Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[pward33]

this article talks about the 6 year rule, i thought that claimants were no longer restricted to 6 years?

 

There's a strong argument that they are not - and never have been -restricted to six years, but many people stick to the 6-year principle rather than trying to get to grips with yet more legal issues.

 

A succinct summary of the position is contained in the exchange between Bookworm and Photoman in the first few posts of this link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108091-oft-banks-dont-panic.html

[GOODIES]

TO ALL CONCERNED INCLUDNG ME:mad:

 

From what I have read and heard from Martin Lewis and the news it looks as if we are in a sticky situation for the moment. I have a court date for the 31st August. But what should I do?????????????????????

Well it seems that all court cases will be cancelled until the final of the High Court hearing, I assume, I hope the courts have the decency to inform us.

Now if this is not the case, which I will look into at the end of the week. I feel that if the case is heard it will just be thrown out because of the High Court proceedings. I can only assume that the date and court hearing will be suspended until the completion of their trial.

Now! If the court case is actually cancelled the Courts will have to give us back the £100.00 fee as they have not pursued what we were paying for but i'm afraid that I think that they will suspend the case until a further date thus keeping our money. A case apparently was heard today and was thrown out due to the High Court case.

I would seriously think that everyone should get in contact with their Courts if they are due a court date around now as it seems unfair to us to have gone through all this hard work and then be blown out by the courts, don't you agree?????????????????

I have spent £220.00 so far on retrieving my £3,000 and was just about to alter my claim on form N224 which was going to cost me another £35.00 and I was going to buy a new printer because of all the photocopying that I was going to have to do within the next two weeks and that was going to cost me another £140.00.

 

I hope that we all soon hear something and hopefully Martin Lewis who usually sends his Emails to subscribers on Tuesday's will have some more info for us.

 

Lets keep our fingers crossed mates and perhaps we might get what is rightfully ours.

 

My advice and this is only my advice, if you have not got the Court Stage yet, hang fire as this could cost you up to £120.00 just to get in the Court system and this could be lost, we are all in the dark, but if I can help anybody from losing any more money to the Treasury then perhaps my experiences will make me feel better, but please this is only my opinion whatever you choose to do is entirely your decision of course.

 

Please get back to me if I can help in anyway.

 

My name is Jay

 

EMail: [email protected]

[tomterm8]

Jay, I have to disagree with you. It is vital that you EITHER start a formal consumer credit complaint (under the CCA 2006) OR start a court claim... the limitation clock is ticking, and every day you don't act., costs you money.

[Uzi85C]

Yo guys, this case which was lost today, does it mean i won't get any cash now, i.e i shouldn't start my claim...

 

i've still not started my claim yet, i've just worked out my bakncharges to just over 500squids... can i still start my claim?

[ICY]

Yes you should start your claim, have a look at the WIKI HERE It will tell you how to proceed

 

The Tom brennan case isnt quite the same as what you are claiming for, and has no bearing on our claims, although that is not the information the media are giving out, they like to cause panic by telling everyone there claims are over This is absolutly not the case

[tomterm8]

Yo guys, this case which was lost today, does it mean i won't get any cash now, i.e i shouldn't start my claim...

 

i've still not started my claim yet, i've just worked out my bakncharges to just over 500squids... can i still start my claim?

 

No cases were lost today.

 

Cases are being stayed... that is, suspended, until a test case is resolved. No cases were cancelled, none lost.

[mitchem16]

Anyone who wants to email Gordon Brown about the ridiculous and unfair FSA and FOS decision to stop looking at consumer complaints can do so here -

 

Email the PM

[maybelline]

Section 32 of SOL refers to;

 

Section 32 of the Statute of Limitations act (otherwise known as the limitations act 1980. see here:

Results within legislation - Statute Law Database

 

(go to section 32)

 

This is a statutory instrument (law) constructed to protect people/ companies from having old/stale claims from being brought against them.

Under this, the usual limitation period is 6 years, which means that if you haven't brought an action for recovery of a debt against someone within 6 years, then you lose your right to.

In effect, it means that we should not ordinarily be allowed to claim back any charges that were taken from us more than 6 years ago, regardless of whether or not we can prove they were taken...... HOWEVER....

 

Under section 32 of the act, the 6 year period of limitation is raised, if it can be proven that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the money was taken whilst;

Either the defendant (the bank) were concealing the true nature of the charges (sec 32(1)b).

Or that the charges were conceded by ourselves whilst acting under a mistake (which in our own circumstances was bourne of the defendants misrepresentations) that the whole sums were properly due. sec 32 (1)c.

 

Thus by invoking section 32 of the said act, we can contend and claim that ALL charges no matter how old can be reclaimed.

 

Anyway, this is not really the proper thread to discuss this any further, so please lets not clutter this thread, and anyone wishing to do so should do a forum search for threads that deal with this.

 

thanks so much photoman, I will do just that, I have a hearing on Wed and have the solicitor for them pressing me to settle on the statute barred argument and some other?

[MacBoy]

Anyone who wants to email Gordon Brown about the ridiculous and unfair FSA and FOS decision to stop looking at consumer complaints can do so here

I doubt old 'Pension-Robber' Broon will listen - wouldn't surprise me if he condones it - he's always been too close to the City IMO.

[blazing-badger]

Guys

 

I must confess I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments in this thread. We have been pressing the OFT for some time to take action on bank charges, and now that they have done so we're up in arms about it.

 

I agree that the delay will be a bit of a bummer (and I speak as someone who was due in court next week), but to be honest I feel it's unreasonable to expect the courts to continue to decide cases when the High Court is about to decide the law once and for all. Some people have complained about a delay until Christmas as though it were the end of the world, but as far as the courts are concerned that's really quite a short time. And as far as the FOS is concerned, it is up to the courts to determine the law - so their view, not unreasonably, is that they should allow them to do so now they've been asked.

 

Let me put it this way - how would those who are pressing for their day in court before the High Court decision feel if they were to lose their case - and therefore all their money - only for the OFT to win a little later?

 

We have been confident all along that the law is on our side. We should have confidence that the High Court is about to give the banks a bloody nose - almost every judge up to now has jumped at the chance.

 

Let's get a bit of perspective and give up on the conspiracy theories.

[un1boy]

Guys

 

I must confess I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments in this thread. We have been pressing the OFT for some time to take action on bank charges, and now that they have done so we're up in arms about it.

 

I agree that the delay will be a bit of a bummer (and I speak as someone who was due in court next week), but to be honest I feel it's unreasonable to expect the courts to continue to decide cases when the High Court is about to decide the law once and for all. Some people have complained about a delay until Christmas as though it were the end of the world, but as far as the courts are concerned that's really quite a short time. And as far as the FOS is concerned, it is up to the courts to determine the law - so their view, not unreasonably, is that they should allow them to do so now they've been asked.

 

Let me put it this way - how would those who are pressing for their day in court before the High Court decision feel if they were to lose their case - and therefore all their money - only for the OFT to win a little later?

 

We have been confident all along that the law is on our side. We should have confidence that the High Court is about to give the banks a bloody nose - almost every judge up to now has jumped at the chance.

 

Let's get a bit of perspective and give up on the conspiracy theories.

 

I think the problem is that this could take years - they may not make a decision by christmas, it mite only be the prelim hearing etc.

 

The OFT could have ruled themselves that the charrges were unlawful and had done with it. But, instead they have clogged it up in the court system - apparently because a few consumer threatened them with legal action for flouting their responsbilities.

 

Sounds a bit like the Credit Reference Agencies and doing al they can to not upset their "clients".

 

The banks with drag this out as much as they can, and who knows? How are "we" going to have a Judge that can be impartial? They will [probably] have shares in some of the banks anyway.

[Guest Wild Billy]

The OFT could have ruled themselves that the charrges were unlawful and had done with it.

 

Er, no.

[everyman06]

Er, no.

 

I second the no, the OFTdoesn't make the law!! Test case is a goodthing,but the waiver is bummer.At least a one sided bummer.....

 

on the other hand,if the banks lose in two years time and i 'collect' charges at the same rate during that period,it will be the mother of all pay-outs!! retired on my 34th B-day.... lol

[Guest Wild Billy]

I have only just read this post having just found time to go through the entire thread so I apologize if its a late reply.

 

Are you really that naive that you don't believe that this has been coming for a long time and that it is already a done deal?

 

The OLD BOY Network has always been the way things are done and always will be. The judiciary and the bigwigs of the financial world have already decided what will happen. After all their bonuses depend on the outcome of this.

 

No, I'm not naive. In fact, you'll never understand just how clued up I am on this. But instead of listening to those who might know a thing or two about what is really going on, you prefer to talk about "old boy networks" and "done deals". If it makes you feel better though...

[pward33]

Some people have complained about a delay until Christmas as though it were the end of the world, but as far as the courts are concerned that's really quite a short time.

 

I suspect the delay will be rather longer than that; with such serious issues at stake I would have thought the case will be appealed firstly to the Court of Appeal and ultimately the House of Lords.

 

As Everyman says, it is the job of the courts to determine what the law is; not the OFT.

 

I really do sympathise with everyone who is likely to have their case stayed and just hope that the wilder conspiracy theorists are not proved right. I also fully understand the anger at the apparent lack of consultation with the various groups representing the consumers whose interests are to be in many cases significantly affected by the test case. Perhaps there are legal reasons why they could not be consulted but I cannot think of any.

 

My hunch though (to some extent based on experience) - and it goes against all my anti-establishment insticts to say so - is that the higher up the court system you go, the more independent-minded the judges seem to be. If it does go to the Lords I think that increases the chances of a just decision and as someone else said - just think of the interest that will have accrued!

 

Time, as they say, will tell ....

[TECHSPEC]

Is it my computer, or as the MCOL site been down all day.

 

Maybe they are stopping new claims, whilst they decide the way forward.

[nicsussex]

I also fully understand the anger at the apparent lack of consultation with the various groups representing the consumers whose interests are to be in many cases significantly affected by the test case. Perhaps there are legal reasons why they could not be consulted but I cannot think of any.

 

Has nobody linked to this yet?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108233-bank-charges-consumer-charter.html

[pward33]

Is it my computer, or as the MCOL site been down all day.

 

Maybe they are stopping new claims, whilst they decide the way forward.

 

You're not the first to say that; I'd suggest going to the following link and downloading the N1 form and do it that way.

 

All the best

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForms.do;jsessionid=CC9FF3F2005F05589979D7332094F92A

[TECHSPEC]

You're not the first to say that; I'd suggest going to the following link and downloading the N1 form and do it that way.

 

All the best

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForms.do;jsessionid=CC9FF3F2005F05589979D7332094F92A

 

Thanks, that seems to be down too.

 

But i was trying to request a default judgement, which is due today. I will have to ring it through tomorrow, but i expect a late defence in any case.

[pward33]

Has nobody linked to this yet?

 

Bank Charges Consumer Charter

 

No, first I'd heard of it - fantastic stuff

[TECHSPEC]

MCOL is back on.

 

At 00.24 i requested judgement by default for a friend. Today is the 29th day (it was sunday, but they get another day).

 

The other side will no doubt file a late defence today, and MCOL will accept it, as late defences take precendence.

 

Fingers crossed anyway.

 

I have to ring court in Morning for my own default.

[Guest Wild Billy]

I also fully understand the anger at the apparent lack of consultation with the various groups representing the consumers whose interests are to be in many cases significantly affected by the test case. Perhaps there are legal reasons why they could not be consulted but I cannot think of any.

 

This question has been posed a few times so let's see if we can lay it to rest. What I am about to say might sound provocative but it isn't meant to be.

 

The CAG and MSE are websites, which provide advice and support to people on reclaiming bank charges. You might say thay are also lobby groups. That's it though. Neither are "consumer groups" in the sense that Which? or the National Consumer Council are.

 

Now, Government is bound by strict disclosure provisions that prevents the release of information in certain circumstances. These provisions prevent unlawful disclosures which helps protect market sensitive information or commercial confidentiality (amongst other things). Anyone who has made an Freedom of Information Act request to the OFT will probably be familiar with restrictions in Part 9 the Enterprise Act because that is often cited as why information cannot be released. If you take a look at this a bit more closely then you will see the kind of restictions are in place and that disclosures can only be made to certian groups- definitely not general consumers! Or lobby groups.

 

Part 9 - Information Disclosure - DTI

 

Enterprise Act 2002

 

Disclosures cannot "just" be made to anyone and everybody. So even if the OFT wanted to disclose the information, it probably couldn't have by law. So there are very good legal reasons why there wasn't consultation. And you will see that unlawful disclosure leads to a jail sentence so it is hardly something the anyone would take lightly!

 

More specifically than that though is the "sudden announcement" on Thursday. I posed a question about why it was made at 6pm on the evening before the day of the papers being filed but no-one answered so I'll spoonfeed you. All the banks are listed on the stockmarket and there are any number of rules about how and when this kind of information is released. I would strongly suspect this is why it was announced after the stockmarket had closed for the day. And it would be another reason why the world and his wife couldn't be told before it was officially announced.

 

That should clear things up but let's see if the paranoia remains.

[nicsussex]

The CAG and MSE are websites, which provide advice and support to people on reclaiming bank charges. You might say thay are also lobby groups. That's it though. Neither are "consumer groups" in the sense that Which? or the National Consumer Council are.

 

Which? are a profit making organisation acting under the guise of being 'consumer groups'.

[Guest Wild Billy]

Maybe, but it is also a body under the Enterprise Act so its status in law is different to CAG or MSE.

 

Enforcement Orders (also known as Stop Now Orders). - DTI

[zootscoot]

This question has been posed a few times so let's see if we can lay it to rest. What I am about to say might sound provocative but it isn't meant to be.

 

The CAG and MSE are websites, which provide advice and support to people on reclaiming bank charges. You might say thay are also lobby groups. That's it though. Neither are "consumer groups" in the sense that Which? or the National Consumer Council are.

 

Now, Government is bound by strict disclosure provisions that prevents the release of information in certain circumstances. These provisions prevent unlawful disclosures which helps protect market sensitive information or commercial confidentiality (amongst other things). Anyone who has made an Freedom of Information Act request to the OFT will probably be familiar with restrictions in Part 9 the Enterprise Act because that is often cited as why information cannot be released. If you take a look at this a bit more closely then you will see the kind of restictions are in place and that disclosures can only be made to certian groups- definitely not general consumers! Or lobby groups.

 

Part 9 - Information Disclosure - DTI

 

Enterprise Act 2002

 

Disclosures cannot "just" be made to anyone and everybody. So even if the OFT wanted to disclose the information, it probably couldn't have by law. So there are very good legal reasons why there wasn't consultation. And you will see that unlawful disclosure leads to a jail sentence so it is hardly something the anyone would take lightly!

 

More specifically than that though is the "sudden announcement" on Thursday. I posed a question about why it was made at 6pm on the evening before the day of the papers being filed but no-one answered so I'll spoonfeed you. All the banks are listed on the stockmarket and there are any number of rules about how and when this kind of information is released. I would strongly suspect this is why it was announced after the stockmarket had closed for the day. And it would be another reason why the world and his wife couldn't be told before it was officially announced.

 

That should clear things up but let's see if the paranoia remains.

 

Thanks for this WB. This is really interesting stuff and I do hope the conspiracy theories die. Whilst there may be rules on disclosure, disclosure is something different from consultation. Consultation is inviting views on issues and listening to responses, although I admit some disclosure may take place within consultation.

 

So in principle would you say that there is anything to stop OFT from consulting with organisations like CAG and MSE? I would be really interested to hear your views.