We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Overdraft £1.21 - fees £148.81 - should I pay?
Comments
-
If I went to court and lost would that be classed as a county court judgement?
I have asked both the bank and moorcroft months ago to take me to court and they both then ignored me, only now that they have won their appeal have they once again come after me for the money. This rings like they were just putting me off till they felt they would be 100% certain the would win in court doesn';t it?0 -
Dear LB,
Let me explain further....I mean this is a good example that relates to the manifestly unfair size of the charges in relation to the initial debt. Not defend the fact he has been charged. As Martin has stated..The supreme court never said the size of the charges was fair. Hence could he be defended by the new legal arguments..a test case...with the burden of proof being on the banks?
Also Best Wishes to Jaman with Abbey and their debt company...I can sympathise0 -
If I went to court and lost would that be classed as a county court judgement?
...
Any judgement is only lodged on a credit reference file if it's not satisfied pronto. Losing a case doesn't mean you are stuck with a CCJ on your credit history as long as you pay up within the allowed time."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
It simply said it couldn't even be considered for fairness as it was a charge for a service....The supreme court never said the size of the charges was fair. ...
The OFT, having given the matter further thought, believed there was little chance of them winning a battle on any other ground not covered by the original case.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges...it was decided that 'fairness rules' didn't apply (see Shock Bank Charges Loss news archive). Yet it wasn't 100% clear cut, as the court prominently stated the ruling didn't stop the OFT assessing fairness on other grounds.
However, in late December 2009, the OFT decided it wasn't willing to fight on; it had looked at the law and didn't think there was much chance of success...
Yes, an individual can try themselves if they wish, but remember what MSE Martin said regarding why the OFT should do so (just a couple of the resaons):...
The law is complex
The law behind this is complex, and to expect individuals to pursue it in the small claims court against highly-paid banking barristers isn't fair. We need the big institutions of state designed to do this to help some of society's poorest.
The case will be expensive
If the OFT does not pursue the case, and a private action needs taking, it is likely to be expensive. A group action could cost millions and to ask people who are already struggling to foot the bill for justice is a raw move. A similar state occurs if people fight individually and need to pay to get items amended in court and risk costs against.
..."Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
It simply said it couldn't even be considered for fairness as it was a charge for a service.
I'm not entirely sure I would agree necessarily that it cannot be considered for fairness if the charge was for a service since Reg 5(1) the grey list (e) has yet to be tested in court or referred to the ECJ for clarification
The OFT, having given the matter further thought, believed there was little chance of them winning a battle on any other ground not covered by the original case.
The basis for that is contained within OFT1154 and I have to say that from my perspective I am pursuaded that the OFT pursuing it currently in the way they did and with the contraints that they have and the value of what they would achieve, it is easy to understand their reasoning. Their remit is on current charging methods and remember the OFT still have concerns about that aspect of bank fees. Furthermore, whilst the OFT are not themselves taking the case further forward themselves they have already stated that they are keeping a watching brief on that situation and could potentially take action at a later date. Again, OFT1154 is the source.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges
Yes, an individual can try themselves if they wish, but remember what MSE Martin said regarding why the OFT should do so (just a couple of the resaons):
I would suggest(in fact agree with you that the individual may have better success than the OFT at the moment since UTCCR 1999 is about the contract between buyer(you and me) and the seller(bank) so any issues around unfairness should not necessarily been templated up(I suspect it will happen of course ). 0 -
Mass court action may be jumping the gun a bit.
There is a different scenario.
Once new particulars are developed and published, then submitted to the banks, we will have a much clearer picure of what will developed which will be evidenced by their stance. Court action might not actually be necessary in some cases as the banks may not wish the cases to set a precedent- exactly the same as happened previously.
IE They could start paying goodwill gestures again.
If not, other enforcement may start.
FOS will have a view as will the FSA and OFT. A new government will also have a view.
There is the possibility of a class action.
When court action does happen, other oppertunities may arise, such as out of court settlements.
As said, it is not over, merely a dance to a different tune. The possibilities are very real, at this stage.Please ignore those people who post on this forum who deliberately try to misinform you. Don't be bullied by them, don't be blamed by them. You know who I mean.
You come here for advice, help and support- thats what I and like minded others will try to do.0 -
So if I went to court and lost would I just be paying court fees or would I have to pay the banks costs also?
I can afford to pay, it just grinds my soul to pay £150 for going overdrawn by £1.21.
At the moment, this account is not appearing on my credit file but I am assuming a CCJ would.0 -
Of course an individual willing to make a claim would have more chance of success than the OFT.natweststaffmember wrote: »I would suggest(in fact agree with you that the individual may have better success than the OFT at the moment ...
But only because you've got to be in it to win it ... and the OFT have decided not to be in it. Ask yourself why.
Hint: the answer is in the qoute of my earlier post
"the OFT decided it wasn't willing to fight on; it had looked at the law and didn't think there was much chance of success""Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 20100 -
Of course an individual willing to make a claim would have more chance of success than the OFT.
But only because you've got to be in it to win it ... and the OFT have decided not to be in it. Ask yourself why.
Hint: the answer is in the qoute of my earlier post
"the OFT decided it wasn't willing to fight on; it had looked at the law and didn't think there was much chance of success"
It also stated in paragraph 3.4 of OFT 1154
"3.4 The Supreme Court did not look at whether the Relevant Terms are
unfair. It recognised that its decision did not, in principle, rule out the
possibility of the Relevant Terms being found to be unfair. But it did not
state on what basis they might still be assessed for fairness."
There is more on this issue from the OFT so will post this whilst getting some more stuff for you direct from the OFT's mouth rather than the interpretation of MSE.0 -
Section 3.18 specifically states:
"3.18 The above is a statement of the OFT’s position as a public enforcement
authority and should not be treated as advice to bank customers about
the possibility of bringing individual actions relating to UOCs under the
UR provisions of the Consumer Credit Act31. Their chances of success in
so doing would depend on the particular facts of each case, and they therefore need to seek advice that takes account of their personal
circumstances."
The above is a conclusion to their decision. Just prior to that was this:
"it(the OFT) will keep these issues under review and
does not rule out the possibility that it may in future consider use of
these tools."0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards