Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

[Destinyofsouls]

Dear Dear I fear the worse!! You know you will get your bottoms spanked for this. Martin is a hero, a gentleman above all gentlemen, a true campaigner to save us all money.

And you dare to say that??

OH OH what's that I hear? The pitter patter of tiny metal feet?

[kennythecelt]

Dear Dear I fear the worse!! You know you will get your bottoms spanked for this. Martin is a hero, a gentleman above all gentlemen, a true campaigner to save us all money.

And you dare to say that??

OH OH what's that I hear? The pitter patter of tiny metal feet?

 

Whats this about Edinburgh (lass) and spanking!! :o

 

Edinburgh has a huge financial centre and plenty of people in the legal system! Why is that I ask!

[muggyno1]

Looking forward to it Destiny. Oops, did I say that out loud?

 

Muggy

[crfx250]

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

 

Muggy

 

 

I must take issue with you here. E-mailing MP's complaining about the waiver is not an intelligent campaign. MP's don't have power to remove it.

 

Also the £5 figure in point 1 of the charter is there for a very good reason

and one I'm surprised that you can't see, but it's of no relevence to us what we think a fair charge should be because we have no legal right

to set it.

[muggyno1]

Also the £5 figure in point 1 of the charter is there for a very good reason and one I'm surprised that you can't see,

 

What reason is that then? To concede to the banks that this is a service charge and not a penalty charge?

 

If you can see something else then don't keep us guessing.

 

As to having no legal right to set a fair charge, you are absolutely right. That's why the first point to be settled is whether these are penalties for breach of contract. Then we look at whether the banks are abusing their dominant position over consumers.

 

By the way, writing to MPs is about creating political noise and putting pressure on the FSA - which a number are already starting to do - to rescind the waiver. I'm surprised you can't see that!

 

Muggy

[crfx250]

- which a number are already starting to do - to rescind the waiver. I'm surprised you can't see that!

Muggy

 

No, can't see that nor can I hear any political noises. And why would the

FSA care what MP's think anyway? They're funded by the banks.

 

The reason for suggesting the £5 figure is the same reason why moaning

to MP's isn't a good idea.

 

The only people who the movement should be talking to and trying to

influence is the OFT & FSA. If you were either of these two, who would you

be more likely to sit down and talk to? An angry disorganised group of protesters or representitves of 3 established groups who have a clear

published agenda who appear not to be making unreasonable demands? -

the £5 figure being a case in point.

[overflow]

We may well be angry but I for one object to people on this site being called disorganised.

There has been some on here that are working for the good of us all and I think the last thing they, or anyone on here , needs to hear is such negativity.

[crfx250]

I challenge anyone to read through the posts on these threads and not

be struck by the overwhelmingly negative tone of them, especialy those directed at the most hardworking of all of us - the administrators.

 

I know people are working hard for the good of us all but I also know

a misguided campaign when I see one.

[overflow]

If I thought that I personally were party to a misguided campaign then I surely would not bother subscribing to it.

[crfx250]

I'm sure you wouldn't and the opposite applies to me. They're views and views differ.

[overflow]

I agree completely.

Long live freedom of speech

[muggyno1]

No, can't see that nor can I hear any political noises. And why would the

FSA care what MP's think anyway? They're funded by the banks.

 

The reason for suggesting the £5 figure is the same reason why moaning

to MP's isn't a good idea.

 

The only people who the movement should be talking to and trying to

influence is the OFT & FSA. If you were either of these two, who would you

be more likely to sit down and talk to? An angry disorganised group of protesters or representitves of 3 established groups who have a clear

published agenda who appear not to be making unreasonable demands? -

the £5 figure being a case in point.

 

Crfx

 

I will try not to follow your lead and be insulting but this really does need a response.

 

1. The OFT and FSA have treated these three groups with contempt. There is no chance that they will sit down with us or anyone else directly representing consumers.

 

2. There is no published agenda that is consistent among the three groups.

 

3. If the charter is an attempt to create a unified agenda it is a misguided one and, in the case of Martin Lewis, arrogant.

 

4. The reason I say that it is misguided is that, in its proposal of a £5 max on charges it goes against all of the advice on challenging charges in court always given on the CAG, all of the thousands of court challenges that have already been successful (albeit untested in court), and the basis of the first legal point to be argued in the test case.

 

5. If those of us that wish to continue to challenge the lawfulness and not the commercial level of these charges are "An angry disorganised group" then what we should be is an angry organised group.

 

6. Most comments here and on many other threads are negative about the charter and current behaiour of many campaign leaders. Most are also, rightly, full of praise for their past leadership and success to date.

 

Let's not spoil it now by raising the white flag!

 

Muggy

[andrew1]

I have to agree with you Muggy on this, the principal of the lawfulness of the charges has always been the campaign and to read Martin Lewis's so called 'Charter' is a knee jerk response to the announcement of the test case. I was dismayed to see this forums name attached to it. I have been on here since March 06 and it has never been about the commercial level (price) of charges, always the unlawful issue. Even with the £12 OFT guide price for Credit Card transactions, that was never accepted as being the issue and the OFT do not make the laws of the land. The £12 is still unlawful if it exceeds the liquidated loss (cost) so people shouldn't pay it until this cost has been verified if applied as a penalty which it is. (naughty boy, you're late in your payment - there you go that's £12 please!). I would like to see a stand by CAG away from Martin Lewis's Charter although I do not wish to in any way take anything away from Martin Lewis's considerable drive, however motivated, to campaign for the consumer - I just think he was so angry at not being included that he burst a blood vessel as was seen on T.V. and wrote this Charter whilst still picking the toys up that he threw out of the pram. CAG has a magnificent following and needs to capitalise on that with a loud voice.

[MacBoy]

Top post muggy. Good points well made.

[nevos]

IMO: Firstly a joint Charter weakens the position of each party especially where CAG is concerned, personally, I could never see the wisdom of cross promoting MSE and CAG. If they must be seen in bed together then, use the fighting fund 100,000 to take the FSA to court for issuing a waiver which created such an uneven playing field.

 

The banks are now writing to customers with yet more scare tactics such as : Take our offer or you may get nothing. Where part payments have been received, the banks don't accept this as a partial payment any longer and say they will remove the payment from peoples bank accounts unless you sign the full and final settlement letter.

 

CAG, go it alone it always worked until now. It is time for positive action.

 

Let's take our cars to London and block the streets, the French do it all the time especially the farmers...

[MacBoy]

The only people who the movement should be talking to and trying to

influence is the OFT & FSA.

 

You forget the power of public opinion, crfx250. It is the reason sites like this one exist. And once you get the momentum of opinion behind you, politicians tend to act.

 

Bin the 'charter'.

[andrew1]

Let's take our cars to London and block the streets, the French do it all the time especially the farmers...

 

TRACTORS _ That's what we need

[nevos]

My car is a tractor lol Macboy could borrow Monty's old tank!

[MacBoy]

Macboy could borrow Monty's old tank!

 

MacBoy doesn't need another tank

[crfx250]

IMO: use the fighting fund 100,000 to take the FSA to court for issuing a waiver which created such an uneven playing field....

 

So let me get this right. You want to use £100.000 of other people's money - much of it belonging to ML (and myself I might add) to challenge

the FSA's waiver decision? On what legal basis? There isn't one.

 

The Charter was not ML's idea either and it is still only a draft.

[adamc6671]

Hi All

 

IMO: Firstly a joint Charter weakens the position of each party especially where CAG is concerned, personally, I could never see the wisdom of cross promoting MSE and CAG. If they must be seen in bed together then, use the fighting fund 100,000 to take the FSA to court for issuing a waiver which created such an uneven playing field. Totally agree!

 

The banks are now writing to customers with yet more scare tactics such as : Take our offer or you may get nothing. Where part payments have been received, the banks don't accept this as a partial payment any longer and say they will remove the payment from peoples bank accounts unless you sign the full and final settlement letter. Under what leglisation do they have the lawful right to unilaterally remove any money from people's bank accounts? I do not believe they have that right!

 

CAG, go it alone it always worked until now. It is time for positive action. Again, totally agree!

 

Let's take our cars to London and block the streets, the French do it all the time especially the farmers...

 

 

Hope my comments are useful. All the best - Adam

[nevos]

crfx250:

 

Pledges of over £100,000 to support legal fighting fund.

MoneySavingExpert.com and ConsumerActionGroup.co.uk, as well as private individuals, have pledged over £100,000 to a legal fund, which if activated will be held in trust by the Govan Law Centre. The fund will be activated if a suitable opportunity for a precedent setting bank charges claim arises.

I did not say the cost of any action would be £100K.

 

From the FSA web site:

 

We are the UK’s financial watchdog set up by the government to regulate financial services and protect your rights.

Thirdly, they clearly have not acted in the public interest by issuing a waiver. Again I quote from their website on complaints:

 

We have a formal complaints scheme to deal with any complaint against the FSA. You can use this to complain about the way we have carried out, or failed to carry out, any of our functions. We will then investigate your complaint.

It is time to take action as in Consumer Action Group.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I can see what is right and what is wrong and at the moment I firmly believe as much pressure should be put on the FSA to remove the waiver for claimants.

 

So let me get this right. You want to use £100.000 of other people's money - much of it belonging to ML (and myself I might add) to challenge

the FSA's waiver decision? On what legal basis? There isn't one.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the fighting fund, it does show up all over google. I'm sure enough people would be willing to donate to this if a way can be found.

 

FSA Complaints

[MacBoy]

You want to use £100.000 of other people's money - much of it belonging to ML (and myself I might add)

 

cfrx250 - hope you don't mind me asking - you refer to some of the fighting fund as being your money - do you mean your donation, or are you involved with CAG in some other way?

[nevos]

The European Convention on Human Rights was built into UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998. It includes the right to a fair trial, freedom of thought and expression, and respect for family and private life. All public authorities, including the courts, must comply with these rights. However, if they conflict with an Act of Parliament, the courts can make a declaration of incompatibility and Parliament must then decide what to do.

[crfx250]

crfx250:

 

I did not say the cost of any action would be £100K.

 

From the FSA web site:

 

Thirdly, they clearly have not acted in the public interest by issuing a waiver. Again I quote from their website on complaints:

 

It is time to take action as in Consumer Action Group.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I can see what is right and what is wrong and at the moment I firmly believe as much pressure should be put on the FSA to remove the waiver for claimants.

 

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the fighting fund, it does show up all over google. I'm sure enough people would be willing to donate to this if a way can be found.

 

FSA Complaints

 

This is painfuly simple. You simply cannot take the FSA to court on the basis that you don't like the waiver. They have a statutory right to introduce it. You'd be wasting money and losing gobs of credibility in the process.

 

The fighting fund was set up to finance test cases.