Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[un1boy]

Is there any update on this case?

[Mistermind]

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT accuses banks over charges - latest Test Case report dated 29JAN2008

 

Each of 8 banks takes 2 days to make its case, followed by OFT rebuttal. BBC appears to update their report after every two court days.

[photoman]

Received a reply today from my MP in response to a letter I wrote to him.

It was regards the matter of the inappropriate and undemocratic way that the OFT test case was being conducted, and in particular the restrictions upon access for the Press and Public, which were totally disproportionate to the importance of the issues and the massive public concern and interest in the case:

 

I've posted his response here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1370814.html

[TideTurner]

Received a reply today from my MP in response to a letter I wrote to him.

It was regards the matter of the inappropriate and undemocratic way that the OFT test case was being conducted, and in particular the restrictions upon access for the Press and Public, which were totally disproportionate to the importance of the issues and the massive public concern and interest in the case:

 

I've posted his response here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1370814.html

 

PM,

 

Excellent,

 

Tide

[Yanni]

Unless somebody has more knowledge than myself, or there actually is a website or whatever where a transcript or even resume of the previous day or even days' proceedings of the case can be found, then I find it shamefully that there is no such facility for the general public to access a record of the prodeedings and be kept up to date on what is surely a popular "trial".

[Mistermind]

OFT Test case

 

".....The OFT has refused to publish copies of the banks' defences on its website or to make them available in any other way for consumers. The OFT cites "confidentiality" reasons. However, Bob the Bankbuster is pleased to be able to make them available. To view them, click on the links below – the documents (pdfs) will download to your computer."

 

Abbey defence

Barclays defence

Clydesdale defence

Halifax (HBOS) defence

Royal Bank of Scotland (including NatWest) defence

Lloyds TSB defence

HSBC defence

[Guest vortex]

this is one example where the OFT did publish the amended POC's with bits crossed through from the original. Abbey below as example because they are first alphabetically on the list of defendents.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/Abbey-amended-defence.pdf

I think all of them are there on the OFT website. I think that at the time he posted that the OFT did not post any POC's at all on their site.

[nicsussex]

Although you could of course got all the information here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/113391-oft-banks-documentation.html

[hilaryfrances]

[Mister Twister]

This thread has gone quiet!

 

According to the BBC today is the day the Test Case is expected to finish, although I don't expect the Judge to make his decision quickly.

[Stoked]

This thread has gone quiet!

 

According to the BBC today is the day the Test Case is expected to finish, although I don't expect the Judge to make his decision quickly.

 

It finished last week mate

[Mister Twister]

So are we just waiting for the decision to be made by the Judge?

[fuzzgun19]

Yes.. Can anyone shed any light what happens now if the case has finished?

 

I have 2 claims that I didn't bother taking to MCOL because of this 'test case'. I got the usual fob off letters from Nationwide, that was back in July 2007.

 

Do we have to send another letter?

[Maggiebroom]

Don't send your letter yet fuzzgun19, it may take another year before we can do anything at all with our claims. Even if the Judge rules in the OFT's favour (this should take several weeks) there is bound to be an appeal, and then it may even go to the House of Lords, so it could be another year before any of us can continue with our claims (or not as the case may be).

 

Never mind, think of a years worth of 8% interest added on.

 

Patience is a virtue,

Possess it of you can,

Seldom in a woman,

Never in a man.

 

maggiebroom

[fuzzgun19]

Thanks Maggiebroom!

[Stoked]

So are we just waiting for the decision to be made by the Judge?

 

Yes but don't expect a judgement anytime soon. The judge has to make 7 separate declarations and has indicated that there will be another 'discrete' hearing during the consideration of his judgement. I wouldn't be surprised if it took six months or even longer, but let's hope not.

[Mister Twister]

My friend lives in the US and he has hired an attorney to look at the same issues we are dealing with here. In the case of credit card charges there was a Supreme Court Case and the judge ruled in favour of CitiBank. I hope the judge in our case sees more sense!

 

 

In Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., the Supreme Court ruled that late-payment fees on credit cards were “interest” and therefore that the National Bank Act permits national banks to charge fees that are lawful in the state where the bank has its principal place of business rather than being limited by consumer protection laws of the state of the consumer to whom the fee is charged.” 517 U.S. 735, 740 (1996).

 

“‘The term ‘interest’…includes any payment compensating a creditor or prospective creditor for an extension of credit, making available of a line of credit, or any default or breach by a borrower of a condition upon which credit was extended. It includes, among other things, the following fees connected with credit extension or availability: numerical periodic rates, late fees, not sufficient funds (NSF) fees, over limit fees, annual fees, cash advance fees, and membership fees."

 

 

I know this thread is to do with the test case here in the UK but I thought this might be interesting.

[Mistermind]

Penalty Charges in USA

 

Clearly the US Supreme Court accepted the penalty charge as arbitrary "interest" regardless of the principle of proportionality embodied in the English precedent ruling on Dunlop v Garage 1910. Regardless of £20 penalty for going 20 pence overlimit.

 

Penalty Charges in Venice

 

The US ruling calls to mind another celebrated trial, that in the court of Venice in 1597, with His Grace the Duke of Venice presiding. Before him plaintiff Shylock the money-lender acting for himself, and counsel Portia acting for defendant Antonio.

 

The money-lender's penalty charge? A pound of flesh to be cut out of Antonio's body, as agreed in the contract, previously signed and properly witnessed.

 

 

 

PORTIA

Why, this bond is forfeit;

And lawfully by this the Jew may claim

A pound of flesh, to be by him cut off

Nearest the merchant's heart. Be merciful:

Take thrice thy money; bid me tear the bond.

 

SHYLOCK

When it is paid according to the tenor.

It doth appear you are a worthy judge;

You know the law, your exposition

Hath been most sound: I charge you by the law,

Whereof you are a well-deserving pillar,

Proceed to judgment: by my soul I swear

There is no power in the tongue of man

To alter me: I stay here on my bond.

[Lozzyo]

Why do i need to wait until the court case is over to make my claim? Surely no laws have yet changed making the charges still illegal under the UTCCA. This site repeatedly reminds me its legally my money.

 

HSBC were charging me for going over my overdraft limit when it was their charges that were putting me over my limit, i see this as the financial equivalent of kicking someone when they're down.

 

Can anyone explain why they're entitled to wait until after court to process my claim?

[nicsussex]

Why do i need to wait until the court case is over to make my claim?

 

You don't - if you haven't started you should do so immediately - but be warned that it will in all likelihood be stayed - but you will still be in a better position come the result of the test case

[Lozzyo]

You don't - if you haven't started you should do so immediately - but be warned that it will in all likelihood be stayed - but you will still be in a better position come the result of the test case

I rang up to make my claim about 20 mins before making that post. He was a nice guy but he said that it will not be processed until after court.

I want to know why that they're exempt from current consumer legislation.

Why should I wait? The law states that these charges are illegal.

 

My step father has been through this with a large bank, went to court and won. He believes i should ring them up tomorrow and tell them i want every penny refunded immediately and that they should comply within 24 hours...

 

As he so rightly said it is infact **** and in any other walk of life they would be arrested and prosecuted.

 

Anyone share this opinion? I want to be sure of what i'm doing as the bank has put me under severe financial strain and i need the money back asap.

[un1boy]

As he so rightly said it is infact **** and in any other walk of life they would be arrested and prosecuted.

 

Absolutely, but they aren't and they won't be - and they know this.

 

Hence the reason they keep doing what they keep doing.

[nicsussex]

I rang up to make my claim about 20 mins before making that post. He was a nice guy but he said that it will not be processed until after court.

 

Even more reason to get your claim started now - so that you will be in the 'system' when the decision is made

[Stoked]

Justice Smith and both parties have now given permission for the full transcripts of the hearing to be released.

[JOSH_IOU]

So is it business as usual for basic account customer's?

 

The release says the OFT are looking into Current account charges