Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[bery]

indeed, exciting isn`t it

actually i was referring to the post about billy trolling. lol!

[bugged lady]

How do you assess ' reasonable' for their service?

However, the banks argue that there fees are not a penalty but a service charge, under the supply of goods and services act any fee for a service provided has to be reasonable, if the banks want to take the tact that they provide us with a service should we not legally argue that £35 for a service that costs £2.50 is unreasonable.

 

With this arguement the courts would not be able to grant a stay in any of the cases as this is a different peice of law than is being argued in the test case ??????????The old cow on telly says that when anyone goes into and unauth situation, there has to be credit checks and all sorts done ( yeh right)

and that is where the charge is justified

 

Fezzaboy's post on page 17.

 

How do you assess ' reasonable' for their service?

The old cow on telly says that when anyone goes into and unauth situation, there has to be credit checks and all sorts done ( yeh right)

and that is where the charge is justified

 

Destinyofsouls' question in reply

 

For what it is or isn't worth....hopefully it can be worked on from a legal aspect for everyone's benefit to get past this stay cr*p.

 

The 'old cow' can say what she likes, however, how in heaven's name can anyone justify 2, 3, 4 or even more identical charges in the space of one day or even a specific period of time?

 

As I understand it from applying for a loan from Lloyds several years ago the internal banking system automatically updates/rechecks your internal bank credit score every 12 weeks or so. Hence why they tell you not to apply for more than 3 loans in any one given period of time because even if you are offered the loan and you CHOSE not to accept it, it still goes against your credit score as a whole.

 

Therefore, my argue/point is that it does NOT take 5 individual credit checks etc etc to bounce 5 DD's or cheques in 1 day or even a longer period of time. Therefore, the 'old cow's' statement is false and can not be justified in any way and can be easily disproved!!!!!!

 

So if there can be a legal argument found for unfair service charges then surely this is another way into getting 'at' the banks and getting around the stays which, as I would understand the law can only be enforceable/allowable if the case in question is being presented on a current case being heard in a higher court?!?!?!?

 

HELP WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED FROM LEGAL seagulls OUT THERE ON THIS.

 

Know you are no doubt very busy wracking your brains as we all type away here but in between all the scares and worries that people are expressing here (which is more than understandable and quite justified) there are some darn good points coming out too and I just hope they don't get lost in the shear weight of worry and concern everyone is expressing here.

[Russjo]

"We have granted the waiver to help facilitate this test case. We believe it is not in the interests of all consumers for complaints to continue to be dealt with in the current inconsistent way. Once there is certainty on these charges, complaints can be dealt with fairly and consistently. To ensure consumer protection we have imposed a number of conditions on the waiver that firms must adhere to."

The conditions in the waiver include dealing promptly with complaints once clarity is achieved and communicating clearly with consumers throughout the process. The FSA also expects firms to continue to help their customers avoid incurring unauthorised overdraft charges in the first instance and to continue to deal with hardship cases.

The FSA will review the waiver in two months time to ensure, among other things, that firms are complying with its conditions. The FSA can also revoke the waiver at any time if it considers that the waiver is no longer appropriate, for example if progress on the test case is not being made or if a delay in the resolution of the test case is likely to cause undue risk to consumers.

The FSA will publish later today the results of thematic work on how firms are currently handling complaints on unauthorised overdraft charges. Practices varied across the visited firms, but in some the FSA found significant deficiencies and important areas of weakness in their approach. These included:

• a failure to respond to complaints fairly and consistently; to address adequately the subject matter of complaints; or to ensure complaints are resolved at the earliest possible opportunity;
  
• unfair closure of accounts, or threats to do so; and
  
• false or misleading statements made to complainants.

 

It seems that if the FSA are not happy with the way that the banks handle complaints, then they may consider retracting the waivers. Therefore, it seems to me that we should encourage those who are commencing claims to complain to the FSA without delay if the banks do not respond promptly. The FSA will be inundated with complaints and will be forced to review the waiver situation under the weight of it all. They have issued the right to waiver with conditions and one of those is prompt responses and keeping claimants up to date. They manage to do this in so few cases, it must be worth considering

[LyncusBee]

He -- relating to Clive Briault, the managing director of retail markets at the FSA -- said this was 'likely to deter customers from making or persisting with complaints'. He added: 'Some firms are using, or threatening to use, their contractual right to close customers' accounts in a manner we would regard as an unfair effort to punish the consumer for having complained, and inhibit them, and others, from complaining --again-- in the future.”

 

So is this a statement of recognition of punitive tactics by the banks / building societies from the FSA?

 

And this from the very same FSA whose other hand has granted the banks / building societies at least a one year (initially) a waiver of responsibility regard to their responsibilty to deal with pertanent complaints, further to have have granted the banks the ability to apply for a 'stay' to current and future court claims until the legal cogs grind to a halt.

 

Is this not hypocrisy from such a regulatory body to propose that they acknowledge peoples experiences and in some cases complaints of being acted upon in retaliation by the banks through punitive actions on the one hand but also grant the banks the leeway to potentially formulate an alternative schema for charges with no responsibility to consider ongoing complaints and claims related to such; let alone to be able to continue with charges even under the current legal contention? The mind ....yeah you know the rest!

 

Yeah I love the broadsheets, they're the class augmented equivalent of 'tea, tits, and a tabloid' on a construction site; excepting that they report the same news streams / tickers, if not as ' the Mirror champions' in mentality... but they still get their news from the same sources and are as controlled and spinned as the tabloids be in no doubt of that people!

[noomill060]

buggedlady-"HELP WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED FROM legal bagels OUT THERE ON THIS."

 

Legal bagels?

 

Oi vay! Would you like cream cheese with those, madam?

[bugged lady]

Oi You!!!

 

So it's late and my typing has gone to the wall! Not one of those females who claim to multi-task perfectly anytime anywhere!

 

Actually, if you're offering I'd rather have cinamon flavour with strawberry jam if you wouldn't mind please kind sir!

[bugged lady]

Oh dear! Actually when I look at that typo it was a classic! How the heck did I get it that muddled!?!?!?!?:o

 

By the by gold star for the quick wit reply. Did make me chuckle!

 

Think we all need a bit of light relief at this juncture. Well done!

[12thdomino]

with regards to what that 'old bat' was saying this morning on the TV about costs of credit checks is b*****ks (sorry its better than what I said this morning)

 

I was looking at my experian credit thingy last night and I know thats the one the Abbey uses as they told me a few weeks ago, and there is no entries or records of the Abbey looking, there is the normal monthly entry from the Abbey with my balance, but no credit check, Lying cow,

[noomill060]

Mossletoff!

 

Shalom and peace to all.

 

(Well all except Angie baby, I hope she and her friends in the British ankers Association have a few sleepless Knights over the coming months...)

[bugged lady]

Brilliant 12thdomino!

 

That's the kind of evidence we should be collecting to put forward as evidence that the banks are bl**dy liars!

 

I don't know if the legal seagulls can use the earlier idea posted to get around a stay by claiming under different laws, legislation etc but if they can then their claim that it cost this or that can so easily be disproved by US as a united whole!

[bugged lady]

Lol

[bugged lady]

Now that wasn't my typo I wanted big grin not silly dot dot little d

 

:D

[bugged lady]

..........The point being, that many of us have spent months and months battling, spending not just money in court costs, printer ink, paper , stamps,but also precious time and effort, trawling through paper work and websites.......not to mention stress, .....but spurred on by the success stories of others, which seemed to make it worthwhile, but now that has all been flattened...... its not so bad for those just starting out is it?they dont realise what a long road it is ahead but us poor b*ggers are plain and simple pig-sick, so all this talk of "its what weve been waiting for " is im afraid cold comfort. Lets face it , the majority just want our money back , we're not really that bothered about being superheroes raging against the machine.me personally , well i was looking forward to paying off my tax bill!

 

Well said!

 

The stress alone is major factor in my house! I was offered £4,200 as settlement and boy did I get some stick when I said I was going to go on with court proceedings! Thing is by the time I'd cleared my o/d that they so nicely gave me totally through their charges (haven't used the darn a/c for nearly 8 mths!) I'd have been left with less than £3,000 and I just felt that wasn't right.

 

The looks of daggers and comments of 'you Piers Morgan, told you you should have accepted and been done with it all and it would've been end of all this stress and time that it's taking out of our lives .......'

 

I felt physically sick! And I'll be honest my first thought was 'well maybe it's not too late to accept their settlement offer (it was only about 10 day's ago and I haven't put court claim in yet) at least I'd still get something.

 

But now? I honestly don't know. If I can find a way round the stay then I'll push on because I'm NOT convinced either way that this test case will work for us. There are darn good points for and equally against so to me it just makes sense to try to find way round this hurdle and get there before the results of the test case. Know it would help me a heck of a lot and if the majority of you out there are the same as me (just average normal person) then that's answer for you too!?!?

 

£4,200 would make a heck of a difference to me right now. £6,500 (total with interest) would make even bigger difference! I've had a hell of a year and I do need the money now! And it was a big temptation to accept when offer came through.

 

It's darn hard not to make plans about what you would do with the money. Have always told myself I would use it for something very positive to make a difference and secure my future better so I would not be in that position ever again, hadn't particularly spent it on one thought or desire. And to have put all that effort in and find a great big ugly untrustworthy giant dumped in front of you out of the blue is pretty darn hard to accept and a heck of a shock to everyone.

[bugged lady]

Just for completeness my last post was in response to post from bery

[crfx250]

So what are you doing here Billy - apart from trolling?

 

What do you mean ''what are you doing here'' ? It's his thread! He was

the first member to pick up on the OFT announcement.

[MacBoy]

What do you mean ''what are you doing here'' ? It's his thread! He was

the first member to pick up on the OFT announcement.

 

crfx250

I stand by my original question.

[crfx250]

Well I'll answer it for you then:

 

Billy has been instrumental in putting pressure on the OFT to act on the whole issue of default charges. His knowledge of the workings of the OFT

are vast.

 

It is people like him that do unsung stuff behind the scenes for the benefit

of people like you. You don't have to be a claimant to help the cause you know.

 

Calling him a troll was a comment made in ignorance.

[MacBoy]

Billy has been instrumental in putting pressure on the OFT to act on the whole issue of default charges. His knowledge of the workings of the OFT

are vast.

Hmm... all that in 35 posts - was this before or after Vietnam?

 

I also noticed that wherever he goes, you're not far behind him either

[andrew1]

Tens of thousands of complaints that unauthorised overdraft charges and returned item fees on current accounts are unfair have been received by the county courts and the Financial Ombudsman Service. The banks do not accept that the legal test of unfairness set out in unfair contract terms legislation applies to the charges.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market-studies/personal2

Els

 

That's not what she said elsinore if you watch the clip of chanel4 news with Martin Lewis. I am no legal buff at all, but how can a so called 'test case' not actually involve any 'case'?

 

I am of the opinion that the OFT should be ashamed of themselves not involving the Consumer Groups who have worked so tirelessly researching and thrashing these issues out and stripping the legislation to threads like so many even on this thread have done, often thanklessly too, not to mention all the support from thousands of people who have contributed thousands upon thousands of hours ( thank you Bookie ) to press this home. The OFT ' Office of FAIR Trading - what's so fair about excluding the people who ACTUALLY KNOW the laws.

[crfx250]

Hmm... all that in 35 posts - was this before or after Vietnam?

 

I also noticed that wherever he goes, you're not far behind him either

 

I don't judge people's credibility by the number of their posts on CAG.

 

You bet I'm right behind him.

[MacBoy]

No one's arguing his 'credibility' or purported knowledge.. more than a few of us merely felt the delivery might have needed work, that's all. As for your location:

You bet I'm right behind him.

Yes, we can see that.

[crfx250]

I would suggest the delivery of your original attack on him was less than exemplory. Next time you call a true campaigner a troll don't expect not

to be critisised for it.

 

He's already accepted the flaw in his delivery, unlike yourself.

[Guest Wild Billy]

I seem to have been called out so who am I to disappoint.

 

If by trolling you mean correcting other members' factual inaccuracies then, yes, I'm trolling. I am seriously frustrated that only a handful of people on this thread have bothered to read the OFT statement or FSA statement for themselves. You would think that with £000s of their own money at stake it would be the first thing they would do. Some of the inaccuracies and questions show they haven't bothered to inform themselves, which is always a bug-bear with me in any form of life. To make matters worse, they then make posts which are just wrong, which only confuses the matter. Don't say let's all e-mail the OFT when you're complaining about the waiver and it is the FSA that needs to be contacted if you're so inclined.

 

Which brings me to the lack of netiquette. This is a long thread with a lot of information in between a lot of misinformation. But there is no excuse for not reading the thread before posting a question. If you care so much about this issue then 10 minutes doing some back reading isn't too much is it? You might find your question has been answered. Or you might find that some of the inaccuracies you're about to post, most likely confusing the OFT and FSA it seems, have been clarified. Or whether CC claims should go on. Or whether claims should still be made at all. Does that sound reasonable or does it sound like trolling? I'd be far more worried about the members giving off negative messages about whether it is worth still claiming. Troll you say?

 

This thread has revealed a lot and what I'm about to say won't be very popular. This is a tremendous site with some very knowledgeable altrusistic people. There are others unfortunately who aren't but it is very disappointing to see people rally against what is in train because it is so much bigger than any one person. Someone said they didn't want the law clarified because "consumers are onto a good thing". Really? All consumers? Or just those who look at this website and have the money or inclination to take things further? Others have said it is costly, stressful and time consuming going to court , which it is is. Not exactly a "good thing" and this action could stop all that. What is really annoying some people is the timing of the action and it cutting across their claims- not whether there is a case or not. Bit selfish really. And as for those who are annoyed because they have spent the money before they've received it:o

 

I've already talked about the paranoia running through the thread. If we haven't worked out by now that the banks don't always tell the truth then we'll never learn it. So don't be so sure this is all part of a ploy that they're so happy to be going to court. They're still paying out a lot less then they will have to if this goes all the way, not to mention future revenue streams. Might want to check out the libel laws too before saying this is all part of a gigantic ploy between OFT, FSA and the banks. And look under the bed for any monsters too... and Lord Lucan while you're at it.

 

So if that is trolling then so be it. I prefer to think of it as a call for careful thought, individual responsibility, and common sense.

[kog]

We have granted the waiver to help facilitate this test case. We believe it is not in the interests of all consumers for complaints to continue to be dealt with in the current inconsistent way. Once there is certainty on these charges, complaints can be dealt with fairly and consistently.

 

But hold on - the complaints were being delt with fairly and consistantly. We would demand our money back the bank would refuse and we would issue court procedings and finally the bank would payup.

 

The situation has now changed because of the FSA ruling in that we demand our money but the consumer no longer has any teeth. We want our teeth back:D

[kog]

complaints to the FSA

About the FSA : Complaints about the FSA : Contacting us