Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[maxine989]

Lloys TSB... SC&M Litigation

[toddy700]

I filed my claim with https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco/index.jsp after no response from my LBA and have just received a letter from LloydsTsb stating they have become involved with legal proceedings with The Office Of Fair Trading (OFT) in relation to bank charges. Furthermore they has asked the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to suspend the normal timetable for dealing with bank charges and the FSA have agreed this!

 

Beg my ignorance but does this mean:-

A) I just sit and wait until a decision has been agreed from the above?

B) It could take years?

C) Do i have to act on this?

[tomterm8]

You can file your claim as normal.

[crfx250]

Hi WB, tomterm, & Zoot

Would it not have been better, and much more in the consumer's interest, for OFT to have bought an actual claim, containing all of the issues involved, to a test case? Whilst the case itself would take longer to resolve, the overall result would be much shorter.

- Adam

 

That's a good question and one that was put to John Fingleton quite recently by Paul Farrely MP in a Parliamentry Select Committee hearing.

 

I can't find the link to the minutes just now but the answer was something

like ''It is not in the OFT's remit to sponser cases''. Perhaps WB could elaborate.

[crfx250]

I'm a bit surprised that this news hasn't been greeted with much enthusiasm:

 

''The FSA said yesterday that while the court case is progressing, banks can put customer claims on hold. But amid criticism that the waiver could effectively allow firms to wriggle free from handling complaints for years to come, it promised to review the waiver after two months''

 

Apart from the obvious, it encouragingly suggests that the waiver was not part of the deal with the banks. Although this leads to the question of why they decided on the waiver in the first place it does, at least on the face of it, look like the FSA are listening and responding to consumers. And that's got to be cause for celebration

[Mrs Goggins]

Hi! Just been on FSA website to check the list of Banks/Building societies who have been granted this 'waiver'.

 

Could anyone clarify if NatWest is part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Groups plc. If it is, then that's me up for a long wait!

[Destinyofsouls]

where was this news crfx?

[Destinyofsouls]

Hi! Just been on FSA website to check the list of Banks/Building societies who have been granted this 'waiver'.

 

Could anyone clarify if NatWest is part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Groups plc. If it is, then that's me up for a long wait!

 

 

Sure is m'am

[Spiceskull]

The pertinent point here is that it is the OFT that is bringing the test case, not the FSA or the FOS. Whilst the OFT will consult and work with both FSA and FOS, as well as with the banks and, supposedly, consumer groups, the hearings will only be attended by the banks and the OFT (for now.)

 

The FSA waiver is geared solely with handling customer complaints and procedures. Should anyone commence a claim with an LBA, the bank "waives" all communications, and the claim finally reaches court, then, court procedure aside, the FSA waiver will be meaningless - the law of the land will always take precedence over a "get out clause" implemented by the FSA. If the court initiates procedings, and does not implement a stay, the the bank is obliged to follow the direction of the court.

 

However, you are right that the waiver is to be reviewed after a couple of months is good news. In practice what this will mean is that the banks and their regulators will be "testing the water," and if there is found to be an even bigger backlash, then a different set of policies can be implemented...geared to making the banks look consumer friendly.

 

For now people should continue with their claims, be reactive to court procedings, and wait for further announcements from the courts, from the OFT and also from within CAG.

[baconbuttyman]

Advice please, this may be in wrong section but cant find the right section!

My claim for bank charges via MCOL was acknowledged yesterday by Nationwide ( or Eversheds their solicitors ?!).

They now have the 28 days , where do I stand, what should I do in this current situation? Help , am new to this!

 

the likelyhood is that it will be stayed at the allocation hearing unless you are on benefits

[Destinyofsouls]

Letter I have already sent to my MP

 

28 July 2007

 

 

Dear Mr xxx,

 

I am writing on behalf of a large number of your constituents in this town. I write to you in the hope you can help us in our plight with the bank and in particular the FSA.

 

You may be aware that on 27 July 2007, the OFT commenced litigation proceedings against the big seven banks to try and establish once and for all as to whether overdraft fees are actually unlawful.

 

Whilst we agree with this course of action, the FSA has waived the regulation that enforces the banks to process claims of this nature until the outcome of this hearing.

This means that any claims going through the banks now for reclaiming charges (sometimes in their thousands) are put on hold and will not be processed for what could take up to two years if any appeals are allowed.

 

The FSA has also allowed the banks to apply for a stay in all court proceedings of this nature until the case has finished. The Banks are now to apply to the Master of Rolls to issue a blanket stay on all court hearings.

 

This is a ridiculous situation for all local people who are in the process of reclaiming charges. And, just to rub salt in the wounds, they have allowed the banks to keep on charging!!!

 

The majority of the people I have spoken to ( including myself) were not able to afford the court fees to take the claim to the next step. They have had to save every spare penny to raise the £120.00 needed so they could take the bank to court. In some cases where the claim was over £5000.00 they have had to stump up £250.00, something which was very, very hard for these people to find, considering it was the high cost of these charges that have put them in this position. Some even took out short term loans so they could take the bank to court to try and recoup some of these charges. They are now left with no claim, no compensation and hundreds of pounds out of pocket.

Although there may be a slim chance of them being able to recoup some of the court costs, the issue is that they should be allowed to continue with this claim and get their charges back, as have thousands of consumers all over the country.

 

To allow the banks to still charge and not allow the consumer the right to reclaim is against everything the FSA and the OFT and the FOS are supposed to stand for.

 

The OFT web site states :

 

The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive

 

The FSA website states :

 

We have a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to enable us to meet four statutory objectives summarised as one overall aim: to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets and to help retail consumers achieve a fair deal

 

The FOS Website states;

 

So when we look at a complaint, we give both sides a fair hearing.

 

Protecting consumer interests? - help retail consumers achieve a fair deal? Give BOTH sides a fair hearing? One word that appears in all of their statements is FAIR. How is this fair?

 

How can they be protecting the consumer interest by stopping them reclaiming what is rightfully theirs and still allowing the banks to charge these ridiculously high penalty charges.?

 

I understand that the banks disagree they are unlawful, so why have they kept paying out to consumers at the rate of around £200 million in the last 12 months? This alone should tell the FSA that the consumer has to keep claiming against the banks.

 

This situation alone will save the banks hundreds of millions of pounds, firstly through not paying out claims, not having to pay legal fees and more importantly, due to the Limitation Act 1980, the longer this case goes on the more they will save under the 6 yr rule of the above Act.

 

So, whilst this will save the banks money, the consumer goes further and further into debt by having charges still applied.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg Mr xxxxx, I am sure there are many more people out there that will be destined for financial hardship as a result of this legislation. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of consumers all over the country who have started their claims and some may also be made bankrupt by allowing the banks to still charge. All this caused by a regulator who is supposed to have the consumer in their best interest.

 

I would like to see how they explain that this benefits them. The problem with all this is, it was all done behind closed doors for months without anyone knowing except the banks, the FSA , the OFT and the FOS, and then, without a care in the world for consumers or anyone else, put into practice. The nice little arrangement that the banks had already sorted with the FSA, the OFT and the FOS, the three regulators set up to protect the public. Mr xxxxx, someone is having a laugh at your constituents’ expense and it is not the slightest bit funny for us.

 

I also understand that It could also interfere with our rights under the European Convention on Human Rights directly and as enacted in the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

 

Art.6 1. of the Convention provides that “ In the determination of his civil rights … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.”

 

 

It is unreasonable to allow an indeterminate stay which depends on some litigation unconnected to the instant case, between other parties who have no relation to the parties in the instant case.

 

It is not clear that the matter will be heard as predicted and in the event that it does go to trial, there could then be appeals and subsequent appeals so that the matter might become protracted and even last as long as 2 years or more – from the date of the commencement of trial.

 

I sincerely hope that you can help us in getting the FSA to revoke this unfair and biased legislation and allow the consumer to continue to fight for what is rightfully theirs.

 

I thank you for you time.

 

DOS

[adamc6671]

Lloys TSB... SC&M Litigation

 

 

Many thanks, Maxine - good news indeed - one of my claims is against Lloyds, and maybe, just maybe, I'll be able to persuade their Litigation people (SC&M) to settle, in the same way as you did!

[crfx250]

where was this news crfx?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108220-fsa-review-waiver.html

[Destinyofsouls]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108220-fsa-review-waiver.html

 

 

Thanks

[12thdomino]

Well I have just submitted my N1 to the Court and I'll see what the Court says

 

But I did read somewhere in this thread someone saying the OFT don't make the laws, this is the courts, -er- with respect, the courts don't make the laws either - they administer the law, it is your goverment who make the laws and we should be turning our angst on them by complaining to our MP's and direct to Gordon, the OFT must have decided it was getting out of hand and therefore went for the test case, well lets get the MP's and PM so sick of complaints about any delays, they have to do something

 

Shame not an election due

 

Regards

[Destinyofsouls]

Well I have just submitted my N1 to the Court and I'll see what the Court says

 

But I did read somewhere in this thread someone saying the OFT don't make the laws, this is the courts, -er- with respect, the courts don't make the laws either - they administer the law, it is your goverment who make the laws and we should be turning our angst on them by complaining to our MP's and direct to Gordon, the OFT must have decided it was getting out of hand and therefore went for the test case, well lets get the MP's and PM so sick of complaints about any delays, they have to do something

 

Shame not an election due

 

Regards

Totally Agree, but let's hit the FSA as well so we can have this stupid regulation overturned in two months.

[nicsussex]

I understand that the banks disagree they are unlawful, so why have they kept paying out to consumers at the rate of around £200 million in the last 12 months?

 

I think you'll find this is more like £500 million

[noomill060]

[TECHSPEC]

I'm a bit surprised that this news hasn't been greeted with much enthusiasm:

 

''The FSA said yesterday that while the court case is progressing, banks can put customer claims on hold. But amid criticism that the waiver could effectively allow firms to wriggle free from handling complaints for years to come, it promised to review the waiver after two months''

 

Apart from the obvious, it encouragingly suggests that the waiver was not part of the deal with the banks. Although this leads to the question of why they decided on the waiver in the first place it does, at least on the face of it, look like the FSA are listening and responding to consumers. And that's got to be cause for celebration

 

The FSA said from the start, that this would be reviewed after 2 months. It was in the initial agreement, and nothing to do with listening to us i'm afraid. I read their statement when it was announced.

 

FSA grants waiver to firms on complaints handling

 

QUOTE:- "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."

 

Sounds like they have re-stated this, just to make us think they are listening.

 

Still good news though, and i do hope pressure from consumers can make them withdraw it, when the 2 months is up.

[12thdomino]

" For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, "

 

Quote from the Magna Carta, shame it doesn't refer to the Abbey

 

I've just recieved this from my MP

 

"I am currently away from my office.

 

If your enquiry is urgent, please contact Carl Carter on 01946696845/02072194706 (e-mail [email protected].) Alternatively, please call Gwyneth Everett or Judith Andersen on 01946 62024.

 

Please note that my office deals with hundreds of e-mails every day and immediate responses cannot always be forthcoming. Thank you for your patience.

 

Jamie Reed

Member of Parliament for Copeland"

[crfx250]

The FSA said from the start, that this would be reviewed after 2 months. It was in the initial agreement, and nothing to do with listening to us i'm afraid. I read their statement when it was announced.

 

FSA grants waiver to firms on complaints handling

 

QUOTE:- "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."

 

Sounds like they have re-stated this, just to make us think they are listening.

 

Still good news though, and i do hope pressure from consumers can make them withdraw it, when the 2 months is up.

 

I stand corrected

[Mrs Goggins]

Ohhhhh s***t!

I was there at Leeds Mercantile 28th June. The judge said Natwest had until 9th August to get back to me with either a settlement or otherwise, and now the FSA go and do this 'waiver' thing - how bad is the timing!!

 

Sure is m'am

[tomterm8]

Ohhhhh s***t!

I was there at Leeds Mercantile 28th June. The judge said NatWest had until 9th August to get back to me with either a settlement or otherwise, and now the FSA go and do this 'waiver' thing - how bad is the timing!!

 

The FSA have nothing to do with the court system... carry on as normal, until the court orders otherwise. Many courts have decided NOT to stay cases. Some people are still winning:) This is especially important at Mercantile courts.

[Lunatic Flea]

I have a hearing date on the 16th August 2007.

 

I called my local court toay (Walsall, west Midlands) who told me that the Judges there were not in favour of granting the banks a stay regarding all scheduled hearings.

 

I called my banks litigation department and after a few mins discussion, got a full refund, plus the 8%, plus costs...

Hi

What did you say to SCM? Lloyds failed to comply with the Judges orders in my case by 4pm of Monday this week byy filing and serving a counter schedule. I should find out this Friday what the Judges decesion is. Apparently they don't appreciate it when Banks ignore the judges orders. Must people say i stand a very good chance as the OFT announcement came four days after the bank failed to meet a deadline as mentioned above. I will ring them tomorrow ans see if we can come to an agreement. How did you approach it? Should i said that i am expecting judgement this Friday for £2200 and try and say i would settle for less if we can agree a figure?

Don't like to risk a stay been granted in my case and having to wait a year plus. I need a holiday now

[nicsussex]

Should i said that i am expecting judgement this Friday for £2200 and try and say i would settle for less if we can agree a figure?

 

Why on earth would you want to settle for less - if they have failed to follow court orders you will almost certainly win anyway.