Jump to content


Guest Wild Billy

Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4218 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i'm going home having just seen 15K slip through my fingers. Booked a holiday for the kids to Lapland on the strength of it.

 

How stupid can one get? I'll have to cancel now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my typings c*#p :(


Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not up to the OFT.

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they charge a cancellation fee greater than it costs them to process, it may be worth sueing them under UTCCR. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why some people are finding this thread a little defeatist, but there are some of us that can't afford to wait two months for OUR money to be returned let alone two years.

 

For us - this decision is as good as a loss. I'll be bankrupt before any decision. Look at how many cases we've won - The OFT/FOS/FSA were not needed here - at least not if they were going to award such a one-sided waiver.

 

It's a disgrace. There's something fishy going on, and it makes me mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should be looking at the bigger picture.

 

If they were found to be unfairly charging customers by the court, and the test case proved to be a precedent for all subsequent claims, then the banks would have to stop charging customers immediately.

 

So how would they then make the money lost through not charging customers unauthorised overdraft fees etc?

 

I believe this is a carefully planned tactic by the banks to give them plenty of time to implement new ways of banking, charging customers in other ways to make up the lost revenue in not charging unauthorised overdraft charges etc.

 

So the outcome of this case really does not matter to them, maybe a slightly better outcome if they win, but regardless of that i believe we will ALL be banking under new terms and conditions with these banks in 2 years time.

 

Banks are smartarses, and i don't believe for one second they are not doing this without having a carefully thought about PLAN B.

 

They never put all their eggs in one basket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well i'm going home having just seen 15K slip through my fingers. Booked a holiday for the kids to Lapland on the strength of it.

 

How stupid can one get? I'll have to cancel now.

 

After several successes and with what I thought was another £10k on its way, I had also promised myself a holiday. Gutted.


All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

think ill go throw my tv out of the 4th floor... im not happy at all im actualling fuming with the oft... how far up the banks arse are these ppl....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only a judge can decide if the stay stands or not...He can also put conditions on it and the application in my last post argues a pretty good case for conditions. It's worth a try people and those with overdrafts would have them technically frozen.

 

The OFT has no jurisdiction on a judge and he may feel that if the banks have got a freeze on litigation then the claimant should have a freeze on his charges till the dispute is settled.

 

:!:


Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only people could think as one we could bring these ****es (the banks ) to their knees. Mass closure of bank accounts or everyone putting their money into a post office account.

 

Its only a few of the big banks that lead the pack

Barclays

RBS

HFSC

LLyodds

and proberbly a few others

 

Going for less known banks,

 

If only


The Waiver is an FSA Conspiracy with the banks against the consumer - Complain to your MP and the FSA about their shameful act!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the difference between claiming your bank charges and claiming your credit card charges?

Surely its the same principle behind them both, so why can you still claim cc charges whilst the test case is in progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is the difference between claiming your bank charges and claiming your credit card charges?

Surely its the same principle behind them both, so why can you still claim cc charges whilst the test case is in progress.

 

Peter have you not read the OFT statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With referrence to my post no.359 in this topic.

 

The more i think about it the more i am certain the banks probably don't even expect to win this case. This is just a great way for them to implement their new terms.

 

They know they haven't got a leg to stand on regarding this, because if they did they would have gone to court a long time ago, and saved themselves a great deal of money.

 

So for everybody not making a claim yet, don't delay, claim today. The banks are in the wrong and they know it, they know they will never win this test case, and they are using it as a delay tactic to bring in their new terms and also hoping that this test case news will stop many people from claiming their money back.

 

So don't let them get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is I don't reckon anyone is stopping their claim - it's the FSA that is stopping us claiming!!!

 

Of course we want to continue...that's the point. We can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for everybody not making a claim yet, don't delay, claim today

Absolutely. remember the Limitations Act will still apply,so the later you file at court, the more charges will fall outside the 6 year limit.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thing is I don't reckon anyone is stopping their claim - it's the FSA that is stopping us claiming!!!

 

Of course we want to continue...that's the point. We can't.

 

Im talking about people who haven't yet made a claim really, and could be thinking otherwise, because i bet there are a few of them.

 

Unfortunately, we have just got to chew the fat for a while, well quite a while in actual fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has already been posted but it is the statement from the FSA website.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today (Friday 27 July) issued a 'waiver' from its complaints handling rules that apply to unauthorised overdraft charges complaints. This follows the decision by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and some firms to initiate a test case in the High Court to resolve legal uncertainties on the application of the law to these charges.

This action means that, until the test case is resolved, any bank or building society that applies for the waiver will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges within the time limits set out in the FSA rules. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has adopted a similar approach and the county courts are expected to follow.

Clive Briault, Managing Director, Retail Markets, said:

"The FSA supports the test case on unauthorised overdraft charges as the current situation does not provide certainty or consistency for consumers or firms.

"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.

Do we actually think the FSA will stick by their word? (ref: the highlighted para)

GE Money S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 21/11/06. Responded 01/12/06. Prelim sent 05/12/06 £406. Response 12/12/06- **SETTLED IN FULL** (£396)

HSBC S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued 05/12/06. NO charges in last 6 years.

Lowell CCA issued 21/11/06. Further reminder sent 8/12/06. Now commited criminal offence no response.

Capital One S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 08/12/06 Responded 03/01/07-Prelim Sent 16/01/07. LBA issued 06/02/07- N1 served 07/03/07- acknowledged 14/03/07.

Scotcall CCA issued 16/01/07. Criminal offence committed.

HFC Prelim sent 16/01/07. LBA sent- Final Correspondance issued with time limit of 29/03/07.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Am I right in thinking that only some banks can apply for a halt to claims?

 

I have a claim in at MCOL aginst the Yorkshire Bank and I noticed they are not on the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The highlighed paragraphy is the OFT's get out clause, just in case the puplic kick off because of the way we have been shafted by todays decision.


The Waiver is an FSA Conspiracy with the banks against the consumer - Complain to your MP and the FSA about their shameful act!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...