OFT v Banks - **Don't panic!!!**

[Bookworm]

...................... PLEASE!.......................

 

 

 

So the OFT is taking banks to court. A great wind of uncertainty is sweeping CAGgers and non-CAGgers alike. At times like these, it is easy to listen to all the rumours, half-baked truths, and feel despair, especially when the media is not letting the truth getting in the way of a juicy headline.

 

HOWEVER! The main things to actually remember are these:

 

If you complain to your bank, or decide to go through the FOS, then your case will be put on hold. But there is absolutely no legal reason not to stick to your deadline and start your court claim as previously planned, or not to carry on with your claim if you had already lodged it.

 

There never was any cast-iron guarantee that you would get your money back within certain timescales, and now, these have just increased, that's all. (Yes, I know that sentence doesn't sound logical

)

 

As before, all you stand to lose is your court fee and not get the money you had lost a long time ago if you proceed with a court case and the OFT loses. On the other hand, if the OFT wins, your case will be already in the system, and wouldn't you rather be near the top of the list than at the end when this ends?

 

Another thing to bear in mind is the Statute of Limitations act 1980. SoLA 1980 kicks off from the date you first FILE AT COURT.

 

If you don't, and you were close to the 6 years period, by the time the OFT v 8 banks case is decided, you will have lost hundreds, maybe thousands of pounds. On the other hand, if your claim is already filed, then THAT date is the one where statute barred will run from.

 

Finally, a piece of advice for those with claims already in the system: Do NOT ignore courts direction because you think it's all over. People have been phoning courts all over the country since Friday and the message that is coming out loud and clear is this: BUSINESS AS USUAL, cases are proceeding. So don't neglect your court deadlines, and if you have a chance to get the defence thrown out because THEY didn't comply, do it ASAP, don't give them a chance to apply for a stay.

 

The banks have jumped at the chance to postpone all refunds, so fight back harder. Hit fast, hit low, and don't give them an opening.

 

In other words, KEEP GOING. We'll all get there in the end, but it's up to every one of us not to give up.

 

And most important of all:

 

DON'T PANIC!!!

.

.

.

[Bookworm]

So why now the urgency to beat the 6 year limitation ?

 

 

No urgency as such, except that SoLA is still a complicated and uncertain area of the law. A lot of people will simply not be prepared to argue it, and will be happy with the 6 yrs (or more by the time the case is decided) charges back.

 

I personally think that 32 © will be the way to go once the dust settles, but that's way away in the future, as you know.

 

In the meantime, I think that the less litigious amongst us should get in their claims now, hence the emphasis in my post. Can't speak for others, naturally. ;-)

[Bookworm]

You mean to FOS? SoLA doesn't apply, since it's an arbitration process. If you were to go down the FOS route, there is nothing to stop you from going as far back as you want, and see whether it gets anywhere. I know some people have been successful in getting further than 6 yrs that way, but can't really be more definite than that.

[Bookworm]

Ok, well, it depends on each case, but say for example that the judge ordered documents to be exchanged 14 days latest before hearing ( a very common direction). You religiously do your bundle, send a copy to the judge, a copy to the other side. They, naughty people, do not do the same. The day after the deadline, you write a letter to judge, pointing out that they haven't complied with court directions, and respectfully request that their defence be thrown out and judgment summarily awarded to you. It might work, it might not, but what do you have to lose? ;-)

[Bookworm]

PM,

 

The Statute of Limitations Act should never be mentioned with a claim, unless brought up by the other side.

 

It will, however, become more relevant as time goes on, as it will be diffifult in the future to deny that you were aware of any wrongdoing, given the recent media coverage. Therefore, unless you have completely shut yourself off from the world, the media and society, the clock is now ticking.

 

This may well be used by the banks in the future as a date which the SoLA can refer to with respect to a defence, as coulf the original OFT announcement in April last year.

 

Tide

 

Well, now, that's not quite correct, as until such time that the said wrongdoing is made official by a judge, the banks will carry on claiming they're doing no wrong, which falls either within 32 (b) or 32 © whichever way you look at it. Once the judge decides that the charges are unlawful, then you can argue SOLA to your hearts content. IMO, anyway.

[Bookworm]

Where did you hear that, TT?

[Bookworm]

Maybe? :lol:

[Bookworm]

Nothing, as it hasn't started yet.