Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[Bookworm]

I don't think this test case will ever actually get to court. In view of the fact that the OFT are going to announce later this year what they think a 'fair' charge is, I think the banks just want to wait for that. Once they have that figure to work with they will either counter claim against all cases already waiting at the courts, or make offers to everyone who hasn't gone that far yet. Either way they won't have nearly as much to pay out and court fees won't have to be repaid either.

 

That is one serious misunderstanding of things. The OFT have always said they can't say what "fair" is, and that only a court can say that. That's what happened with the credit cards, and people (and c/c companies, natch! ) jumped on the £12 figure as meaning that the OFT had sais that £12 was fair. They didn't, not then, not now. What they said was that that the level at which they themselves would intervene.

 

The OFT word is not law. If it were, they wouldn't need to go to court.

 

I think we'll get a better idea of how it's going to go (and if we have been stitched up, which I personally reckon) once the judge has been appointed.

[Bookworm]

if the case goes in the consumers favour SURELY - "IF" is the key word here.

1)any pending cases will continue to gain at least stat interest until settled - Correct

2)if banks are at risk of this it may encourage them to settle now - I doubt it. They always have made a point of waiting as long as they could, and certainly until claim had been filed. So many people are going to be put off by this "test" case now and give up that the OFT is ALREADY doing the banks a favour.

3)could OFT possibly be doing us a favour - Cases stayed for months, possibly years, people put off reclaiming what's lawfully theirs, people still accruing charges whilst they can't gain recourse, still being defaulted, pushed into bankrupcy, harassed... Yeah, BIG favour they're doing this. And all the while, a niggling feeling that the decision has already been made, and that it is not going to give us our full rights...

 

why is it that most cases seem to have been settled more promptly recently without going to court - I don't know where you have seen this, even Barclays have become more bolshy recently.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bookworm]

Get your cases in as soon as possible, even if it means shortening your time tables.

Not if it means going against the CPR, no.

I honestly believe that no judge is going to effect a stay at this present time but I may well be wrong.

You already are. Romford has already stayed cases as of today, and the judge has stated that he will keep on doing so. I fully expect a certain judge in Birmingham to do so.

[Bookworm]

A friend of mine who is a solicitor says that "there isn't a District Judge in the land who will not accept the stay."

 

Does anyone think otherwise?

Absolutely. There are some judges who are well aware of the banks' tactics, and I think that the over-riding objective means that everyone should get fair treatment. If you have a case already going, and the bank doesn't comply with court directions, apply for strike-out. A fair judge will grant that rather than wait for the bank to apply for a stay. The OFT's decision does not supersede existing court directions.

[Bookworm]

Can I ask a simple question, forgive me but it is puzzling me, what right has the OFT to make this agreement with the banks on my or anybody else?

 

I am just starting my cases now and am puzzled why a Quango can dictate the law and how and when the Courts here the cases?

 

They're not.

 

The waiver related to "internal" complaints procedure, if you will: FOS and bank's own system.

 

If you file at court, it will get processed through. The difference is that the judge may decide to stay your case until resolution of this one (of his own initiative), or the bank will apply for the stay, which the judge may or may not grant.

[Bookworm]

In light of these recent develpoments, does this mean that my case and the 17 others will be stayed untill the test case is resolved? Or will mny case ever get to court, because i have little hope right now.

 

Boris, I just answered you on your Mercantile thread. ;-)

[Bookworm]

is anybody elses head hurting???

 

No, but my fingers do, I haven't been that busy trying to reassure people since last year's report on credit card charges!!!

 

Oh yeah, that was the OFT's doing too...

[Bookworm]

I really don't understand this. The law needs to be clarified and that will now happen. That's a good thing isn't it? There have certainly been plenty of posts calling for a test case in the past so why shy away from that now? Everyone knew it would happen at some point and it should have happened much earlier.

 

What the hell are people scared of? Everyone is confident the Regulations apply and the charges are unfair so the law will prevail. Or aren't you so confident and you're now worried this will upset the applecart? This issue is bigger than anyone on this site and this case stands to benefit everyone in the UK, not just the thousands on this site.

 

The alternative is that the test case is never taken and the law is never calrified. Is that what we want? I don't. The OFT may be a lot of things but to suggest a Government department is in cahoots with the banks is just stupid. As is the suggestion the banks welcome this. Of course they don't. It's just spin. If you're taken in by this then I would say you are pretty stupid.

 

I don't currently have a claim with a bank so maybe I'd be more annoyed if I had. But I'm seeing the bigger picture. We should all be very happy with this, even if it means it will take a bit longer to get the money back.

WB, I don't think that the problem is with the test case per se. The thing that angers most people is the "waiver" given by the OFT, which gives the banks permission not to deal with requests for repayments whilst the test case goes on, while on the other hand, they can keep on levying charges on us, a fairly significant unbalanced decision, to be honest, and one which will (and does already) confuse a lot of people who think it means they can no longer claim full stop. This of course is NOT the case, but one can see where the confusion arises.

 

Insulting people, however, does not help, and I would be grateful if people could keep the discussion civilised on all sides. Thank you.

[Bookworm]

Who has given the waiver? The OFT you say.... I've got my head in my hands..

 

Sorry, the FSA.

 

Oh dear, I got one thing wrong.

 

SORRY, EVERYBODY!!!

 

I shall now go and cover my head in ashes and dress in sackckoth.

[Bookworm]

I have to agree with Wild Bill on some points, although calling people stupid is not one of them.

 

I is rather tedious going through all of the posts and getting to the end with nothing but a sore head.

 

The same points being raised, same questions asked time and time again.

 

Mabe the moderators could start athread that us little people can only read, and not contribute to. That way we would be reading knowledgeable advice and thoughts, instead of 15 pages of public oppinion.

 

Basically somewher you can find out what the hell is going on and what we should do!

 

I would also like to commend bookworm for your babysitting everybody through this frustrating time.

 

Aww shucks, 'tis nothing. Just doing the job for which they.... er, don't pay me for *realises why finances not doing as well as thought*

 

Anyway...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/107573-oft-test-case-what.html, I think, says it all, or at least, as much as we can hope for at the moment, and it is repeated at the top of each forum.

 

I would ask each and every one of you to post the link to it every time you come across the questions which will be asked over and over again. It is only by spreading the message far and wide that we can calm things down.

 

I feel very sorry for those who are not members of this forum, and have only the media frenzy to go by, and the "the end is nigh" messages of gloom and doom. If you know anyone who is thinking about reclaiming their charges, or talking of giving up, please direct them here.

 

Today's big news is tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper. In a few days, Paris Hilton's latest drink-driving will push the issue further out of the media, and then, we can all regroup and carry on as before. Meanwhile, keep a cool head, keep your wits about you (it's easier for me, I don't have many to start with ).

 

It's not the end of the world, it only feels that way.

[Bookworm]

"The OFT recognises the desirability of achaiving a fair and orderly resolution of the relevant issues and will not object to any request or application for a stay of any court proceedings between banks and their customers concerning the relevant terms/charges."

 

Thanks OFT so no way we are going to get these stays lifted

 

That's not up to the OFT.

[Bookworm]

I know, but they could have put pressure on the FSA to overturn their decision in the light of their mission statement:

 

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.

 

That's not up to the FSA either.

 

ONLY a judge can decide whether to stay a case, and/or grant or lift a stay. That's the long and short of it.

[Bookworm]

For all that did not know Tom Brennans' judgement is today, so OFT could be too late.

 

Question - section 32 of SOL?? - anyone

 

So? TB's judgment will be to see if he will be allowed to proceed with his court case, so it will make not one bit of difference to the OFT case.

[Bookworm]

FM BW

A wise man once said - 'The start of a long journey begins with the first step' who knows what the judge will order - he may decide to hear it all himself regardless of the OFT case.

 

I know you cannot judge tone from responses so I'm going to assume that you meant your comment to be informative rather than yet another negative response on this thread.

 

It meant precisely what I said.

 

TB was suing for exemplary damages, which, despite the flag waving and general cheering of people hailing his case as some breakthrough, was anything but, and had little, if any, relevance to the case the OFT is starting against the banks. Furthermore, the case as was being decided today was quite simply to decide whether he would be allowed to proceed with his case or not, which is even less relevant to the OFT case.

 

Factual is not negative. It is factual.

[Bookworm]

I was in the courts today at my preliminary hearing. I got to sit with the judge, but it does look like the decision to stay is pretty much automatic - he listened to the Barclays legal rep's argument for a stay, and then entered this into his computer before I was able to speak - saying that these cases were taking up so much of the legal system that a verdict was needed one way or another and that it wouldn't be possible to decide my case until this verdict was given.

 

Which court was it? It might be a good idea to start keeping track of which does what.

[Bookworm]

Lunatic Flea, could you post on your own thread, please? I've just had a look (and merged 3 threads), and you haven't updated there at all, instead posting on here, which isn't where you should be discussing this.