Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[ICY]

I find this rather odd, as credit card claims are completely unaffected by this report

[shane5408]

Do you have a link?

 

I find this rather odd, as credit card claims are completely unaffected by this report

 

 

don't have a link, was mentioned to me in another thread, i've PM'd the user to send me more details

 

regards,

shane

[TECHSPEC]

Found it. Sounds like judge was a moron:-

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=430794&page=5&highlight=monument

[un1boy]

I find this rather odd, as credit card claims are completely unaffected by this report

 

It's because the bank's did a deal with the OFT that they would cut the charges as long as it didn't take them to court.

 

They make much more money from the current account fees, so they won't make a deal over these.

[un1boy]

just heard some disturbing news, apparently someone on the MSE website had a credit card claim stayed today! I though only bank charge claims were being stayed in light of OFT's super case?

 

regards,

shane

 

You're right, it should just be current account ones.

[maybelline]

just heard some disturbing news, apparently someone on the MSE website had a credit card claim stayed today! I though only bank charge claims were being stayed in light of OFT's super case?

 

regards,

shane

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/109416-barclays-refused-stay-we.html

[TUTTSI]

I find this rather odd, as credit card claims are completely unaffected by this report

 

Hi Icy,

I have started helping my friends daughter with her Barclaycard credt card charges claim and she is at pre-lim stage and she received the standard letter from Barclaycard who have jumped on the bandwagon. They have told her that if she proceeds to court they will request a stay because of the OFT Test Case. So I am going to send the final letter before action and advise them that credit cards are unaffected by the OFT case. I will also warn them that if they continue to harrass and use these bully boy tactics then I will have no a;ternative but to report them and I think that a letter to the OFT and the FSA will also be on my hit list.

Any other suggestions!!

Thanks

DS

[maybelline]

maybe you could add a paragraph pointing out that credit cards are unaffected by the test case, or is there a letter in the templates to this effect, I have had a quick look around but no luck - basically, I would call their bluff:)

[TECHSPEC]

Barclays are already abusing the FSA waiver.

 

They are claiming that credit cards are covered, and they are ignoring the hardship rule.

 

The waiver should be scrapped.

[un1boy]

Barclays are already abusing the FSA waiver.

 

They are claiming that credit cards are covered, and they are ignoring the hardship rule.

 

The waiver should be scrapped.

 

Doesn't surprise me - have you told the FSA?

 

It's disgusting what the FSA have done.

[TECHSPEC]

I am writing a letter to FSA, FOS and OFT.

 

The waiver is under revue next month, so its important that they have all the info.

 

Posted this on the MSE website and got a response from Martin himself.

 

What a guy!

[nevos]

Good for you TECHSPEC, if everyone does it instead of sitting on their backsides then maybe there will be a change as we all become thorns in someones side.

 

Do not be apathetic about this complain now in any way you can, write to your MP now!!!

 

Make a fuss it pays in the end.

[muggyno1]

From Martin Lewis' Moneysavingexpert site

Quote:

The Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter

MoneySavingExpert.com, ConsumerActionGroup.co.uk & PenaltyCharges.co.uk

 

The regulator, the FSA has suspended bank charges reclaiming awaiting a court decision based on the Office of Fair Trading’s agreed test case with the banks. This decision was taken without any consultation with the consumer groups who have been championing bank charges reclaiming.

 

The three campaigning groups behind this charter, have or are helping between them well over 1.5 million people reclaim and ask all politicians, decision makers, bank customers and shareholders to consider the following.

• Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges. Banks have been charging around £30 for penalty charges; this is totally disproportionate to their actual costs. Even generous estimates suggest £2.50 is an appropriate cost, so a five pound maximum is a more than generous limit.
  
• Penalty charge structures leave finances irrevocably damaged. Often penalty charges occur in batches, a simple shopping trip and miscalculation of how much is left in an account, can result in £100s in charges. This then snowballs, as people don’t have the resources to pay the charges and are thus charged more. The banks make over £1 billion a year from these charges, which often irrecoverably destroy peoples finances.
  
• Bank accounts are obligatory & there’s no competition. In the modern age, there is little choice but to have a bank account; both employer and social security offices rarely accept an alternative. Yet there is no competitive market for bank charges, all banks charge similar amounts.
  
• Bank should not be allowed to levy charges during the stay. Banks have already paid out over £500 million to reclaimers; a sum indicative of the fragility of their case. The consumer has not been served by putting a hold on reclaiming cases, meanwhile banks continue to levy these charges, which continues to debilitate people’s finances. The hold on bank charges reclaiming should be lifted, but if not the levying of charges by the banks should also be put on hold.
  
• Any agreed new charge levels must apply to past as well as current customers. The OFT credit card ruling in 2006 indicated a maximum £12 charge, yet omitted to infer that those who had previously been charged more should be allowed to reclaim it. When a new settlement figure (of no more than £5) is reached, customers must be allowed to reclaim all amounts above that for the prior 6 years.
  
• Payouts should be made automatically, without request. Banks have taken money from their customers without asking; when the Courts rule these charges are unlawful, they should be made to pay them back without the need for customers to request it. If this does not happen, there’s been little benefit to consumers of this test case and moratorium.
  
• Repayments should include 8% statutory interest. Repaid charges should include interest at 8% the rate applied to successful reclaimants in the Courts. Interest should also be compounded.
  
• All credit file defaults resulting from unfair penalty charges must be deleted. Banks must agree that all default records that have been placed on credit files due to unathorised overdraft charges/penalty charges should be wiped.
  
• There should be an immediate moratorium on all default entries. During the period of the OFT litigation we require there to be an immediate moratorium on the placing of defaults on the credit record of any customers in respect of any sum which is comprised either wholly or substantially of charges.

More info on bank charges reclaiming

This is supposedly the second draft after all of the feedback Martin Lewis has received. I hope that no one responsible on this site is going to endorse this. I think that it is highly damaging to both our campaigns and potentially the test case, particularly the first paragraph on a fair level of charges.

 

Is it just me or do others feel this way?

 

Muggy

[Destinyofsouls]

From Martin Lewis' Moneysavingexpert site

Quote:

The Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter

MoneySavingExpert.com, ConsumerActionGroup.co.uk & PenaltyCharges.co.uk

 

The regulator, the FSA has suspended bank charges reclaiming awaiting a court decision based on the Office of Fair Trading’s agreed test case with the banks. This decision was taken without any consultation with the consumer groups who have been championing bank charges reclaiming.

 

The three campaigning groups behind this charter, have or are helping between them well over 1.5 million people reclaim and ask all politicians, decision makers, bank customers and shareholders to consider the following.

• Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges. Banks have been charging around £30 for penalty charges; this is totally disproportionate to their actual costs. Even generous estimates suggest £2.50 is an appropriate cost, so a five pound maximum is a more than generous limit.
  
• Penalty charge structures leave finances irrevocably damaged. Often penalty charges occur in batches, a simple shopping trip and miscalculation of how much is left in an account, can result in £100s in charges. This then snowballs, as people don’t have the resources to pay the charges and are thus charged more. The banks make over £1 billion a year from these charges, which often irrecoverably destroy peoples finances.
  
• Bank accounts are obligatory & there’s no competition. In the modern age, there is little choice but to have a bank account; both employer and social security offices rarely accept an alternative. Yet there is no competitive market for bank charges, all banks charge similar amounts.
  
• Bank should not be allowed to levy charges during the stay. Banks have already paid out over £500 million to reclaimers; a sum indicative of the fragility of their case. The consumer has not been served by putting a hold on reclaiming cases, meanwhile banks continue to levy these charges, which continues to debilitate people’s finances. The hold on bank charges reclaiming should be lifted, but if not the levying of charges by the banks should also be put on hold.
  
• Any agreed new charge levels must apply to past as well as current customers. The OFT credit card ruling in 2006 indicated a maximum £12 charge, yet omitted to infer that those who had previously been charged more should be allowed to reclaim it. When a new settlement figure (of no more than £5) is reached, customers must be allowed to reclaim all amounts above that for the prior 6 years.
  
• Payouts should be made automatically, without request. Banks have taken money from their customers without asking; when the Courts rule these charges are unlawful, they should be made to pay them back without the need for customers to request it. If this does not happen, there’s been little benefit to consumers of this test case and moratorium.
  
• Repayments should include 8% statutory interest. Repaid charges should include interest at 8% the rate applied to successful reclaimants in the Courts. Interest should also be compounded.
  
• All credit file defaults resulting from unfair penalty charges must be deleted. Banks must agree that all default records that have been placed on credit files due to unathorised overdraft charges/penalty charges should be wiped.
  
• There should be an immediate moratorium on all default entries. During the period of the OFT litigation we require there to be an immediate moratorium on the placing of defaults on the credit record of any customers in respect of any sum which is comprised either wholly or substantially of charges.

More info on bank charges reclaiming

This is supposedly the second draft after all of the feedback Martin Lewis has received. I hope that no one responsible on this site is going to endorse this. I think that it is highly damaging to both our campaigns and potentially the test case, particularly the first paragraph on a fair level of charges.

 

Is it just me or do others feel this way?

 

Muggy

No, I am 100% positive that this will definately overturn the waiver. I also think that this will scare the MP's into action. And lastly I think it will reverse the process where banks cannot charge us but we can reclaim all the charges. I think it is one of the best letters I have ever seen. Well done everyone.!!!

[muggyno1]

Hi Destiny,

 

Is that a tongue I see wedged in your cheek?

 

Cheers.

 

Muggy

[jules1973]

I dont agree with point 1 I think the banks should only be allowed to charge us the pennies it costs. but capped at £5.00 should they try and justify that their admin costs have gone up.

 

In my letters to the MP's I also aksed that if the waiver was to remain in place, then the banks should be stopped from applying more charges to our accounts whilst the test case is running.

[muggyno1]

I also agree with some of what is said, but I have two major (and a lot of minor) objections.

 

1. That the highlighting of the level of charges in this way can easily be interpreted as conceding the point that charges are unlawful. Our first point is, surely, that the banks should not be making any profit out of these charges under law not that they are simply being greedy by asking too much.

 

2. As Margaret Thatcher once said about Geoffrey Howe - It's like being savaged by a dead sheep.

 

Muggy

[jules1973]

Hear hear, I really do hope that lots of others will agree with us and they will amend point one to the fact that the banks can only charge us what it costs them for our breaches.

[noomill060]

Geoffrey Howes "dead sheep" speech though, ultimately led to the rapid and unceremonious removal of Mrs Thatch as Conservative leader within a few weeks.

 

Woops, a bit of politics!

 

(Looks around, no one noticed, think I got away with it in a 1980s "Friday Night Live" Ben Elton kind of way!)

 

 

[determindator]

Hi everyone,

 

Is it possible that Martin Lewis has been 'leant on.' When people question the 'system' and rock the boat, we tend to see the power in charge take control again. Maybe Martin's 2nd draft is being fed through to see what response it gets and the way forward for those in charge of the test case. Is that too cynical?

 

Determind

[Destinyofsouls]

Be careful what you say about the charter. My friend laughed and said it was a load of rubbish on the MSE site and Edinburgh Lass closed the thread and said she was going to tell Martin.

She has now gone for counselling

[muggyno1]

Well spotted noomill! The trouble is Maggie was already in deep trouble. I don't see the banks sweating much at the moment!

 

Cheers.

 

Muggy

[determindator]

Very intriguing Destinyof souls. We must watch our backs!!!

[muggyno1]

Edinburgh Lass going to tell teacher? Oh no! Spanked botty time. Boo hoo.

 

ML can do what he likes I guess, but I hope that CAG doesn't follow suit.

 

Me, I'll keep following some of the more intelligent campaigns that are beginning to build up here.

 

Cheers all.

 

Muggy

[determindator]

Here Here!!