Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[TideTurner]

If the FSA is to allow the banks to apply for a stay on any claims, surely the must not be allowed to make ANY charges until this matter is sorted out.

 

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

At the risk of repeating myself, one party cannot request a stay on claims whilst continuing to make charges on which those claims are based.

 

The banks want to request a stay, but don't want to cease to charge. The banks cannot be particular as to who they decide to stop charging.

 

Else the position they can continue to charge, but nobody can challenge them until a later date.

 

On another point, shares in the majority of those represented today have been on a slippery downward slope, in particular the Halifax.

 

What has been recovered so far is a miniscule amount as to what should be repaid.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

has anybody been in touch with barclays since the announcement of the oft test case? if so what was their responce?

if they stop all cases for approximately 1 year as the waiver states they can imagine how back logged they really will get.

 

 

Treehugginhox,

 

You'll find that this whole scenario has been thrashed out in numerous meetings, and designed to give the banks breathing space given the current onslaught as they are overwhelmed.

 

This also applies to the Courts.

 

Many of them will use this for publicity - you can't claim because the FSA says so etc.

 

All charges should now cease as they must be considered as being in dispute.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

It was clear by Mrs smug on the TV this morning, gaining maximum publicity that they had a result.

 

The FSA is funded by the banks (250m+ last year) and the BBA represent the banks, although they have led us to believe they have brought this case with the co-operation of the OFT for the purposes of clarification.

 

I have a big case at Court, any deferrance will simply cost a lot of money in interest. The facts have been analysed.

 

Nobody should be deterred from making a claim, and should not see this as the ultimate obstacle. This is day one. What happens on Monday is a different matter.

 

No doubt the banks will use this, but I can only see this as a way of stalling the current position so mistakes are not made by the powers that be. Tom Brennan is a good example, as are the Hull cases.

 

Relax.

 

Tomorrow's another day with another way.

 

Tide

 

Off to sharpen my teeth

[TideTurner]

Andrew1

 

Let's get the full 'mull over' on Monday

 

Mine's a mortgage and I am confident this will not apply. One of the main points is this appears to relate mainly or solely to the UTCCR 1999. Anything outside of this can be fought obviously.

 

In any event, an application will have to be made by the other side for a stay, and the grounds presented to the Court.

 

Looks expensive to me.

 

Tide

 

Why have the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Bill of Rights Act 1689 been overlooked?

[TideTurner]

Which brings on another point. If they are found to be unfair, then they have always been unfair, what happens then to the Limitations Act of 6 yrs, because if they have been found to be deceitful the Limitations Act of 6 yrs does not apply?

 

Sarah,

 

If you are referring to S5 of the Limitations Act 1980, it does not apply here, nor does it apply to any other claim. The 6 year limitation date applies to 6 years from the date of discovery of the loss or damage.

 

Limitation Act 1980

 

32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake

(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either--

(a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or

(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant;

or

© the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant’s agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.

(3) Nothing in this section shall enable any action--

(a) to recover, or recover the value of, any property; or

(b) to enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property; to be brought against the purchaser of the property or any person claiming through him in any case where the property has been purchased for valuable consideration by an innocent third party since the fraud or concealment or (as the case may be) the transaction in which the mistake was made took place.

(4) A purchaser is an innocent third party for the purposes of this section--

(a) in the case of fraud or concealment of any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action, if he was not a party to the fraud or (as the case may be) to the concealment of that fact and did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that the fraud or concealment had taken place; and

(b) in the case of mistake, if he did not at the time of the purchase know or have reason to believe that the

mistake had been made.

(4A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to the time limit prescribed by section 11A(3) of this Act or in relation to that time limit as applied by virtue of section 12(1) of this Act.

(5) Sections 14A and 14B of this Act shall not apply to any action to which subsection (1)(b) above applies (and accordingly the period of limitation referred to in that subsection, in any case to which either of those sections would otherwise apply, is the period applicable under section 2 of this Act).

440

Discretionary exclusion of time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood

32A Discretionary exclusion of time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood

(1) If it appears to the court that it would be equitable to allow an action to proceed having regard to the degree to which--

(a) the operation of section 4A of this Act prejudices the plaintiff or any person whom he represents, and

(b) any decision of the court under this subsection would prejudice the defendant or any person whom he

represents, the court may direct that that section shall not apply to the action or shall not apply to any specified cause of action to which the action relates.

(2) In acting under this section the court shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to--

(a) the length of, and the reasons for, the delay on the part of the plaintiff;

(b) where the reason or one of the reasons for the delay was that all or any of the facts relevant to the cause of action did not become known to the plaintiff until after the end of the period mentioned in section 4A--

(i) the date on which any such facts did become known to him, and

(ii) the extent to which he acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the facts in question might be capable of giving rise to an action; and

© the extent to which, having regard to the delay, relevant evidence is likely--

(i) to be unavailable, or

(ii) to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the period mentioned in section 4A.

(3) In the case of an action for slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood brought by a personal representative--

(a) the references in subsection (2) above to the plaintiff shall be construed as including the deceased person to

whom the cause of action accrued and any previous personal representative of that person; and

(b) nothing in section 28(3) of this Act shall be construed as affecting the court’s discretion under this section.

(4) In this section "the court" means the court in which the action has been brought.

Discretionary exclusion of time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries or death

 

As S32 states above, all customers who have been misled, deceived or had information concealed from them, have 6 years from the date they discovered same.

 

My claim goes back to 1991.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

The FSA are funded by the banks and are a Private Limited Company. They were not formed by the Government,

 

After the Data Protection Act 1984, the FOS ceased development of a large database set up to track persistent late payers and defaulters.

 

They didn't shelve it, but passed the development to the FSA, who have made this available to the Financial Institutions.

 

The Credit Reference Agencies were originally formed by the Financial Ombudsman Service (set up by the Govt), or the FSA (this is vague).

 

Who owns Equifax and Experian, and where do they get their information from? Can I make a default record?

 

Sound underhand? Tip of the iceberg.

 

The FSA should have responded to my 13 page complaint by saying "we do not deal with individual cases, you should seek help from an organisation who gives a ship". Instead I heard nothing.

 

The OFT responded.

 

We need to put more taxpayers money into the OFT and fire them up. the FOS go through the motions but are quickly waking up to the fact they are under the spotlight, and "what have you been doing for the last 10 years?" They are on our side. The FSA and the BBA are in the Cognac club.

 

The OFT are under funded. The FOS will have a look at it after lunch. The FSA will consider their position and go with the best scenario which enables them to survive and thrive, basically, puppets.

 

The BBA will fight the banks corner to the death.

 

I have always considered the deduction of these charges as theft, and have on several occasions considered making a police complaint against the members of the board.

 

Any delay in my claim is accruing interest at a rate I wouldn't get anywhere else, but I understand the position of those who need the money quickly, and who have probably been hardest hit by these vultures.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

I've followed this thread right through and have formed the following opinion.

 

1. The test case is in relation to the UTCCR - nothing else

 

2. The banks are buying time

 

3. The consumers were not informed of the test case as there may have been a security issue given the amount of people affected with any outcome

 

4. I will continue as usual with a TSB claim I had as a teenager

 

5. Any refusal from the banks to provide information will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office, FSA and OFT

 

6. Any application for a stay will be thoroughly challenged

 

7. Any delay in my claim being heard will simply result in a substantial increase in the amount of interest claimed

 

8. Any delay will also provide valuable time for thorough research and organisation of my current claim

 

9. Any judgement made in the banks favour will cause a public outcry

 

10. All claimants should continue as normal and fob off any excuses the banks may give

 

11. All claims should still be made at Court which will save any limitation issues and put pressure on all parties as the amount of claims increases

 

12. The banks are in big ship, and are now begging for help as they (edit) are inundated

 

13. I will move all of my accounts away from those I feel are trying to shy away from their responsibilities now they have been found out -(edit)

 

14. The next few weeks will show by the banks actions their true intentions when agreeing to this test case

 

15. The BBA are shipping themselves (but are the only true guardian the banks have)

 

16. The FSA cannot be trusted

 

17. The OFT bow to pressure and are underfunded

 

18. All correspondence between the consumer and the banks collectively will cost millions, I will be writing a letter a week

 

19. New claimants will be deterred

 

20. I will strive to keep this in the public eye in case it fizzles out

 

21. I will go public with my claim with the BBC

 

22. I will consider a complaint to the police against those ultimately responsible for setting procedure within the banks

 

23. I will never trust / empower these people again by allowing them to babysit any money I have and will withdraw everything in cash

 

24. I consider this to be the best sure investment I have ever made

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

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!!

 

Bingo it is Mrs Goggins, if it was horse racing, you'd be odds on favourite.

[TideTurner]

Mr Lemos: Gerard Lemos, Chairman of the Banking Code Standards Board

 

House of Commons - Treasury - Minutes of Evidence

 

 

Just in case anyone wanted to use it as evidence to help remove a stay:)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/36790-bank-taking-your-benefits.html

 

This applies particularly to this thread, where those in need have had their benefits taken away before they even saw them, and were left with nothing, all in the name of profit.

 

Also the low earners have been hardest hit, working all month to have a quarter of your wages taken in charges.

 

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Miscellaneous

Certain benefit to be inalienable **

 

187- Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of, or charge on-

(a)benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;

(b)any income-related benefit; or

©child benefit,

and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bancrupcy of the beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors

 

Why have the banks not been ordered to return these blatantly unlawful charges?

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Maybelline

 

Many CAB workers are voluntary workers, others are on low wages, however, you should bring this to the attention of the branch, so nobody else receives bad advice.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

I agree, I would rather have no advice at all than bad advice from somebody purporting to be informed, which is why you should bring it to their attention (a discreet letter would do the trick) just say you don't agree with the advice given, and stress you are not making a complaint.

[TideTurner]

Now you've got me confused, can you rewind to this and elaborate?

 

We sit, we wait, as does the opposition. We don't bicker as that would only strengthen their position.

 

There is a difference between debate and argument. Those who debate are considered members.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

I reckon that this test case was announced to allow the banks to earn more than enough in interest for a few months so that they can continue to pay claims.

 

Also, why have some courts taken it on their "own initiative" to issue stays? I thought they should be requested.

 

One more thing, I have evidence that stays are being issued automatically as I entered a claim under the CCA and they defended the claim as though it was a charges claim - AND it got stayed!!!!

 

Surely that proves that no one has even read the claim?

 

More likely they have been playing for time to get the departments / procedures in place to repay charges and figure out the charging structure they are going to put in place when free banking is abolished. They don't like hitting the rich because they bite back. They will still have profit targets.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

But the poor are starting to bite back too:D

 

God bless the internet. God bless CAG.

[TideTurner]

Patrick,

 

The one to watch here is the OFT not the Lord Chancellor. If a deal is to be done it must be in the best interests of the consumer. But why would we want to deal? We simply want a wrong put right, and a guarantee that any future banking is done fairly.

 

You may be surprised as to how many people are monitoring the current position, and any developments will spread like wildfire.

 

The banks should have been forced to provide details of all of their customers who may be victims of any 'mistake' or overcharging and the OFT should provide updates, as they are, in fact, acting on behalf of the consumer.

 

At the very least issue a statement in the press.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

as we see with northern rock people will vote with their feet eventually

 

What a fiasco. I don't think we have the truth on what is actually happening with Northern Rock. The media are claiming that there will be more casualties and that NR are a 'small' bank. Also, details have emerged regarding a takeover by a bigger bank.

 

If this bigger bank has withdrawn any facility previously provided to NR, it will put NR on its knees and leave it wide open to a takeover at a bargain price.

 

The majority of people in the queues outside the branches were 50+, and looking to take out their life savings to place somewhere safer. Also, the facility to withdraw funds across the internet has been restricted, with the excuse that the website has been overwhelmed with such requests.

 

This cannot be down to bandwidth as the rest of the site is accessible.

 

Tomorrow will be a very interesting day.

 

Check the share price here free of charge.

 

Telegraph Shares & Funds

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Couple of points here, the first is that we are rapidly approaching a number of deadlines in the test case on the 28th September.

 

Also, the majority of the banks are due to release their 3rd quarter results.

 

This crisis has been blamed on the American mortgage market, and nobody has mentioned the fact that the banks cannot make the charges they used to, which will affect profits. AND they are being forced to repay charges they have made in the past. This will also affect profits.

 

Maybe there's a few profit warnings on the way, when banks cannot produce the results to match their forecasts.

 

This will start a further panic.

 

All eyes on the actual results.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Jules,

 

That's all very well and good, but what about those who are experiencing hardship and still being charged whilst this is resolved?

 

Just got another bad taste in my mouth, and again get the feeling that those who were supposedly set up to oversee the industry are not powerful enough to take any action against the lenders to protect the consumer.

 

Will somebody please stand up and be responsible for this mess.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Hi All,

 

Were the banks supposed to put in details of their charging rates / makeup of charges by the 28th September?

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Zoot, my aunty put a request to have her claim unstayed as a financial hardhsip case - they bring in less than 10k a year and my uncle has been diagnosed with cancer, so she has had to stop work for a while. Their claim is 6k just with the charges.

 

Are the courts right to decline the lift?

 

un1boy,

 

There is a certain 'nervousness' across these cases from all sides.

 

I agree with Zoot that it doesn't apply to business accounts, however, this could still be at the discretion of the Judge.

 

Mine shouldn't be subject to a stay but will be - the Judge has stated it will.

 

Don't know about hardship cases, but if you don't try, you don't get.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

[quote=determindator;1222357Also whilst I'm here, you may have seen the thread Xmas meet in London 24th November but if not, please check out and see if you can make it.

 

D

 

Determindator, do you have a link to the thread given the timescales?

[TideTurner]

I am in the process of helping a street homeless man, who gets £50 weekly benefits, get a £38 charge back. The social were a day late paying in his benefits, which meant the money was not there for a standing order.

The bank said he needs to claim the money from the social as it is their fault.

He wrote a letter quoting the law re: benefits and charges they said they won't even consider the claim until after the OFT case!

 

Sally x

 

Sally,

 

Have you seen this thread?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/36790-bank-taking-your-benefits.html#post289030

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Received a reply today from my MP in response to a letter I wrote to him.

It was regards the matter of the inappropriate and undemocratic way that the OFT test case was being conducted, and in particular the restrictions upon access for the Press and Public, which were totally disproportionate to the importance of the issues and the massive public concern and interest in the case:

 

I've posted his response here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1370814.html

 

PM,

 

Excellent,

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Court ruling, the OFT can rule on bank charges - there is a God...

 

The banks have until the 22 May to appeal, but the feeling is they will do themselves more damage publicly by doing so.

 

Go get 'em

 

Tide