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
Meeting with OFT
Comments
-
<!-- / message -->TANZARELLI wrote: »Why is the OFT not argueing that the limitations act should not apply to penalty charge claims because the banks have been deliberately cloaking/veiling the charges by changing T&Cs in a further attempt to conceal the nature of the charging regimes again proving concealment?
The Limitation Act being an Act of Parliament can not be disapplied by anyone. Only a court can rule on whether any exception applies therefore the OFT has no power to make any such argument as it is for individual claimants in an action to prove concealment.As I am not the Pope or legally qualified I may be wrong so feel free to get a second opinion from a qualified person0 -
The main questions I would like Martin to as are :
1) Why are the financial institutions and courts applying stays to cases that are unrelated to this test case i.e Credit Card claims , business claims etc
2) Do they realise the full implications that the stays have had for genuine hardship cases.
3) Can they clarify what makes a true hardship case so , many people who do not receive benefits or who are in full time employment are being crippled by these extortionate fees rendering many with repossession orders against their homes , defaults on the credit registers ( forcing them to be tied to lenders offering a higher rate of borrowing) forcing them into even more debt and hardship.
4) Will they be seeking true disclosure of costs for charges .
5) Are they willing to take on board the disclosures of CYNtheSYS relating to the charging system used by the NAG group including Clydesdale Bank and Yorkshire Bank
6) Echoed from EsmerelldaOnce the declaration has been made by the court that the UTCCR test of fairness is applicable to the banks charges, what timescales does the OFT undertake to apply the fairness test to the individual banks.
7) If the banks are found to be at fault will the repayment to customers be automatic and not subject to individual action in court or the Limitations Act
Will this be televised or transcripted for public viewing?0 -
<!-- / message -->
The Limitation Act being an Act of Parliament can not be disapplied by anyone. Only a court can rule on whether any exception applies therefore the OFT has no power to make any such argument as it is for individual claimants in an action to prove concealment.
Point taken on that I just ran away with my own anger then lol. Definately will be something I will be argueing though. Cloaking and veiling of charges should be argued though and this would add weight to individual claims if they proved the banks were doing this so in my opinion the OFT should have included this in their POC.0 -
ask them if i can be the first person to get my money back when this OFT is all over
0 -
Just to add to Tools post above with Mortgage Claims1) Why are the financial institutions and courts applying stays to cases that are unrelated to this test case i.e Credit Card claims , business claims etc and mortgage claimsCalc
Edit--How do you get it to start a new line when I hit Enter!!!!!aka Turboman (Newbie?? --my A---e!!)0 -
TANZARELLI wrote: »Point taken on that I just ran away with my own anger then lol. Definately will be something I will be argueing though. Cloaking and veiling of charges should be argued though and this would add weight to individual claims if they proved the banks were doing this so in my opinion the OFT should have included this in their POC.
the above is true. but if claimants can actually obtain evidence that the banks have been deceitful and dishonest and abusing there power, which to be honest, they have been, no matter how you look at it.
charging us is one thing, ripping us off is another.
would make an interesting fraud case :rolleyes:0 -
to implement all the restrictions, hardship ship omisions from stay's and all the above mentioned, would be almost impossible.
Would the OFT and banks, consider mutually dropping the case, so customers can carry on as they were?
The OFT, Banks, FSA, they are all dangerously playing with peoples financial live's . An awful lot of customers, past and present, are going to be a lot worse off, even if the test case is won by the OFT.:mad:0 -
Any news on Martin's meeting with the OFT that was supposed to have taken place this week.
When are we likley to have a report issued on the website
Regards
BigBudgie0 -
Yes I'm itching to find out how it went0
-
I prob wouldn't build your hopes up to much folks, most answers will prob be usual vauge on the fence type responses I would think.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.6K Spending & Discounts
- 247.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards