Why Reclaim Bank Charges

I can't comment on something that didn't happen.

No it's reality - how can i possibly comment on something that hasn't happenend. The fact is that the OFT did not instigate the test case, and if they had done so on a different point of law, or as a an alternative, had brought their own independent action on another legal avenue then the results would be completely different. They might even have won, or had charging halted pending the outcome.

If however the OFT had instigated the test case on the same point of law then i would expect that the cases would have been Stayed - yes - but they didn't so we will in reality never know - will we?

So we agree at last?

I don't understand what you don't agree to? You cannot accept that the bank's started a legal process based on the circumstances of the time (lots of people suing), and succeded in shuting down the claims of thousands whilst they brought this action on their terms and won?

It might have been better for the OFT to have allowed one individual case to go to the Supreme Court for an answer? But that didn't happen so we will never know the outcome.

But what i do know is the bank's had control over this legal process - and that need not have been if the OFT was truly on the consumer's side, as they did not have to conduct the test case on the bank's terms.

It raises serious questions to Government in how this plan was executed.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/PCA-particulars-of-claim.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/Particulars-of-Claim2.pdf

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/OFT%27s-joint-reply-and-def.pdf


21 In the course of the current investigation, the Banks have raised the preliminary objection that the Relevant Terms and Charges in Current Agreements and also in Historic Agreements are core terms within the meaning of Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations because they are a charge for a service, and are therefore not subject to an assessment of fairness at all.

22 The issue of whether the Relevant Terms and Charges in Current Agreements fall within Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations is fundamental to the question whether the OFT’s investigation should continue, and, if the investigation should conclude that any of the Relevant Terms and Charges are “unfair”, whether that conclusion is soundly based, and whether the OFT would be entitled to take enforcement action or seek an injunction in reliance on such decision.
In the premises, the OFT therefore seeks a declaration against each of the defendants that the Relevant Terms and Charges in Current Agreements (and to the extent relied on by the Banks, in Historic Agreements) are not excluded from an assessment for fairness under the 1999 Regulations by reason of Regulation 6(2)(a) and/or (b) thereof.