Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[crfx250]

I really don't want to appear negative but the FSA are not going to lift their claim waiver on the basis that a bunch of consumers don't like. It just isn't gonna happen. It's part of the whole Bank/FSA/OFT agreement.

The FSA are afterall funded by the banks and are hardly likely to tear up

the deal.

 

Moving on a bit, assuming the OFT win the UTCCR issue, the banks will have to disclose charge costs to the OFT to calculate a fair charge. I think this will be the biggest sticking point to a resolution and the most time consuming. As only the banks hold the information it goes without saying that they'll be selective in what they hand over.

 

And it's no coincidence that Angela Knight has started throwing in stuff like ''account reviews'', ''credit checks'' and ''judgements'' she says the

banks have to make every time someone defaults

[thelightbrigade]

crfx250,

If the FSA receive enough of an increased workload and it is because they are a limited company then they will incur increased overheads which they will want to avoid, so consumer contact should not be dismissed. If nothing else it is more publicity for the consumer and hopefully more claims and therfore more emphasis on the banks to resolve the matter quickly.

What the banks do have in there favour is in the case of a ruling that £500m has to be refunded or whatever the figure be, they will have a strong argument not to release that amount of cash in to the economy all at once.So more delay.

This ruling is just for the link with UTCCR issue, then an appeal or two and then the next issue to clarify each kind of charge that has been taken.Then more appeals etc. I reckon this is how they will delay things further.

This is the very first step in what could be a lengthy process, unless the consumer makes it known that certain interim decisions are not acceptable. The waiver decision is going to be revisited so a campaign to overturn this sould be launched. If consumers do complain and the waiver is not overturned then this will only serve to demonstrate that

1) the OFT/FSA and the banks are too cosy

2) the OFT has no power or intention to represent the consumer effectivley

 

What a great opportunity for credit unions to take a market share!

[crfx250]

If consumers do complain and the waiver is not overturned then this will only serve to demonstrate that

1) the OFT/FSA and the banks are too cosy

2) the OFT has no power or intention to represent the consumer effectivley

But we know this! It's been demonstrated countless times! Another demonstration of it has has no value!

 

If the FSA receive enough of an increased workload and it is because they are a limited company then they will incur increased overheads which they will want to avoid

But the FSA is funded by the banks! The banks have trillions. Do you seriously think the FSA is going to change it's policy for the sake of a few stamps and a fob off letter?

[Boris303]

90% of the UK banks are involved in this test case and the other 10% have agreed to stand by the outcome.

 

The banks, FSA and the OFT are fully aware that for the banks to make up for lost revenue by not charging its customers unauthorised overdraft charges they need time. Time to implement new charges, make its money in other ways.

 

The OFT know the banks are in the wrong, but they can't expect the banks to just hold their hands up and stop charging people overnight without having something else in place to recoup their lost revenue.

 

So don't expect too many supprises, the FSA have the ability to lift the waiver, but that is only if it feels the 90% of the banks are taking too much time getting this resolved.

 

All the players in this case are already aware of the outcome, this is simply the best way to resolve it. When you think about it, it all makes sense. How else could you expect this whole situation to be resolved once and for all?

 

Thats my simple view

[thelightbrigade]

Yes but if 500,000 consumers request something, are ignored then the 500,000 consumers are well placed to state that they are being ignored by an organisation that is supposed to be on the consumer side.

The point is to make it clear to all that they are in cahoots.They will not want this made clear, so will want to avoid it. This can be avoided, albeit temporarily, by removal of the waiver.

The FSA are also in a position where they need to be seen to be doing something.

Just my opinions and based on experience with the notoriously ambigious FSA guidance.

[Boris303]

Yes but if 500,000 consumers request something, are ignored then the 500,000 consumers are well placed to state that they are being ignored by an organisation that is supposed to be on the consumer side.

The point is to make it clear to all that they are in cahoots.They will not want this made clear, so will want to avoid it. This can be avoided, albeit temporarily, by removal of the waiver.

The FSA are also in a position where they need to be seen to be doing something.

Just my opinions and based on experience with the notoriously ambigious FSA guidance.

 

Agreed, but i think we should see how this waiver thing pans out, the next few weeks should tell.

[Boris303]

I wonder how the banks would be affected if they just returned ALL the bank charges they have charged customers for the past 6 years tommorrow?

 

How would that affect the countries banks? We all assume they have so much money it wouldn't make a dent in their pockets. But is that correct? We are talking about a vast sum of money here.

 

Damage limitation i think is one of the key factors here, for the benefit of the country perhaps.

[Destinyofsouls]

quick question folks... Im in court with abbey on the 24th and I'm expecting the notification of a stay any day now after this.

 

My question is that unless I've read this wrong this whole OFT thing is about the service charge arguement. If thats true then in their defence sent to me abbey have admitted I breached the contract and are only argueing about whether the charge reflects their costs. Surely as they have done this if the OFT case is about the 'service ' thing it has no relevence on the abbey defence or any of the other banks who have already lodged the 'breach of contract defence'.

After all that was a sworn statement and surely they can't say ' Oh yes we forgot it is a service'.

Equally if I have got it wrong and its all about 'do the charges amount to unfair penalties for breaches' then LLoyds must have shot them selves in the foot as they claim it's a service charge. So surely we can go after them under Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 only.

 

I have a case with lloyds as well and they are about to get given a court date

 

As I said I may have read the OFT wrong.

 

Any help needed please as I expect to hear from the court soon in the light of the above and want to fight the application for a stay, if it arrives, as hard as I can...

 

 

geoff

Finlander, I think you have a good point there. This first argument between the OFT & The bankers is ' are the charges unlawful or not? The banks say it is for a service, Abbey say it is for a breach, therefore Abbey must then prove the actual cost to them to prove they are not making a profit. In this case, there should be no reason for Abbey to get permission for a stay?

[Falkirk1298]

I wonder how this is going to play in Scotland? I came across this on the Govan Law Centre site and I've posted it in the "Scotland" section, but it makes interesting reading.

 

Sheriff Principal rejects banks' defence of res judicata | GLC July 2007

[rosey-789]

Hi.

 

I was about to send my first letter to the bank about charges , would i now not be able to do so because of this test case.

[pward33]

I was about to send my first letter to the bank about charges , would i now not be able to do so because of this test case.

 

Yes, there's nothing at all to stop you from getting the ball rolling by sending in your SAR and working out what you've been charged. While you're waiting for them to reply (they have 40 days) follow developments on here and hopefully a clearer picture will develop over the coming weeks. Good luck!

[photoman]

Hi.

 

I was about to send my first letter to the bank about charges , would i now not be able to do so because of this test case.

 

Rosey

Carry on regardless. There is nothing stopping you. Nothing has been decided yet, and may take some time. How long, nobody yet knows.

 

It is important still to get your claims in and follow the normal schedule.

This will put you near the front of the queue once matters are resolved and resume.

 

You really ought to start your own thread, so yourself and others can then follow your claim, and respond more specifically.

You are not likeley to get specific answers to your questions by posting on other threads such as this related to other issues.

 

Good luck and best regards

PM

[ICY]

..

[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

[determindator]

Why do you doubt what i'm saying?

 

Do you think seven banks and two regulators woke up on thursday and

simultaneously decided to trot off to court without talking about it?

They signed an agreement, hundreds of lawyers were involved.

 

Hi,

 

I think the people here are saying if you knew details did you not put the info on the site?

 

Determind

[determindator]

Hi,

 

I think the people here are saying if you knew details did you not put the info on the site?

 

Determind

 

Just read more and Techspec reply being the Banks knew the plan. It just goes to show again how powerful the financial institutions are that there was not one person in the know within the Bank fraternity and lawyers who could have felt the need in their soul to pass on all this info to the consumer groups.

[Lunatic Flea]

Hi

Does anyone know how the Banks are making the courts aware of the request for a stay? I only ask because in my case Lloyds failed to comply witht he Judges orders and serve on me and file a court a counter scedule by 4pm 23/7/07. Before the announcement i sent a completed "Request for judgement" form and my local court manager told me the judge will view my file on Monday(tomorrow)and i would probably rule in my favour. I made her aware of the ORT announcement and by 4:55pm(5 minutes before the court closed for the weekend) she was not aware of this and and received no requests from any Banks. I am hoping the Judge looks at my file tomorrow before the Banks send the court any requests. I assume if the judge in my case is aware of this test case through the media but there has been no request from the bank for the matter to be put on hold he should carry on with a judgement? Surely it is down to the Banks to request a hold on the case without relying on Judges to have read the papers etc?

How do you think the Banks will notify the courts? By fax, post etc?

[pward33]

I assume if the judge in my case is aware of this test case through the media but there has been no request from the bank for the matter to be put on hold he should carry on with a judgement?

 

Absolutely. Particularly as you are requesting a default judgment because the bank failed to comply with the judge's orders, I'd be astonished if you had any problems.

 

Good luck and let us know!

[noomill060]

With regard to the banks continuing to make unlawful debits through the time of the test case, while they have the duty to respond to claims, the term "quid pro quo" may be useful.

 

We are NOT gonna "roll over and lay down"

 

 

**off to find some Quo to listen to on Youtoob**

[Lunatic Flea]

Absolutely. Particularly as you are requesting a default judgment because the bank failed to comply with the judge's orders, I'd be astonished if you had any problems.

 

Good luck and let us know!

Hi

That's exactly what i wanted to hear:) Even if you were lying and only said it to make me happier:D

To be serious for one moment i think i would have a good chance espicially when the Bank have not complied witht he Judges "ORDERS"

In a supporting letter i did point this out. I don't see how the judge would grant a hold as the OFT announcement came days after Lloyds had allready failed to comply. I think the Judge may not be best pleased espicially if he thinks the bank may not have complied with his orders because they were aware of the announcement on Friday.

[noomill060]

 

[pward33]

That's exactly what i wanted to hear:-) Even if you were lying and only said it to make me happier:grin:

 

As if :D

 

I'm sure you'll be fine. Have you got your own thread running where you can report back on what happens?

[Lunatic Flea]

As if :D

 

I'm sure you'll be fine. Have you got your own thread running where you can report back on what happens?

LOL:D :D

 

Will have to start my own thread and will be straight on the forum once i know what the Judge decides.

[pward33]

 

:grin:

 

OMG, Quo live. The memories..... First band I ever saw, 'twas on their first farewell tour in the mid 80's

[tomterm8]

Hi

Does anyone know how the Banks are making the courts aware of the request for a stay? I only ask because in my case Lloyds failed to comply witht he Judges orders and serve on me and file a court a counter scedule by 4pm 23/7/07. Before the announcement i sent a completed "Request for judgement" form and my local court manager told me the judge will view my file on Monday(tomorrow)and i would probably rule in my favour. I made her aware of the ORT announcement and by 4:55pm(5 minutes before the court closed for the weekend) she was not aware of this and and received no requests from any Banks. I am hoping the Judge looks at my file tomorrow before the Banks send the court any requests. I assume if the judge in my case is aware of this test case through the media but there has been no request from the bank for the matter to be put on hold he should carry on with a judgement? Surely it is down to the Banks to request a hold on the case without relying on Judges to have read the papers etc?

How do you think the Banks will notify the courts? By fax, post etc?

 

Last i heard, they either will or have made an application to the master of the rolls in england, which means it will take a while for the decision to be granted. So, I'm 99% certain, you're going to be jumping for joy tomorrow:)