Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[paulson1985]

Jubaxt,

 

I take your point £250 to pay in court fees to wait goodness knows how long is a tough decision to make, and only you can make that choice.

 

The way I see it, you can risk it and hope it is accepted and the judge allows it. Or hang on and wait for the outcome.

 

On another note to avoid the 6 year rule I suggest anyone who is thinking of reclaiming there charges, should send a letter to the bank TODAY demanding a full refund of all charges since the 1st August 2001, even if you do not no your figures, With a bit of luck when all this is over you should be able to go back to the date of the letter and not just 6 years.

 

But do not forget to send it recorded delivery or they will claim they have not received it, and keep a copy.

[LyncusBee]

Some time ago I remember the banks being told by the Ombudsman to come into line with the EU regard the clearing system, the 3-5 working days when the banks make interest on your money, by comparison it's usually same day in most EU countries. Initially they were given 5 years, then after saying that their computer systems couldn't deal with such a system, the EU having far superior computers presumably, they were given 3 years further to 'modernise the systems' ... Well that was quite a good while ago and well guess what , it still takes 3-5 days to transfer monies between banks! The banks in between times have made huge sums of monies in interest during this time. In the meantime we have all forgotten about this slice of our pie also and so in affect we have accepted it.

 

Why do the actions of a cabal between the Ombudsman, FSA, and leading banks not surprise me? Well historically we are a nation of non-complainers and have let the banks (remember the Bank of England) make the money (literally) and set their own rules. Presented with a growing problem to their profits they have taken a great big pin and headed straight for the bubble.

The FSA and Ombudsman, those who supposedly protect you the consumer, have given the banks a way of continuing to profit in the way they have been thus far for a period of time that is very probably going to be years (see the clearing system for another example of the Ombudsmans iron fisted authority).

 

They know that statistically the amount of people who will see the news (particularly given the 'it's all over' style of reporting) and say 'oh well that bubble has burst' will be numerous, possibly more than 66% at a guess and I am guessing that those who continue will receive much more punitive treatment. We will over the years forget and so in affect accept it and make it yet another reason we need to earn more money to survive; whilst further re-inforcing the capitalist model that causes such.

 

Those who suffer most from these 'charges', sorry lucrative services, are those on the financial borderline of hardship each month and so £80-£120 in court fees to invest in a possible outcome and protect from the limitation statute is a far tougher decision compared to paying off possibly enforceable debts, such as that of my own recent experiences of harassing calls and withdrawal of facilities, and reports such as the aforemenioned lady's Son's withdrawal of overdraft facilities in this thread since complaining, and thay have it now sewn up.

 

We are, as consumers, seen as naughty school children to our banks, we have dared to challenge their rules and have had our knuckles wrapped with a ruler whilst ensuring they can continue to rule upon us by those who would say they are protecting our rights.

 

What is important is that WE CARRY ON COMPLAINING AND ISSUE OUR CLAIMS UPON THE PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS MORE IMPORTANT NOW THAN EVER. It's not complaining that gave them the environment with the FSA and Ombudsman they needed to ensure they are treated with kid gloves when the issue became too popularised and their interests need be protected.

 

I can only hope that the big guns come up with some ways to defend ourselves against punitive debts and use the FSA's waiver to the banks and stay applications to our benefit also. It is only right that if the banks be allowed to continue charges and not process complaints that our debts caused by charges be unenforceable by the banks also and be stayed whilst the legal cogs grind slowly. Lo I fear 'right' is a very subjective matter when it comes to international banks.

[Bookworm]

On another note to avoid the 6 year rule I suggest anyone who is thinking of reclaiming there charges, should send a letter to the bank TODAY demanding a full refund of all charges since the 1st August 2001, even if you do not no your figures, With a bit of luck when all this is over you should be able to go back to the date of the letter and not just 6 years.

 

That would make no difference, the 6 years run from date of filing claim at court, not from letters.

[Fred_Funk]

That would make no difference, the 6 years run from date of filing claim at court, not from letters.

 

I'm beginning to get confused now...

 

Hypothetically speaking, if I sent my prelim letter to the bank on, say, June 1 but it's another two months, ie August 1, before I submit my N1 at the local court, are you saying I then have to readjust my spreadsheet to run from August 1, 2001, to August 1, 2007?

 

I have to admit I'm beginning to get a tad confused with everything that's going on at the moment but I had it clear in my head - at least, I thought I had it clear in my head - that my schedule of charges could/should appertain to the period identified in my prelim/LBA.

 

As ever, all clarification gratefully received

Fred_Funk

[everyman06]

Hi all,

 

all of this is very worrying,already am at the court stage and waiting for Barclays defence,then AQ,i was sooooo damn close,and now this sh*t... great favor the OFT is doing us here!!

[Bookworm]

You can - and should - send all of your charges, because if they refund as a gesture of good will or whatever, SOLA doesn't apply. OTOH, if it went to court, and the judge ruled that the charges were in fact penalties, then SOLA would kick in, and you would have to be ready to argue the case for removal of limitation. I am in favour of claiming it ALL, pre 6 years too, and let the bank decide if they want to try and argue it.

 

But legally speaking, the 6 yrs run from the date you file at court, yes, so if you only want to claim the 6 years, you would have to adjust your schedule accordingly.

[tomterm8]

That would make no difference, the 6 years run from date of filing claim at court, not from letters.

 

 

Are you sure? under the F.S.O. waiver, all complaints are to be dealt with after the trial on the same basis as if the waiver had not taken place...

 

So if you complain under the F.S.O scheme, the complaint will remain active.

[mattyb13]

I emailed Inga Kirkman yesterday at Abbey to try and negotiate an early settlement. I have seen others having success doing this when they had a court date and mine is less than 4 weeks away.

 

She replied withinh minutes, which from what I had read is unusual, and she refused flatly to enter into negoitation which I thought was strange now I know why. Might have to wait 12 months or so for my money.

[Lunatic Flea]

Hi all,

 

all of this is very worrying,already am at the court stage and waiting for Barclays defence,then AQ,i was sooooo damn close,and now this sh*t... great favor the OFT is doing us here!!

Not as close as me. I could smell the money. A District judge was due to look and my request for judgement request as Lloyds failed on Monday to file at court and serve me with a counter schedule as ordered by the Judge. I was told several days ago before the announcment yesterday that the judge will likely rule in my favour as Lloyds faild to comply. God knows what the Judge is going to decide now on Monday

[everyman06]

I just phoned Dino at Barclays and he said they would put ina defence to my claim and then apply for a stay...

 

Bookworm,do you think i should apply for a lift??

[iconoclash]

Hiya - Bookworm - I'm inclined to agree - I heard an interview in the small hours last night on five live radio. I think the banks and the OFT met first on this and agreed a plan - I think the consumers have been 'sent out of the room' and the banks are diverting, the parts to be looked at first are overdrafts that are overdrawn the agreed limit, re european law UTCC etc but might take 12 months!! -( couldnt find a link for listen again though.)

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

That would make no difference, the 6 years run from date of filing claim at court, not from letters.

 

Are you sure? under the F.S.O. waiver, all complaints are to be dealt with after the trial on the same basis as if the waiver had not taken place. So if you complain under the F.S.O scheme, the complaint will remain active.

 

at court is what I said. You're talking of FOS complaints, and these don't really take the 6 yrs barrier into consideration, if some of the resolutions we have seen recently are anything to go by.

[everyman06]

Not as close as me. I could smell the money. A District judge was due to look and my request for judgement request as Lloyds failed on Monday to file at court and serve me with a counter schedule as ordered by the Judge. I was told several days ago before the announcment yesterday that the judge will likely rule in my favour as Lloyds faild to comply. God knows what the Judge is going to decide now on Monday

 

Ok,that really sucks....i feel for you! good to know we are not alone in this!! I will keep fighting,am have scottish after all!!!

[Bookworm]

I just phoned Dino at Barclays and he said they would put ina defence to my claim and then apply for a stay...

 

Bookworm,do you think i should apply for a lift??

 

Well, you shouldn't have phoned then, should you? If you hadn't, maybe your claim would have slipped under the radar.

 

Anyway, they can apply for a stay, doesn't mean the judge will grant it. (although highly likely)

 

If they do, then yes, absolutely, we need to keep up the pressure any which way we can. IMO.

[everyman06]

Well, you shouldn't have phoned then, should you? If you hadn't, maybe your claim would have slipped under the radar.

 

Anyway, they can apply for a stay, doesn't mean the judge will grant it. (although highly likely)

 

If they do, then yes, absolutely, we need to keep up the pressure any which way we can. IMO.

 

Didn't give them my full name,just asked in general.....

[Josie8]

Isn't it all one sided? Shouldn't the banks have had to agree to not impose more charges in the interim period too...........and what about the bank accounts of customers who have been driven into the red by the banks charges, can't reclaim them but the banks can carry on piling the charges?? Where is the justice in that?? Maybe we should all lobby our MPs over the OFT stance on this......after all given the size of CAGs membership base we must be able to lobby every MP!

[Destinyofsouls]

That would make no difference, the 6 years run from date of filing claim at court, not from letters.

 

 

So now we lose the next 2,3 yrs of charges pending the outcome, meanwhile the banks carry on charging and grossing up fortunes whilst this government allow them to do it.

 

Jeez no wonder there are so many ex pats

 

I would have thought if enough people put pressure on the govt to at least process claimd whilst this is going on, they might just relent and order the FSA to withdraw this shambolic regulation

[Destinyofsouls]

Josie

 

beat me to it!

[Bookworm]

So now we lose the next 2,3 yrs of charges pending the outcome, meanwhile the banks carry on charging and grossing up fortunes whilst this government allow them to do it.

 

 

Which is why people should be encouraged to stick to their deadlines and put in their claims in. If people want to wait for the outcome to file, then yes, they'll lose years or face arguing SOLA. If you file now, and your claim gets stayed, then the date is set to that, and that's that.

[Fred_Funk]

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a minute...

 

Regardless of the arguments for and against, how might this affect anyone who was asking for contractual interest (componded)?

 

I appreciate, it's a complex argument, but it has, on occasions, succeeded in the past. Any claims now put on hold will, in all probability, have gone through the roof by the time this is concluded.

 

Anyone got any idea how this will be dealt with? It seems to me if the banks can still levy their charges while a decision is pending then, by the same logic, contractual interest (compounded) should also be allowable.

 

Any thoughts?!

[tomterm8]

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a minute...

 

Regardless of the arguments for and against, how might this affect anyone who was asking for contractual interest (componded)?

 

I appreciate, it's a complex argument, but it has, on occasions, succeeded in the past. Any claims now put on hold will, in all probability, have gone through the roof by the time this is concluded.

 

Anyone got any idea how this will be dealt with? It seems to me if the banks can still levy their charges while a decision is pending then, by the same logic, contractual interest (compounded) should also be allowable.

 

Any thoughts?!

 

it seems to me that the Consumer Action Group should consider applying for an injunction to prevent the banks applying these charges while the matter is in court.

[Bookworm]

CI has already been decided at precedent setting level last month. Anyone who has managed to get it after that was just very lucky that the judge or the defence were not aware of it.

[Lunatic Flea]

Ok,that really sucks....i feel for you! good to know we are not alone in this!! I will keep fighting,am have scottish after all!!!

You never know the Judge might still rule in my favour as Lloyds failed to comply with Orders from court before announcment.

[zootscoot]

If any one who has put in a claim would like to speak to the BBC about how they feel about the OFT test case please pm me your phone number

[LyncusBee]

Just a thought but has anyone thought to start a petition on the No 10 website to claim that the FSA decision to waiver complaints but still allow the banks to continue to charge is fundamentally against consumer interests or similar, hey if I was a lawyer I would have alot more money and less charges ;-/