Dusary v Bank of Scotland

[Dusary]

We kept thinking that before, Tilly! But I detect from Information Commissioners Office letter a certain note of frustration, nay, anger! A 7 day deadline!!!!!!

[**Tilly**]

this is were you find ssl lol:D

Halifax Chill Out Thread.

[overflow]

HI Dursary.

 

I bet they are frustrated ,LOL I mean what happened to their response for the letter they sent dated the 28 Aug

Seems like the banks are a law unto themselves doesnt it.

[Dusary]

It sure does!!!!

 

But I'm sure that ICO has teeth, VERY big teeth!

 

Sharp, POINTED teeth!

[overflow]

HI Dursary.

 

Well we all know where we'd like them to stick their big pointy teeth dont we.

 

And I dont mean in a glass by the bed either:lol:

 

Thanks for bling.

 

Regards

[Dusary]

E-mail sent to Information Commisioner's Office today.

 

This is beginning to look VERY interesting!!!!

 

28th September 2007

 

Dear Mr Squire,

 

I refer to your email of September 18th where you stated that you had written to HBOS asking them to confirm within 7 days that the information has been provided to me or to explain why this has not been done.

 

I have allowed HBOS and Royal Mail 2 extra days, counting from September 20th.

 

I regret to inform you today (September 28th) that I have heard nothing at all from HBOS.

 

It would appear to me that they are either ignoring the Information Commissioner's Office's request or choosing not to comply.

 

It rather looks to me as though this is a lost cause, unless you can think of some other approach.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dusary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

compliance@Information Commissioners Office.gsi.gov.uk wrote:

18th September 2007

 

Case Reference Number RFA0165967

 

 

Dear Mr Dusary,

 

I understand that you were enquiring about progress with your complaint this morning when I was in a meeting. I was also out of the office last week when you sent your 12 September email about this matter.

 

I have today written to HBOS informing them of what has been sent to you and about what appears to be still missing from their subject access response.

 

I have asked HBOS to ensure that the outstanding account information is provided to you as a matter of urgency.

 

I have asked HBOS to confirm within 7 days that the information has been provided to you or to explain why this has not been done.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

John Squire, Remedies Officer, Regulatory Action Division

[MacBoy]

Based on my experience getting to his stage, Dusary, you should see some action now! Fingers crosssed.

[Dusary]

After even more pressure from ICO (and a mood of heavy depression settling over me ...... thinking that the only recourse was to take HBOS to Court to force the information from them) . . . . . Well, the information FINALLY came!

 

I have the missing accounts' information.

 

However, I now discover from the statements received (going all the way back to 1995) that there are STILL two further accounts whose information I must attempt to prise from HBOS.

 

1) Known as "House Account" (no a/c number available YET!)

2) A "Scotbudget" account.

 

So guess who is trotting off to the Bank in a moment or two?

 

The GRAND TOTAL now stands at £29,037.64 in charges and the usual interest (NOT the Judicial interest).

 

Looks as though I'm back up and running.

 

Barclays will have to wait a little while!

[MacBoy]

Not seen you in a while Dusary! Hope you're well. You'll see from my thread that ICO intervention was finally key in my getting full disclosure, too- and I got the lot as well - all the way back to 1987.

 

Good to have you back

[Dusary]

Thanks Mac!

 

I'll go check you out!

[sea-sidelady]

Im sooo pleased to see you back.

 

And finally things are looking up and moving. So now you have got a new wind on this claim, there should be no stopping you now.

 

[Dusary]

I must confess, SSL, that I was down in the dumps at the apparent refuseal of HBOS to comply with the ICO. Quite depressed, really!

 

But, hey!

 

I've got the carrot of £19,000 to pursue - and the little matter of two more accounts with HBOS.

 

 

And YOU'D better watch out SSL!!!

[**Tilly**]

.

 

 

 

And YOU'D better watch out SSL!!!

 

really good to see you back dusary hmm see nothing changes then:-D

thats a great total but great to see you up and running again

[Bigmac versus]

At last they give in, interesting times ahead.

[mrsc]

wow I have just read your whole thread today I am having the same problems with BOS Clydesdale and Abbey you have given me the inspiration to carry on.

You do start to feel well what's the point, but I think that is why they do this I got a lovely letter the other day from Clydesdale quoteing the limitation act and for me to confirm why I needed the information as I could only reclaim charges going back 5 years so I have sent a copy of the letter to the Information Commisioner to see what they say about it.

IMO what has it got to do with them why I want my info.

 

Good luck to you Dursary youe certainly deserve it

 

Mrs C

[AC2007]

Fantastic thread and very inspirational to everyone who has been treated shabbily to keep going.

Well done to Dusary for getting them by the short & curlies and not letting go.

I have just recieved a letter from BOS kicking out my claim against them for over £20K because the charges happened more than 6 years ago but this thread has given me the belief to keep at them to get back what is rightfully mine.8-)

More reading up on this forum then a reply letter off to them.

Cheers again.

And thanks to tilly for directing me over here.

[Bigmac versus]

Yip Dusary is not a man to be messed with AC2007, keep at em.

[Dusary]

Hello everyone!

 

I'm back.

 

We've all been "in limbo" since July.....but now it's all kicking off again.

 

Like you all, I'm waiting to see how tomorrow's court case pans out.

 

Meanwhile, for those of us in Scotland, it might pay to listen to this morning's broadcast on Radio Scotland:

 

BBC - Radio Scotland - Sunday Live

 

Having been paid back £10k and awaiting a further £20k (plus two further "missing" accounts) I'm with you all ..... and am now ready to put my £340s-worth" into all this.

 

Wach this space.

 

Apparently, apart from Glasgow's Courts - all other Scottish Courts are ignoring the "English Stay". I haven't explored this route/avenue yet ....

 

But, I'm willing, now, to resume giving advice and encouragement to all you lovely people who have either been "ripped off" or have had partial repayments.

 

That is something Martin Lewis didn't mention on radio Scotland's broadcast - other than saying that £1billion had been paid back.

 

Maybe a "precedent" has been set.

 

We'll see ..........

[deadlykiss]

lol welcome back Dursary

[**Tilly**]

good to see you back again dursary:rolleyes:

[Bigmac versus]

Hello Dusary glad to see your back for round 2

[sea-sidelady]

Hello everyone!

 

I'm back.

 

About time!!

[ja-de]

back Dusary. We've missed you.

[Dusary]

Hello guys and guyesses,

 

Well, we seem to be up and running again. The finding of the Judge (published today) is only the start. It would appear (from what I have heard on radio and TV since 11.00hrs) that the Banks will absorb the massive document - and along with OFT - will meet with the Judge on May 22nd to decide what the next move will be.

 

Meanwhile - an update on my situation. During my / our / *silence* since last July, I have uncovered/discovered some other accounts. My spreadsheets tell me that the figure owing stood at around £32k now.

 

I think that there may be 2 further accounts - but HBOS is being rather reticent to release details. Maybe I'll go back to ICO and chase them that way.

 

I think that our *waiting* period will still stretch out - after May 22nd there could be further appeals to be heard.

 

It is important (TODAY) to understand that the Judge DID NOT say that the charges were unfair.

 

He DID say that OFT could pursue the banks, "The banks' relevant terms and conditions were in, or largely in, plain intelligible language; and that the banks' unarranged overdraft charges were not penalties at common law."

"The High Court has today confirmed the OFT's view that personal current account unarranged overdraft charges can be assessed for fairness.

 

This is an important early milestone for the OFT and our investigation into this area of high consumer interest. We are now analysing the implications of the judgment for our overall investigation into the fairness of the terms. There may need to be further hearings to determine any outstanding issues arising from the judgment. The timetable for next steps will be decided by the court at a hearing before the end of May.

 

Hang on in there, everyone.

 

 

Here's the OFT webpage info:

OFT welcomes High Court ruling on unarranged overdraft charges

 

55/08 24 April 2008

The High Court has today confirmed the OFT's view that personal current account unarranged overdraft charges can be assessed for fairness.

 

This is an important early milestone for the OFT and our investigation into this area of high consumer interest. We are now analysing the implications of the judgment for our overall investigation into the fairness of the terms. There may need to be further hearings to determine any outstanding issues arising from the judgment. The timetable for next steps will be decided by the court at a hearing before the end of May.

 

This case was brought by the OFT in agreement with eight of the largest current account providers. We will be working with them and other interested parties to ensure this market works well for consumers.

 

It is important to note that this judgment only covers points of legal principle and does not determine whether the relevant charges are actually unfair. We are continuing our investigation into the fairness of these terms and will consider our position after reviewing the detail of this judgment.

 

NOTES

 

1. The judgment today sets out the judge's ruling and reasoning on a range of legal issues, including ruling that the banks' relevant terms and conditions were in, or largely in, plain intelligible language; and that the banks' unarranged overdraft charges were not penalties at common law.

2. All businesses have a duty to ensure that they are complying with the law. Current account providers will need to consider whether there are any implications from today's judgment for their current terms and conditions.

3. In April 2007 the OFT announced its investigation into the fairness of unarranged overdraft and returned item fees (referred to as 'unarranged overdraft charges'). This followed on from the OFT's initial review of such charges, where the OFT concluded that it shared the public concern about the level and incidence of bank current account charges.

4. In July 2007 the OFT entered into an agreement with the largest current account providers in relation to bringing a test case in order to ensure an orderly and timely resolution of the legal issues associated with its investigation. This stage of the case was heard between 17 January and 8 February 2008, and dealt with certain preliminary issues of legal principle relating to whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ('UTCCRs') apply to the banks' various current terms and conditions and whether the charges are capable of amounting to penalties at common law.

5. The other parties to the test case are Abbey National plc, Barclays Bank plc, Clydesdale Bank plc, HBOS plc, HSBC Bank plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, and Nationwide Building Society. Together these current account providers account for about 90 per cent of personal current accounts in the UK.

6. In parallel with the legal action on the preliminary issues in the test case we are continuing our detailed analysis of the terms and conditions of current account providers.

7. In the course of its work on the issue we have liaised closely with the Financial Services Authority and have also held discussions with the main banks.

8. The OFT has also been conducting a market study which is taking a wide-ranging look at whether the personal current account market is working well for consumers. In particular we will assess the extent to which consumers help drive competition. The OFT plans to publish our findings in the next few months having taken account of the implications of the judgment. Further information on the background to the case can be found on this website. The FSA has also published guidance for consumers on its website.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Dusary

[Dusary]

Yip Dusary is not a man to be messed with AC2007, keep at em.

 

 

Well, thank you kind sir!