrons arranged in 2 layers thus.....

We all know that the first energy level or "shell" in any atom only has 2 electrons in it (except hydrogen of course which only has one)

 

 

Oh, by the way, I'm not worried by the OFT thingy....

Aaaahhh...you are talking valency here, and what determines how likely an atom is to be oxidised. The neutral elements, such as Radon, Argon etc have a full outer shell, 8 electrons, and therefore their overall charge is zero - this makes them unreactive, and, extreme conditions aside, they do not make good compounds...don't try to blind me with science, Sonny Jim...

Oh, by the way, I'm not worried by the OFT thingy....

Nor am I, but I think Marty may be...

[HSBCrusher]

Aaaahhh...you are talking valency here, and what determines how likely an atom is to be oxidised. The neutral elements, such as Radon, Argon etc have a full outer shell, 8 electrons, and therefore their overall charge is zero - this makes them unreactive, and, extreme conditions aside, they do not make good compounds...

not forgetting electronegativity of course...

Nor am I, but I think Marty may be...

 

Yep, me thinks marty has got all his eggs in the wrong basket

[Bookworm]

Hijacked by Dr Who! Who very dare you???

 

And don't think the odd footnote about MSE is fooling me for one second!

[Spiceskull]

Hijacked by Dr Who! Who very dare you???

Quit moaning - there is some relevance...all us Dr Who fans and T.A.R.D.I.S. travellers have used our Timelord superhuman abilities to peep into the future (all time/space dimensions are relative) - that is why we can say, with confidence, that we are not worried...

And don't think the odd footnote about MSE is fooling me for one second!

Fooling you for one second? We fooled you the first time round, forget the second...

[monkey_uk]

He's thrown his dummy out now well and truely!

 

Dear me, can we stop this now. This bickering and constant sniping really is unappealing and unhelpful. This thread is now getting unproductive, and confusing for those reading it. It isn't helpful and its damaging to those trying to reclam.

 

To the small minority who seem to constantly be bringing this thread back to what I have or haven't said; apart from finding the accusations purile, hurtful and upsetting - let me state my aim is constantly to give the best possible information in a way that's understandable. Of course things change (I even state that in the guide) for example at first my best guess was the OFTs figure was £12, then info fed through from leaks that is is likely to be higher, so now I say £15; I dont consider my original statement was misinformation.

 

So let me say.... to those few people who won't let go. I have tried to respond to you, but as stated, I really don't have the time to go over the same point again and again and again. You've made your point - and while I don't agree with most of it - i have read it - heard your arguments - and tried where possible to take them on board - there is nothing left to be said.

 

If you feel you need to continue to keep repeat them and drag this off track - then I'm afraid you need to understand that this is my site, and I carry the can for the opinin on it - good or bad its my responsibility. While of course I could've simply deleted your views, I haven't I try and keep things open; even when some of the comments have been personally insulting. Yet if you continue to rehash and rehash its time for me to suggest that you may be more comfortable using a different site to this one.

 

Martin

 

 

rofl!

 

MoneySavingExpert.com Forums - View Single Post - What impact will the OFT have?

[Spiceskull]

It must be getting to him - having such a popular and extremely busy site - his spelling, punctuation and grammar are all slipping...

 

However, he does have a point. Whilst his facts and advice may not be in accordance with those on CAG, the fact that this whole thing is turning into a slanging match is rather childish.

 

If we are to be authoritative, and wish to present ourselves as offering sound advice, then all the bickering does undermine the CAG position. Give the guy a break now, he has laid his cards on the table, he may have a losing hand, but at least he is still playing...

[monkey_uk]

He's only just still playing!

 

I've given up now anyways, I'm a little bored of embarrasing him at the moment!

[hannah8686]

**bump**

[monkey_uk]

@hannah8686 - this thread is sticky so no need to bump it! heh!

 

[rubber duck]

Superb response....

Any chance of enligtening us with the notion that whether similiar action can be taken against a Mortgage Company?..i shall not name names,but i`ll make an exception in this case;Kensington Mortgages!-the Dracula Klan of the Mortgage Companies!

 

They charge me £50 each month when i am behind with my payments more than 2 months,under the pretence that these charges are supposedly for any letters they may have to send or phone calls they may have to make to tell me that my mortgage is in arrears,but charges are made IN ADVANCE!even though i have already paid up to the last two months reguarly for the last 6 months and occasionally,due to no fault of my own-as i am self-employed and subcontract for one big company who sometimes miss payments to me ,hence the difficulty of bringing the arreras up to scratch and Kensington keeps charging me each and every time arrears touch a 3rd month,even though 1-2 days afterwards the payment is made each time, everytime!

 

I am also told that the criteria applied to Bank Charges also applies to Mortgage Companies..is that correct?if it is they already owe me nearly 2.5 K...!!

 

thanks in advance.

[papadak]

In the "Tonight" programme a few days ago, Martin Lewis announced his belief that the OFT "cap" would be set at £12-£15 and that the banks would then only refund the difference between that amount and the amount people were charged. This opinion created a panic amongst reclaimers, thinking that they were about to lose a large chunk of their money if they didn't rush to claim now.

 

This needs a few clarifications:

 

First, this is Martin's opinion. It is not based in law, or insider knowledge. He may be a well known journalist, but it is still only his personal opinion, speculation if you will.

 

The facts are these:

 

a) The OFT is a regulatory body, they do not make law. The only way the law can be changed is through an Act of Parliament.

 

b) The OFT, when they announce the results of their enquiry on bank charges, will only be announcing a level at which they themselves will take legal action against the banks. It is not a cap!!!

 

In their credit cards report of April 5th, 2006, they clearly stated that they could not declare what was a fair or lawful charge, only the courts could decide on this. Furthermore, the OFT also declared at the time that consumers who felt that they had been charged unfairly should go through the legal system to reclaim their charges. There is no reason to suspect that their stance will not be identical this time.

 

c) The law on penalties is well entrenched in contract law. Even if a bank tries to tell you after the OFT announcement that they will only refund the difference between the "cap" (It's NOT a cap!) and what you were charged originally, (leaving aside the fact that such a decision couldn't apply retrospectively anyway ), well, they also told you their charges were lawful, fair and transparent, and did you believe them? Why should you believe them now?

 

d) Bottom line is this: If the bank try to say that they'll only refund you the difference, carry on with your claim. They will still have to convince a judge that what they are charging is lawful, which means they would still have to disclose how those costs are calculated, and they still won't want/be able to do that.

 

Conclusion: Ignore the sensationalism, stick to the facts, and you can't go very wrong. In other words, business as usual, OFT or no OFT report.

 

I hope this helps setting a few minds at rest.

 

Lovely stugg Bookworm, R IIII SSS PECT!!!!

[Beserker]

Rubber Duck,

No (see the Other/Mortgage Companies forum), but like you I am not a fan of Kensington, but give this site and it's fantastic membership time and we might have a result on this. I have a particular interest as come Oct I will be leaving Kensington and will have to deal with their exit fees.

[kfdh1962]

all these posts are spot on:)

[Sickofbanks]

Interestingly my claim against Amex (in the past one of the more amenable companies apparently) has met with the £12 cap argument. Naturally I'll MCOL it and get the rest back, but it does show that the banks will all attempt to hide behind whatever tripe they can given the chance.

 

The OFT 'cap' allows them a chance to try a part settlement, in the confident expectation that claimants will break down with tears of gratitude for having got anything out of them. What [edit] me off is that the tone of MSE site is such that they almost seem to encourage this.

 

Different here though - this is hardcore reclaiming!

 

The only thing that is keeping the banks awake at night I guess, is a court ruling that they should repay all unlawful amounts charged, whether claimed for by individuals or not. The current level of repayments is small change to the banks. If a blanket action were to be successful they may not be so happy.

 

Mod note. Please to not deliberately avoid the swear filter

[kippy2]

i doubt there ever be will be a court ruling as the banks have yet to step inside court. until they do we carry on claiming

[MattyH]

Would I be right in saying that the banks won't ever go to court because it's likely that the Judge will tell them to provide evidence that their fee's are just and fair, and when they provide such evidence it'll only come to around £4.50 or so?

 

Matt.

 

P.S. Sorry for the semi hijack but I thought it semi relevant.

[Sickofbanks]

That's it. Under the law they are only entitled to recover actual costs arising out of the breach. They are not allowed to'fine' people for the breach. They therefore have to show either that their actual costs do come to £30 (or whatever), show what their real costs are and refund the difference...or do neither and refund the lot.

At the moment the OFT seem to be handing them a bit of cover to hide behind by suggesting that anything over £12 is excessive. BUT that doesn't take precidence over the law, even if the banks try to hide behind it.

[Bookworm]

They therefore have to show either that their actual costs do come to £30 (or whatever), show what their real costs are and refund the difference...or do neither and refund the lot.

 

No, that's not correct. If they were to show their real costs (oh, look, pigs in close formation up there! ) and offer to refund the difference, they would therefore be proving that they were making an unlawful profit, and such a term is non-enforceable in its entirety. Therefore, it would still be a 100% refund.

[amiles1]

Hi all, in the court bundle example the following link:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DF19FDA9-1D31-4B18-B251-9BF5AF6A29D4/0/oft842a.pdf

 

 

is made for the OFT summary (following on in the bundle from the Early Day Motion from the House of Parliament). Unfortunately this page will not load now. Does anybody have a link to the latest OFT summary to save me searching endlessly for it?!

 

Many thanks!

 

 

 

[Bookworm]

New link updated, just d/load bundle again.

 

For future ref, Google "OFT credit card report" would bring it up, should they move the pages again.