Webbs Catering V Nationwide

[webbscatering]

So why wont the OFT take up the fight then, if they will not challenge the charges then this is deemed as fair

[craigers]

it doesn't mean they're fair. the problem lies with how to challenge them. the supreme court ruled that it was not for the oft to challenge the level of charges.

[webbscatering]

No your kind of right they have not said they are fair but the banks interpretation on the whole sordid issue will be they are fair, so to stop people hanging on to my every typed word, I agree the OFT have not said they are fair. The whole sordid affair has been a major set back for all involved and there is no point in putting rose tinted glasses on our faces this morning as we are NOT getting our money back, Unless someone convinces us otherwise.

[Surfer01]

Basically the OFT wasted over two years of our time when we could have been claiming back our illegal bank charges!

Is there anything preventing us using the FOS in claiming back our bank charges?

[craigers]

the fos are generally a waste of time.

[webbscatering]

FOS - another waste of space mate basically its over there is no coming back from this now, there is a conspiracy theory going on with the judicial system, government and the banks as if this went our way then the government will lose too much in an already fragile market.

[Surfer01]

I was just thinking of hassling them as they not much good for anything else.

[webbscatering]

Mate stand with your face to the wind and relieve yourself as this is what we are up against now, this site has run out of answers and will soon focus its attentions on something else. To be honest I stand a better chance finding an honest Bank manager then getting my charges back.............RIP to CAG

[webbscatering]

I find it hard to belive the OFT are dropping the fight, what a bunch of dimwits and waste of human life they have become, they have legally shafted every Publican with a pubco lease in the country by stating the beer tie is FAIR and now this............ come on this Stinks of bovine excrement!!!, who is paying off who in these dens of shadiness

[webbscatering]

As I already guessed there are no answers from anyone on this site as to whether we are going to be successful with our claims.... THANKS CAG for the false hopes. When I first joined this site people were falling over themselves to answer your questions and now silence, not even a mumour form the mini mods!!!

[yourbank]

As I already guessed there are no answers from anyone on this site as to whether we are going to be successful with our claims.... THANKS CAG for the false hopes. When I first joined this site people were falling over themselves to answer your questions and now silence, not even a mumour form the mini mods!!!

 

Hang a minute, can you. Have you looked at the CAG announcements? Are you aware that Martin Lewis is saying new templates in January?

Do you know that it has been Christmas and even CAG mods and site team have family and are not simply here at the whim of one individual user?

The OFT announcement as to their position is set out in OFT1154 and it covers most of the arguments in the mix.

What arguments have you looked at?

What digging have you done?

What have you done to help CAG with new arguments and research?

 

With respect, "ask not what CAG mods can do for you but what you can do for the benefit of all on CAG".

[webbscatering]

At last a response, I have done all the reading i want to on this site and many others and what is lacking is something slightly inspirational. I have no idea who you are are what your qualifications are!! but I know for sure as a layman we are going to lose out to the banks as its that simple, I do care about peoples christmas and do not understand what that has to do with bank charges. I know for sure that the OFT have shafted us once again unless you with your infinite wisdom can come up with hard and positive answers!

[mkb]

The Supreme Court alluded to the next move & it takes time to get it right!

 

Nobody woke up one day & thought 'O I know, we can get bank charges back. I'll just fire off a letter for all to follow'.

 

As with any legal challenge, it takes time to thoroughly research & put together so I think you're being extremely impatient if you think it should all be prepared for you & others to use within a few weeks of the decision in court.

 

As for your aggression to CAG, its not necessary especially when you have been helped in the past!!

[yourbank]

At last a response, I have done all the reading i want to on this site and many others and what is lacking is something slightly inspirational. I have no idea who you are are what your qualifications are!!

NatWestStaffMember/Nattie(for short) on internet bank charges forums.

 

but I know for sure as a layman we are going to lose out to the banks as its that simple,

Most sites are about people empowering themselves and reading and reading until you think you have got to grips with the arguments, rather than holding someone's hand to simply send a templated response to an individual complaint. You don't see what the Bank Charges Campaign has achieved do you? Have you read and understood OFT1154? Camapaign groups such as CAG now have a voice/dialogue with the OFT which they didn't have before, RBS Group charges have been lowered, Barclays have changed their charging structure. That is merely the interesting bits.

 

I do care about peoples christmas and what that has to do with bank charges.

Well, you have suggested CAG Mod's and team are doing nothing well, December 222nd was when the OFT gave their opinion and furthermore, many courts have stays in place for 3 months so surely they can have their christmas and work on an adequate response to people rather than rush in and get people to lose their cases.

I know for sure that the OFT have shafted us once again unless you with your infinite wisdom can come up with hard and positive answers!

 

The OFT test case has provided some fantastic evidence that may well prove invaluable in later cases. The OFT had 4 judges agreeing with them and the SC did not exactly scream that the banks can do what they like. You need to read more, to be honest with you.

[webbscatering]

The Supreme Court alluded to the next move & it takes time to get it right!

 

Nobody woke up one day & thought 'O I know, we can get bank charges back. I'll just fire off a letter for all to follow'.

 

As with any legal challenge, it takes time to thoroughly research & put together so I think you're being extremely impatient if you think it should all be prepared for you & others to use within a few weeks of the decision in court.

 

As for your aggression to CAG, its not necessary especially when you have been helped in the past!!

 

OMG Who are you!!, this is not constructive to the cause having a dig at me and the so said aggressiveness, but if it makes you feel better this further shows how you are feeling about the whole situation. Yes I helped in the past because people back then cared more about getting things done instead of bickering about others peoples attitude, Back then we hated the banks and we spoke about it but now its go look here go look there.......... waste of time, people need to talk more.

 

PS. I am a Nice person really

[patrickq1]

So why wont the OFT take up the fight then, if they will not challenge the charges then this is deemed as fair

i think the goverment banks need there money would you trust Mr Brownstuff or Move over Darling with your money

[patrickq1]

the OFT did a few weeks ago report it was unlikely they would go back to court this came from one of there spokespersons then a lid was put on it and another spokesperson the sameday said it was a bit to premature to make a statement at that time ignoring what they had discussed and reported that day talk about confused i think the goverment leant on them to keep quiet until after xmas ?

but if it is the case i would wonder where they really do stand and would also leave the OFT up for a serious challenge to their what has been uptil now negative replies to consumers asking for help myself personally would nt even bother with a complaint to them as they are usless bunch of ?????

cant even be bothered to answer that one as for your bank his opinion has been very constructive and it may not suit everyones opinions but has been helpfull

patrickq1

[mkb]

I'm a nobody but I am also somebody who got their bank charges back PURELY BECAUSE of CAG!

 

As yourbank has already said, this is a self-help forum & it does require the investment of time to research for oneself.

 

There are hundreds of people on here who have waited for over 2yrs for some resolution to their case with bank charges but they've not been shouting about how long it takes to get the templates right are they?

 

I'm a nice person too but I hate it when someone who has had the benefit of all the good work CAG has done, starts moaning about having to do something for themselves.

 

I wont be posting a reply to any more comments you might make on this thread so please dont feel obliged to respond to this post.

[webbscatering]

i think the goverment banks need there money would you trust Mr Brownstuff or Move over Darling with your money

 

To be honest if there was a hint of corruption and our current Government is completely riddled with it, the banks they own have to show they are making profit again or people with shaft them for wasting our money. Like most businesses look at the bottom line figures and return a healthy profit by cutting your loss makers in this instant the possibilities of huge litigation payments for ripping people off.

 

I believe there is more we can do to make the powers that be stand up and listen.

[webbscatering]

I'm a nobody but I am also somebody who got their bank charges back PURELY BECAUSE of CAG!

 

As yourbank has already said, this is a self-help forum & it does require the investment of time to research for oneself.

 

There are hundreds of people on here who have waited for over 2yrs for some resolution to their case with bank charges but they've not been shouting about how long it takes to get the templates right are they?

 

I'm a nice person too but I hate it when someone who has had the benefit of all the good work CAG has done, starts moaning about having to do something for themselves.

 

I wont be posting a reply to any more comments you might make on this thread so please dont feel obliged to respond to this post.

 

Yes as I thought another worthless post from a mini mod

[webbscatering]

the OFT did a few weeks ago report it was unlikely they would go back to court this came from one of there spokespersons then a lid was put on it and another spokesperson the sameday said it was a bit to premature to make a statement at that time ignoring what they had discussed and reported that day talk about confused i think the goverment leant on them to keep quiet until after xmas ?

but if it is the case i would wonder where they really do stand and would also leave the OFT up for a serious challenge to their what has been uptil now negative replies to consumers asking for help myself personally would nt even bother with a complaint to them as they are usless bunch of ?????

cant even be bothered to answer that one as for your bank his opinion has been very constructive and it may not suit everyones opinions but has been helpfull

patrickq1

 

I read the same Patrickq, but what the hell are the OFT for if they are not helping consumers the biggest thing to hit the publicans last years was the OFT decision stating Beer Ties are fair....what the hell, publican have to buy beer as much 50% above market price and try and make a living, and the OFT thinks that fine. Now they have abandoned every consumer that want to get back bank charges and not so long ago these charges was deemed unlawful.

[car2403]

webbscatering, I think you need to seriously think about the reason why you are here. Most folk come here looking for help, that is a given, but CAG is a self help forum - we ARE NOT here to do the work for you. If you care to read the rest of the forums, starting with the FAQ's, the success forums, etc, then we can probably help you. If you aren't prepared to do some legwork yourself, you may as well not bother your backside, as no one will do this for you. Now, once you've done that, if you have any questions about how to progress, please do ask questions in a thread in the relevant place. CAGgers will be more than happy to help you, I'm sure.

 

If you're here to wind everyone up, then you may as well stop right now. This will get you no where.

 

Now, I'll put my interpretations of your behaviour so far here to one side, in the hope that you'll see the errors of your ways and move on, constructively. I also suggest you re-read (as you would have already read them, on registering) the site rules before posting further. There's a handy link in my signature, should you not be able to find them.

 

Now, to answer your question, (hopefully) the OFT have decided not to investigate the fairness of bank charges further. They claim that they are taking the Court's opinion and advice, and are leaving it to the Government to legislate to correct the issue. This is a cop out, and now means that most claimants will struggle with detailed legal argument about their individual cases. I also think that the QC's will struggle to get some template particulars of claim, as "fairness" will be judged on the facts - meaning that each claim will be different. CAG still believes, as do I, (I don't represent CAG's opinion, they are capable of doing that sufficiently well themselves) that Court is the only option for claimants to get a fair hearing of their claims.

 

HTH.

[yourbank]

 

Now, to answer your question, (hopefully) the OFT have decided not to investigate the fairness of bank charges further. They claim that they are taking the Court's opinion and advice, and are leaving it to the Government to legislate to correct the issue. This is a cop out, and now means that most claimants will struggle with detailed legal argument about their individual cases.

I'm not sure it is a cop out to be honest car, having read OFT1154, they have effectively said that they are still talking to consumer groups(which include CAG), they are still keeping a watching brief and with regards to government intervention, it was the opinion of the SC on that issue as well.

 

 

I also think that the QC's will struggle to get some template particulars of claim, as "fairness" will be judged on the facts - meaning that each claim will be different.

Car, I am inclined to to be in total agreement with this based on Reg 5(1) grey list and (e) which at some point has to go to ECJ for assistance if 6.2(b) goes out.

CAG still believes, as do I, (I don't represent CAG's opinion, they are capable of doing that sufficiently well themselves) that Court is the only option for claimants to get a fair hearing of their claims.

 

HTH.

 

With regards to the last point, the OFT test case was supposed to clear the mist on penalties argument and UTCCR 1999. With regards to UTCCR 1999 it very much made the air even worse since it didn't resolve it fully.

With regards to charges themselves going forward, all groups have a significant voice to use. Personally, I cannot see the point of further litigation for the OFT on historic charges since it is the current and their current issues around the transparency of current charges that they should be mindful of.

[webbscatering]

That's what the problem is with this country lack of free speech or the inability to speak freely but if thats how your running things now who am I to argue, seems my basic rights are now been muted.

 

Back to my beef, orginally the banks were reluctant to divulge what constituted the heavy penalties and by not passing on the info the charges were unlawful, then the banks have argued the one and only area that was not fully transparent and that was the UTCCR 1999 and this is what the courts have ruled in their favour. But still remains is if the penalties are a true reflection of your losses then you can charge that penalty....I think, why has this gone to UTCCR. Its like beer ties investigated by the OFT, beer ties are not unlawful but the prices that are charged. What are we arguing??

[Bookworm]

You obviously haven't followed the test case throughout. In part one, Justice Smith decided the charges were not capable of amounting to penalties (with the possible exception of some of Natwest's charges, see judgment for details).

In part two, the OFT asked the courts to decide whether they could assess the charges for fairness under the UTCCR and the judge, as well as the court of appeals, said yes, before being overturned by the SC who said no, effectively ending the OFT's role as for fairness.

 

This is where we are now, and after nearly 4 years of being utterly convinced that the charges were penalties and/or unfair under the UTCCR, it takes some time to regroup and explore new avenues as the SC has effectively cut off a lot of the arguments we were using.

 

I can't speak for others, but I know that with the decision for the OFT not to pursue further announced on Dec 22nd, I then had xmas and the holidays to sort out, and when my kids go back to school next week is when I'll be dusting my thinking cap on properly to mull over the issues, at the moment, all I have done is gone over things in my head and I have some ideas, but there's no way I would go public with them without 1) reading up first to make sure I am not forgetting anything important, 2) writing it up and checking and double-checking before submitting it here, and I am not going to apologise if people have to wait.