Urgent Info Needed To Confirm A Bank Leak

[toneighty170]

If it is their plan, doesn't seem under wraps to me

[mailmannz]

IF and I repeat IF this is true...(misinformation is rife) we have won!!!!!!!

 

 

IF we have won...it will only be a short term thing while banks come up with other, more ingenious ways of getting money out of us!

 

Mailman

[alecmac18]

The more I think about this - the more I think its an excellent idea of Lloyds. They can draw a line under the issue, get LOADS of new customers and be seen to be the 'better' bank. The 3.5 billion they may have to pay out can be seen as a kind of advertising budget - and they would have had to pay it eventually anyway. I may well switch over to lloyds if this is true.

[olden]

If this is true i will definately switch to LLOYDS !!

[alecmac18]

Again - the more you think about it......it could be true....does any bank really want its dirty laundry dragged through the court by the OFT. The would have to disclose internal notes, costings (e.g how much it actually costs the bank to process the charges - very embarressing if the real cost is something like £1 haha) - The question really is - do they want this info plastered over the evening news - constantly - for a month - with their logo clearly visable behind a newsreader - with the caption "OFT finds that charges only cost £1 to process"

 

I think if I ran Lloyds - faced with that senario - I would digg deep - put aside the 3.5 billion - call the PR team and ad agency and sit back while I incur the wrath of the other banks for breaking ranks.

 

Go Lloyds...

[crfx250]

I very much doubt this rumour is true.

 

The OFT and the banks have a signed agreement for the test case and I

don't know if it would be legally possible for Lloyds to simply pull out. Also

I doubt if any bank would have the nerve to break rank.

 

I just called a contact at the OFT and he knows nothing about it.

[alecmac18]

Yeah but they could pull out of the test case - break ranks - and then just start paying customers back. Its legally possible if they simply admit guilt.

 

At this point the OFT would not necessarily have been informed.

 

But - OK - its pretty unlikely - sigh

 

But still.......there is a compelling argument for doing it......

[alecmac18]

Can anyone else who has insider knowledge of Lloyds confirm this?

[alecmac18]

Another reason for just pulling out of the test case, breaking ranks, and paying out. The banks have ALL been flooded with people applying for refunds claiming hardship. These claims are apparently more difficult to process than normal as they can be much more complex -and require senior managers.

 

They are being sent in in the 1000's.

[tifo]

The banks have ALL been flooded with people applying for refunds claiming hardship.

 

Yes, and sometimes they have to pay out, especially with benefits.

 

But, talking to the FOS today, i was told hardship is only assessed as 'current' and not years ago. So if you are claiming charges from benefits from a few years ago, that does not count. If you are claiming charges from benefits within the last few months, that needs looking at as it is 'current' hardship.

 

The guy made it clear that hardship cannot be used to help you pay your debts, e.g. mortgage arrears, bill arrears etc. despite me asking why the FSA say this is so.

 

He said they assess the banking code just as the bank does. I guess some crap was mentioned here ....

 

But, i had Lloyds pay out £817 to my partner this week, without any statements or a schedule sent as i asked 'send me what you charged' and by asking for hardship to be considered after they sent a 'stay' letter. Maybe cos they're thinking of pulling out of the case soon?

[alecmac18]

The FOS does not know what its talking about. Fair enough - a lot of the hardship claims all use different arguments - but a good argument can be made that a persons current financial position can have been impacted as a result of cumulative charges over the years (e.g bank charges make you increase overdraft - bank increase overdraft to let you handle the charges- charges keep coming in - you default on OD - bank gives you loan to clear overdraft - cycle repeats until customer is insolvent.)

 

I have spoken to FOS on numerous occasions - you actually get better advice by speaking to the banks - FOS are terrible at giving advice and keep changing their minds. You are (sadly) much better going to court and arguing your case. If anything the FOS are even more in the pocket of banks than the FSA.

 

The FOS could have continued to process bank charge claims. They CHOSE not to. In fact it is a condition of the FSA wavier that the FOS STOPS processing complaints. Had the FOS refused then the FSA would have been unable to put the wavier in place. No one ordered them to do anything. Yes the OFT is taking banks to court. But there are many, many other issues that the FOS could have looked at to determine whether the charges were fair other than The Unfair Terms and Contracts Act. The conduct of the FOS is shocking really.......and should also be investigated in due course.

[alecmac18]

This is basically why I think this story might have a ring of truth to it...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/113285-banks-oft-rock-hard.html

 

It really no longer matters if the banks 'win' in court. Dragging the appeal out helps no one either. The bottom line is that public opinion has already ruled that charges are unfair. And in a retail market that is all that matters.

 

Legal opinion is now neither here nor there.

[tifo]

why would the banks agree a test case and then back out?

 

haven't they signed an irrevocable agreement with the FSA and OFT?

 

it doesn't make sense ....

[finlander]

tifo vbmenu_register("postmenu_1116533", true); - why can't they back out...if they simply say 'we have spoken to our legal chaps and we agree with the oft' then what would the court case be about? Tom Brennan found out what the judges think about taking someone to court who has given in to virtually all your demands except for a few legally tenuous points! what would the oft gain by pushing it? The other banks would surely follow and the oft would risk a chance they may lose and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the consumer.

 

I don't know if this is true or if the timescale is accurate. What I do know is the more I think about it the better sense it would make for LLoyds. They are one of the richest banks. They can if anyone afford it. The publicity would be good, they may gain customers and they could re-employ there staff from dealing with our complaints to selling to us. If their lawyers have said 'you can't win' then why not give in and be seen to be genorous and honest instead of dragged kicking and screaming into a court?

 

up to now lloyds seem to have been the most independant bank. They didn't rely on the penalty charge reflects our cost defence. They went for service charge and on several occassions won. The other banks were quoting them. They seem to have a legal team who know how to confuse. imagine them now agreeing to refund the money when everyone knows they won against Mr Berwick. they would look generous! how clever would that be?

 

As I said I'm not holding my breath but I really really wont be surprised if this happens in the near future....

[crfx250]

tifo vbmenu_register("postmenu_1116533", true); - why can't they back out...

 

The OFT are taking them to court! Lioyds can't just say ''no thanks we're

not interested''

[finlander]

they can say 'you win - we agree with you'.

 

so what would the OFT do then?

[The Phantom]

Even if they admitted their charges were unfair and agreed to re-imburse ?

Would taking them to court then not become pointless and they could be excluded from the case ?

I don't want to bring anybody's hopes up, but wouldn't it just be nice ?

[The Phantom]

oops - finlander beat me to it

[finlander]

and when we say 'we are taking you to court'

 

they do say 'no thanks' and pay us...

 

this is just bigger...whats more the banks asked for the case and weren't dragged there by the oft... Which would make the OFT look wasteful if they pursued a bank who had just said 'ok you win we agree with you!'

[finlander]

i'ts a civil matter not a criminal one...how can you drag someone to court who has decided to agree with you?.. what would you say to the judge?

 

'we want these people who now agree with us to still agree with us?'

 

 

[callumsgran]

Brilliant news, if it's true and i sincerely hope it is!!!

[gill5blue]

great news

[crfx250]

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

In the meantime I just hope you don't get too many peoples hopes up.

[crfx250]

Also the OFT are a government department and have statutory powers

to take court action

[TANZARELLI]

I very much doubt this rumour is true.

 

The OFT and the banks have a signed agreement for the test case and I

don't know if it would be legally possible for Lloyds to simply pull out. Also

I doubt if any bank would have the nerve to break rank.

 

I just called a contact at the OFT and he knows nothing about it.

 

I don't personally think this is true but if it were why would your contact at the OFT know anything about it anyway?