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!
Suspend Appeals but Keep on Charging?
Comments
-
Nathan_Spleen wrote: »Opinions are fine when they have at least some factual basis and worthless when they don't.
And what fact are you basing that opinion on then?Four guns yet only one trigger prepare for a volley.Together we can make a difference.0 -
You've invalidated most of your previous posts with that.0
-
Nathan_Spleen wrote: »You've invalidated most of your previous posts with that.Four guns yet only one trigger prepare for a volley.Together we can make a difference.0
-
There is no need to be unpleasant.0
-
Nathan_Spleen wrote: »There is no need to be unpleasant.Four guns yet only one trigger prepare for a volley.Together we can make a difference.0
-
Guys, any chance of getting back on topic...... changing charging structures NOW or since the OFT test case may not necessarily stop them from being assessable for the test of fairness under the UTCCR 1999. Calling them service fees or cloaking them, doesn't change things either. The OFT test case if it goes towards the credit card model, will still mean litigation in the courts for banks. £12 is no a legal amount but a regulatory threat that if they charged more that they would take regulatory action.0
-
Dunstonh, you are wrong. It was one of the first preliminary rulings of the court - in favour of the banks - that the charges were not penalties, so no need to repackage them. The key test is that of fairness under UTCCR.
Furthermore, I am definitely under the impression the case will de facto affect all bank charges, those prior to the case, and after. It wouldn't be much of a test case otherwise would it?
Nathan Spleen, it wouldn't be a grave offence for the court to look at the current economic situation. The courts regularly make decisions based on 'Policy', well within the law. Remember, a key function of the courts is to look after the best interests of society (within the rule of law). A decision such as this one, which really could go either way, may be influenced by the Judges desire not to see a widespread collapse of several banks.0 -
Dunstonh, you are wrong. It was one of the first preliminary rulings of the court - in favour of the banks - that the charges were not penalties, so no need to repackage them. The key test is that of fairness under UTCCR.
Furthermore, I am definitely under the impression the case will de facto affect all bank charges, those prior to the case, and after. It wouldn't be much of a test case otherwise would it?
Nathan Spleen, it wouldn't be a grave offence for the court to look at the current economic situation. The courts regularly make decisions based on 'Policy', well within the law. Remember, a key function of the courts is to look after the best interests of society (within the rule of law). A decision such as this one, which really could go either way, may be influenced by the Judges desire not to see a widespread collapse of several banks.Four guns yet only one trigger prepare for a volley.Together we can make a difference.0 -
Dunstonh, you are wrong. It was one of the first preliminary rulings of the court - in favour of the banks - that the charges were not penalties, so no need to repackage them. The key test is that of fairness under UTCCR.
Furthermore, I am definitely under the impression the case will de facto affect all bank charges, those prior to the case, and after. It wouldn't be much of a test case otherwise would it? Indeed.
Nathan Spleen, it wouldn't be a grave offence for the court to look at the current economic situation. The courts regularly make decisions based on 'Policy', well within the law. Remember, a key function of the courts is to look after the best interests of society (within the rule of law). A decision such as this one, which really could go either way, may be influenced by the Judges desire not to see a widespread collapse of several banks.
The entire point of the case is to establish 'legal clarity' as per the litigation agreement and not current 'policy'. It wouldn't be much of a test case otherwise would it?
It is for the regulatory authorites to decide on any refunding issues, not the court.0 -
I'd go further and replace this with this: Judges desire not to see a widespread collapse of the economy.
Based on the OFT PCA market study all charges associated with insufficient funds were £2.6b in 2006 so 6 years would amount to £15.6b. Even if you added 50% on for interest the £24.4b (spread over 10 banks) would still be less than the £28b loss RBS alone are expected to announce this month.
It's ridiculous enough to suggest this would result in a ''widespread collapse of several banks'' and patently absurd to say that it would mean a ''widespread collapse of the economy''.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards