Jump to content


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


Bookworm
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4983 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thanks Bookie

 

Thought so.

 

I think that the OFT case, if ruled in our favour, would actually become an insurmountable precedent which could be used and cited in court bundles as evidence of the past concealment and/or mistake triggering either or both parts of section 32.

 

I think this could be easily applied and won in all cases, and would not require vast efforts. I do hope that when the time arrives CAG will encourage it, and employ it as standard practice in all POC's.

 

Thanks again

 

PM

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bookie here tide.

 

If we argue concealment , then any act of concealment, past or present, on behalf of the banks is cause enough to raise the bar. As is agreed here by Bankfodders first post.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-712882.html

 

If otherwise using mistake, then that too was bourne of the banks continued misrepresentations.

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree guys,

 

Concealement is looking you right in the face, given their continued application of charges despite their blatant disregard for the law.

 

This was one of the main defences put forward to me last week. It started me thinking as to the timescales of the actual charges, as my claim goes back to 1991, the way it is being presented is the claim against the charges are time barred.

 

Many thanks for clarifying this guys, I can dismiss it with confidence.

 

One down, seven to go, however, the collapse of one argument should suffice, but I'll be using the opportunity to reply to the defence to put other points across.

 

Keep on truckin'

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the OFT don't just order the banks to give them evidence of the exact amount it costs them, surely that would be easier?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The site penaltychargesforum.co.uk is certainly fighting back against stays by Banks and has a superb application to have the stay removed posted on one of its forums - I will be trying it if HSBC apply to stay my case.

 

Fred

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, cheers Fred- I'll go check it out coz my bank have just told me that my claim will be stayed.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Judge will decide if the case will be stayed - not the Bank - defend the application and make life hard for them!

 

There is a good chance IMHO that based on previous performance the Bank will not turn up and the Judge is then unlikely to stay the proceedings (although Judges can stay proceedings of their own volition without an application from the Bank).

 

Fred

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that OFT case is in regard to unauthorized overdraft charges and not penalty charges for bounced DDs and SOs so for most people it is business as usual. If Banks do ask for stay you can still ask judges to revoke it. So keep on plugging away, you could also start pestering your MPs MEPs and anyone else you can think of, let the people know what is going on.

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stondecroze, have a look at the OFT statement on their website. Their review covers both unauthorised overdraft fees and returned item fees (ie bounced direct debits, cheques etc).

 

My question is similar to Hulmey's. What if the bank haven't filed an allocation questionaire on an existing claim? In my case the deadline for the AQ was 2 July. I put mine in on 28 June, but found out today that the bank haven't filed an AQ at all - and the court hasn't yet got around to taking any action.

 

The lady in court office said judge will probably issue an "unless" order telling them to send in AQ within 7 days or the defence will be struck out. But if they then put in the AQ they can also ask for a stay - or the judge can simply stay cases of his own volition (and that's what the court lady thought would happen as a result of the OFT case)

 

But if they'd put the AQ in at the right time, a date for hearing would probably have been decided before the OFT announcement, and I understand that where there is already a hearing date, those cases will go ahead.

 

So the bank benefits from (a) not filing the AQ on time, and (b) the court's delay in taking action after the AQ deadline? Any thoughts on how to persuade the judge not to issue a stay in these circumstances, or how to appeal against it if he does?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read on Martin Lewis' moneyexpert site that none of the OFT statement applies to claiming back credit card charges and so I am to press on and claim for my card.

 

Can anyone point me in the direction of the SAR letter, POCs etc that are specifically for use with credit card claims so that I can start the claim please?

 

Fred

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone look over this and comment :-

 

The Claimant is aware as are the Courts that, the defendant is now routinely requesting a stay in proceedings in claims of this nature, by indicating an intention to negotiate a settlement further, the intentions of the OFT to bring a test case against the Banks should not be viewed as a reason to stay the proceedings as this is a clear contravention of human rights and the OFT indicated that only a Judge can decide the outcome of ongoing cases.

The claimant is strongly opposed to such a stay, upon the basis that the defendant, both during and prior to this litigation, has rebutted or ignored all prior attempts by the claimant to narrow the issues in dispute, or otherwise engage in meaningful dialogue which may have facilitated an amicable settlement to these matters.

 

It is submitted that any request for a stay by the defendant is highly likely to be an attempt to further frustrate and delay proceedings, and the pattern of settled cases so far would strongly suggest that the defendant does not intend to settle these matters until a hearing date is imminent.

 

Accordingly, the claimant respectfully requests that any such request by the defendant to stay proceedings is turned aside.

 

 

Thanks :)

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Haha 5

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clicks guys.

 

All the hard work on that draft was done by others (Alanfromderby and GaryH), but glad I could just be of assistance directing others there.

 

PM

  • Haha 2

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

we have been told by the clerk that my case is probaby going to be stayed, so we will be sending the request to have it set aside.

 

question:

 

in part C, apart from the above, does anyone think it would be worth sending a list of all previous Abbey cases that were settled, along with a note stating that I have tried on numerous occasions prior to court action to get them to settle and they either refused or ignored my request to enter into negotiations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phoned court this morning and was told Halifax acknowledged my N1, but case stayed. Whent down to to see them, but nothing that I can do untill I hear officialy from Court. Then will apply so have it set aside. Nice ladies there said good chance of that, depending on Judge. :)

 

 

So don`t give up everyone, keep on going, chipping away at them. they will collapse eventualy

 

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stonedecroze

 

Lets hope you are right, that would politely mean us sticking 2 digits up at the banks, and bring the balance of scales back to being fair for both sides.:D

 

precicely and keep pressuring them any way we can.

that deserves your scales being tipped f010.gif

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...