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 4241 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

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If this bigger bank has withdrawn any facility previously provided to NR, it will put NR on its knees and leave it wide open to a takeover at a bargain price.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Lewis is to meet with the OFT this week to discuss the current bank charges situation.

 

Hopefully we'll get clarification on a number of issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woo Hoo - at last - Go Martin


A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wish it were barclays bank.i am supprised no one is taking their money out of them yet because they had to borrow but i can see NR biting the dust before the end of the week,and snooty M king the creep,will get his come uppance for giving his support,it makes you wonder if the other banks have asked to make it difficult for NR in order to purchase them for nothing POLITICAL manouvers afoot.is MR M KING the same Person who was once at BA when FREDDIE LAKER bit the dust because all this has the same hallmarks,MR K likes to fix Prices from what i can remember


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it should stop the fat cat directors from pocketing their anual millions ,but im afraid this wont happen huh....


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest littlesally
These are the banks that can request a waiver -

 

Abbey National plc

Barclays Bank plc

Clydesdale Bank plc

HBOS plc

HSBC Bank plc

Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Nationwide Building Society

Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc

 

I started to read this thread but it is so long ..... :D and a few threads joined so it is disjointed and difficult to follow.

I do have a few questions though ...........

I notice that Natwest is not on this list, is that an oversight? Or can't they ask for a waiver, if not why not?

 

Why are the banks still paying out on some claims if they don't have to?

Is it worth carrying on or better to wait until this test case has finished?

 

A little confused

 

Sally x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest littlesally
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

 

Tide

 

Just seen this and don't understand.

My bank is still charging me the same amount for going over. They call it a "maintenance charge" now.

And I thought the point of this case was to see if they will be forced to repay the charges, so I don't understand you saying "they are being forced".

 

Been out of the bank loop for a while so have missed a few things.

 

Sally x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I started to read this thread but it is so long ..... :D and a few threads joined so it is disjointed and difficult to follow.

I do have a few questions though ...........

I notice that NatWest is not on this list, is that an oversight? Or can't they ask for a waiver, if not why not?

 

Nat West is part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group and they are on the list;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and even they weren't, the FSA allowed all banks not involved in The Test Case to apply for a waiver permitting them to opt out of the FSAs complaints proceedure pending judgement of the The Test Case, providing they agree to abide by it.

 

Which they all have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh- but he waiver doesnt prevent the Banks from charging you a disproportionate penalty for breach of contract- it only prevents you from seeking the return of the money which the Banks have unlawfully taken from you.

 

Good eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest littlesally
nobody has mentioned the fact that the banks cannot make the charges they used to, AND they are being forced to repay charges they have made in the past.

 

Tide

 

And anyone know what all that means?

Natwest is still charging £28 and if they are being forced to repay what is all the concern about?

 

Sorry if all that has been explained already, but have you seen how many posts there are on this thread!!?

 

Sally x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest littlesally

The bit I have quoted seems to contradict what your post says.

Sorry if I appear thick ......... :o :D

 

Sally x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where a Bank had already made an offer before the waiver, they are expected to honour it.

 

Some cases are being heard, but most are being stayed by the judges pending the test case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO don't think there will ever be a test case, the old boys netwrok will decide this all by themselves :)


Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Very much agree with nevos.

 

My own personal opinion is that the banks would much rather NOT have a test case that could lead, eventually, to them being forced to pay back a proportion, at least, of every charge they've ever levied without the need for Court action, and that the OFT would much rather NOT have to fork out vast sums of money taking their case through every stage of appeal. My opinion on this is very much strengthened by the Northern Rock situation - the Government has shown very clearly that it will do anything to protect the Banks from serious risk, and I am convinced that it will do the same thing with the 'Test Case'.

 

I believe that, eventually, some sort of compromise will be reached, probably full of grey areas, which will leave things pretty much as they are now! Sadly, though, until we know for certain there's very little that we can actually do apart from making our opinions known! One thing we can be pretty sure of is that any compromise will take as long to achieve as the Court process.

 

Just my opinion, of course, but would be very interested in what others think.

 

All the best - Adam.

  • Haha 1

I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the responses I had back from the OFT, having sent the letter from this site.

 

(sorry it wont copy them over for some reason and they are too long too write).

 

In a nutshell they gave me the basic blah blah blah about why the test case was carried out and the waiver etc.

 

I then wrote and said it didnt answer my questions, and why was the banks allowed to continue charging their penalty charges whilst we were unable to continue with our claims, and how unfair and one sided it was etc etc.

 

and Mr Howards response was

 

"The consumer panel believes that the issue of bank charges during the interim period is one of the questions that should be addressed during the FSA's review of the waiver at the end of September. The panel will be consulted by the FSA as part of the review process and we will carefully consider the position of consumers faced with continuing to have charges levied whilst being unable to proceed with their court cases. Of course if the test case finds that the charges are unlawful, consumers will be able to ask for repayment of all unauthorised OD charges, including those levied during the period since the test case was announced"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the OFT's response was very informative myself. Interesting that the consumer panel of the OFT will be consulted in the waiver review and not just the legal dept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSA are the BANKS/FINANCE CO SPIN DOCTORS they are the ones who put or paint a nice rosy picture as to how well they are looking after their consumers...ooops sorry i meant their PAYMASTERS BANKS AND FINANCE,,,has anyone any idea which judges will be used on the case,this will be very interesting one to find out,no doubt the BAnks etc already know who is who...


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are the responses I had back from the OFT, having sent the letter from this site.

 

(sorry it wont copy them over for some reason and they are too long too write).

 

In a nutshell they gave me the basic blah blah blah about why the test case was carried out and the waiver etc.

 

I then wrote and said it didnt answer my questions, and why was the banks allowed to continue charging their penalty charges whilst we were unable to continue with our claims, and how unfair and one sided it was etc etc.

 

and Mr Howards response was

 

"The consumer panel believes that the issue of bank charges during the interim period is one of the questions that should be addressed during the FSA's review of the waiver at the end of September. The panel will be consulted by the FSA as part of the review process and we will carefully consider the position of consumers faced with continuing to have charges levied whilst being unable to proceed with their court cases. Of course if the test case finds that the charges are unlawful, consumers will be able to ask for repayment of all unauthorised OD charges, including those levied during the period since the test case was announced"

 

The waiver has been granted to allow the banks to accrue enough interst on the charges in order that any claims they pay out are paid for by the interest.....the OFT will drop he case and we will continue to be able to claim for charges.


Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the OFT's response was very informative myself. Interesting that the consumer panel of the OFT will be consulted in the waiver review and not just the legal dept

 

 

It may be interesting, but it's obviously a load of crap.

 

Either the OFT's consumer panel is so powerless it has not been listened to and therfore its involvement is just lip service, or their policies are so far out of touch it's unbelievable.


Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not interesting how the FSA have gone awfully quiet after I offered to take them to court because I am fed up of the bull's muck they keep emailing me in answer to my question.

 

I have asked them to explain how their waiver decision complies with their obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in that every decision they make to change the rules should be in the consumer's interest.

 

If they fail to adequately explain this, I have offered to let a Judge decide.


Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO this government will do anything to prevent any kind of financial run on NR, bank charges, no win no fee compensation lawyers and wage increases. Fragile economy with trillions in consumer debts.

 

Keep at them un1boy :)


Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

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...