Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[Fred_Funk]

Just a thought...

 

I don't pretend to know a great deal about the Freedom of Information Act but is it possible CAG - or a legally savvy member - could utilise it to compel the OFT to disclose the nature of its discussions with the British Banking Association?!

 

It seems to me, the a clear case could be made for it being in the public interest to disclose any correspondence which has taken place between the OFT and the banks. We would then, IMHO, have a far better idea of what direction these proceedings might take and whether or not the final outcome is in fact a forgone conclusion.

 

What does everyone else think?!

 

Fred_Funk

[Rtech]

A stay of two years is widely quoted now.This again,could be looked at as a legal ploy to continue to charge 'penalty payments',against the law.The Banks CANNOT have it both ways.so charges must also be suspended immediately,fot the same period of time???

What 'group' Official or otherwise could instigate such a move with the FSA.

[einyuk]

lets all be honest there is no way on this planet that the banks are goin to reveal their true costs in a court of law........it will drag an drag and there will be some kind of out of court agreement which could have been done in an lunch hour around a pint!!!!!!!!.........it's all about suspending these claims and the banks keeping our money.........and continuing to charge £35+

which they can continue regardless......

[valhala]

I can see why new claims might be able to be put on hold till after this test case but people who have got to the stage where the bank have put in a defence on mcol, surely these cases will till have to goto court(unless an offer is given) otherwise the courts are just going to have a backlog of probably thousands of cases to deal with, I can`t see them wanting this.

[LyncusBee]

Agreed. Can this be done?

 

I'm guessing that until the matter is judged upon the situation of charges remains the same.

 

One might like to beleive that there is a way to contest 'well if it's being debated in court then the charges should be stayed also until resolution', but they have probably been working this out for months and you can bet it's airtight in the banks' interests favour not the consumers. Even if the judgement is against the banks I imagine they can appeal, they claim to be held to the final decision but does one honestly beleive that that will still hold out after a couple of years of legal wrangling? Appeals will take yet more time.

 

The FSA and Ombudsman must have been aware that their decisions were biased towards the banks that tells one everything really. No one in this country is going to dare to deny the banks years of profits from charges. The OFT action affectively ensures that for now.

[Mister Twister]

There should be complete transparency and we should be informed by the OFT of everything - but again they have been in secret negotiations with the banks for over a month and decided to bring a test case with less than 24 hours notice with no consultation to CAG or the public.

 

The OFT have failed to consult or inform us

The FSA have shielded the banks for complaints

 

Financial Ombudsman has protected the banks by suspending all investigations

 

The courts will put all cases on hold for up to 2 years and keep our court fees

 

The banks will continue to charge and we can't even complain

 

Even if the FSA win it will take months for enforcement and the banks will make it just as difficult for us to obtain our refunds. We already know they are illegal did we really need a test case to tell us what we already knew?

 

If the case takes 2 years then the banks have saved paying out around £500million in refunds and will hope that interest in claiming will have dropped out of the radar.

 

Why do I feel a conspiracy?

[PeterAnderson]

One for the MOD'S

 

I have read this link

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Questions and answers for OFT test case announcement 26 July 2007

 

And the OFT are only talking about the UTCCRs. In the wittiness statements on CAG other laws are relied upon, on business wittiness statements there is of course no mention of consumer regulations.

 

This surely needs clarification, for if the OFT is seeking clarification ONLY on the UTCCR's, then what about the other legislation we use, say for the business claim; is there not an argument that we should approach our claims in a different way - say when the judge orders a stay we could use the other laws to have that stay removed ?

[einyuk]

the master of the rolls should state that cases in the courts prior to fri 27th July 07 should still be heard

[einyuk]

sod it...........am off 2 pub!!!!!!!!!!!

[LyncusBee]

Why do I feel a conspiracy?

 

Because these are part of the same regulatory framework who have such authority over the services industries so as to:

 

stop companies switching your energy accounts eroneously; enforce a companies responsibilities to it's employees' pension payments after having had years of payment breaks, stop rail operators profiting from ruthless on the spot fines; restrict ICT providers from take over bids toward a virtual monopoly; and of course gave the banks a further 3 years to modernise the clearing system......

 

:!:I have never been effected by these and am confident that no such activities continue in this country:!:.

[Deso]

This stinks and to be honest it doesn't surprise me the old schoolboy network has come into force.

[Nads]

"Banks join OFT in test case to establish legal clarity on overdraft fees"

Wonderful,!!! It’s taken them almost 2 years to get their finger out. Personally, I'm not impressed. I don't trust the Banks or the OFT.

“banks have joined with the OFT to approach the courts for a ruling on this issue”

For all we know the establishment may have decided this is the only way to get themselves out of this mess, its costing them lots of money now.

Just look like you're working for the victim, don't win the case, the court rules in favour of the banks and we don't get a penny back.

Also it’s not just overdraft fees we are all claiming, its also late payment fees, bounced cheque fees, unpaid DD fees. So what's happening about those claims already in progress with the court, FOA etc.

Plus, are the banks going to now have evidence of how they have come to the figures they charge to prove they are not unfair and reasonable. Or is the court only going to decide how the Act should be Interpreted. (on the side of the banks of course)

[ecobabe]

if the laws of penalty charges are well established and enshrined in law. let's hope this challenge is seen for what it is.... I for one have faith in the british justice system-we're not America....yet! also this site plus all the others dedicated to this and the legal minds that have helped us before could find a way through this. I'm not a tree hugging hippy but come on everyone think positive thoughts

[jjppcc_1]

I'm in favor of the test case, just wish it had come with warning!!,

 

On a selfish note I wanted my money now, when I need it; I have no doubt that in 2-3 years I'll be out of my little financial hole

[Lunatic Flea]

I'm in favor of the test case, just wish it had come with warning!!,

 

On a selfish note I wanted my money now, when I need it; I have no doubt that in 2-3 years I'll be out of my little financial hole

I too am in favour of the test case but believe the should not be putting a hold on claims which have allready started. I an 3 days away form judgement after Lloyds failed to serve on me and file at court a counter schedule. Was told by court manager that she was 99% sure the Judge would rule in my favour. This test case may have put this on hold for a very long time:x

[jjppcc_1]

This test case may have put this on hold for a very long time:x

 

This is the part where clarification is needed. I know that is some cases it is up to the individual court to decide, but at what point have proceeding gone to far for a stay to be requested?

 

I am/was just awaiting a court date after rejecting a £2000 offer, am I going to regret this?

 

JP

[platinum]

Yes this is a nuisance but it is not the first time it has happened.

 

Remember, a court case that sets a precedent is something the banks have been desperately trying to avoid.

 

Some hints for now:

 

DO make your complaint now. Remember, you can claim back all costs deemed unlawful that were incurred over the last six years. The longer you delay, the more charges will be too long ago for you to recover.

 

DO check any response from the Bank to see if it tells you can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service now.

 

DO complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you have a letter indicating that you have six months to do so.

 

DO remember that if the Banks win, you will probably not only lose any court case you have started but also your court fee. Going to court will also prevent subsequent recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service (but not the reverse.

 

So, in summary, put in your complaint to the Bank and complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service as soon as you are entitled to unless you get a satisfactory response from the Bank.

 

This should ensure you are in the best position to get your money back once the test case has been resolved.

[Lunatic Flea]

This is the part where clarification is needed. I know that is some cases it is up to the individual court to decide, but at what point have proceeding gone to far for a stay to be requested?

 

I am/was just awaiting a court date after rejecting a £2000 offer, am I going to regret this?

 

JP

The letter which i received from the court dated 21/6/07 ordered that i supply a list of all my charges because the allocation questionare was dispensed with. I had to provide this information to the court and the defendant by 4pm on the 23/7/07 which i did. The defendant (Lloyds) had to serve on me and file a t court a counter schedule by 4pm on the 23/7/07 which they failed to do. I have sent a request for judgement form to the court and Judge Smith will look at the case on Monday coming. Apparently my court only deal with bank charges cases on Mondays. In this letter i mentioned above it did say someting along the lines if either party want to request a stay they have to do so within 7 dyas of service. I assume the service date is the date the letter was sent by the judge. If so they are not entitled to ask for a stay but will this test case (stitch up) over rule this or is the judge likely to look at the case individually and rule in my favour due to Lloyds not complying with his orders? If me case was heard in a bigger court i might have had a judgement by now instead of having to wait a week until the judge reappears

[tomterm8]

The letter which i received from the court dated 21/6/07 ordered that i supply a list of all my charges because the allocation questionare was dispensed with. I had to provide this information to the court and the defendant by 4pm on the 23/7/07 which i did. The defendant (Lloyds) had to serve on me and file a t court a counter schedule by 4pm on the 23/7/07 which they failed to do. I have sent a request for judgement form to the court and Judge Smith will look at the case on Monday coming. Apparently my court only deal with bank charges cases on Mondays. In this letter i mentioned above it did say someting along the lines if either party want to request a stay they have to do so within 7 dyas of service. I assume the service date is the date the letter was sent by the judge. If so they are not entitled to ask for a stay but will this test case (stitch up) over rule this or is the judge likely to look at the case individually and rule in my favour due to Lloyds not complying with his orders? If me case was heard in a bigger court i might have had a judgement by now instead of having to wait a week until the judge reappears

 

Lunatic Flea, you're hopping mad over this, aren't you?

 

( sorry, couldn't resist).

[Lunatic Flea]

Lunatic Flea, you're hopping mad over this, aren't you?

 

( sorry, couldn't resist).

I am but don't mind a bit of humour

I wonder what time the case will end today.? The later the better?

[noomill060]

Whats gets me, is that NO mention has been made as to the bank's continuing to impose penalties, despite the dubious legality of it!

 

So, they continue to grab your money and charge interest on any debt these debits may cause, but we cant take action to get it back!

 

Banks should have been forced to suspend anything which smelled of a penalty charge to await the outcome of the OFT's test case.

 

Its a [problematic] charter otherwise.

[Lunatic Flea]

Whats gets me, is that NO mention has been made as to the bank's continuing to impose penalties, despite the dubious legality of it!

 

So, they continue to grab your money and charge interest on any debt these debits may cause, but we cant take action to get it back!

 

Banks should have been forced to suspend anything which smelled of a penalty charge to await the outcome of the OFT's test case.

 

Its a [problematic] charter otherwise.[/quote

At the end of todays case do you think they will have made it clear what claims if any can go ahead and what about bounced cheques?

[GuidoT]

Business as usual in the main:

Test Case

[shirei12]

Yes this is a nuisance but it is not the first time it has happened.

 

Remember, a court case that sets a precedent is something the banks have been desperately trying to avoid.

 

Some hints for now:

 

DO make your complaint now. Remember, you can claim back all costs deemed unlawful that were incurred over the last six years. The longer you delay, the more charges will be too long ago for you to recover.

 

DO check any response from the Bank to see if it tells you can go to the Financial Ombudsman Service now.

 

DO complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you have a letter indicating that you have six months to do so.

 

DO remember that if the Banks win, you will probably not only lose any court case you have started but also your court fee. Going to court will also prevent subsequent recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service (but not the reverse.

 

So, in summary, put in your complaint to the Bank and complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service as soon as you are entitled to unless you get a satisfactory response from the Bank.

 

This should ensure you are in the best position to get your money back once the test case has been resolved.

I have received one of the letters this morning saying If I wish to refer the matter to the Ombudsman then I should do so within 6 months. Why 6 months??

[daleh43]

Bl**dy typical,

 

Phoned halifax yesterday 26th regarding LBA, they said a letter had been sent out on wed 25th 2nd class post from the revue manager, they couldnt say over the phone but it possibly was good news. Then yesterday there was the announcement that OFT was taking banks to court, our hearts sank, Then i read with glee that all offers to setlle will be honoured, yippeeeee . So where is fridays post?? there will be none because the Bl**dy Royal Mail was on strike yesterday, 26th, so there wont be any mail today:( . Where just hoping that halifax had made an offer before this test case but we wont know until tomorrow (sat). we're biting our fingernails waiting for tomorrows post, we're claiming nearly £8000 incl interest so its a fair whack to possibly have to wait up to 2years to get

 

will keep you all informed

 

regards

dale