Nick Clegg & David Cameron reply to Bank Charges open letter

natweststaffmember

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Two quick points.

1. 1 million people getting 10 billion. There's a confusion here, there are 1 million currently on hold - they're the people whod likely get cashback without automatic payback. The £10bn applies to the cost with automatic payback (worked out based on the fact banks make 2-3bn a year profit from charges) as for how many people that'd be - i suspect but can only guess £5-10bn

2. Political Email.

I make no apology for this. Two weeks ago we published Nick Cleggs response, now David Camerons and I hope soon Gordon Browns.

Bank charges is a massive issue impacting millions, its been a huge arm chair revolution but politicians have been suspiciously quiet for years. I think its important that we know where the politicians of all major shades stand.

As for "warn me when its there" - it was in the subject line, and at the top of the email - it can't be that difficult to find the delete

Beat me to the response......note to self: Read the rest of the thread ::o:o:o

natweststaffmember

Natalie6999 wrote: »

I wonder how long it will take for Gordon Brown to reply?

It alright for posters to complain that this issue is being used to win votes in the next election, but have they forgotten that to many of the people waiting for the decision on the appeal the result could be life changing or at least improve the quality of life for many who are on or below the poverty line?

I am a carer, mother & sole breadwinner for my family, if the OFT win this case & I get my bank charges returned it would mean that we would be able to plan for a future instead of existing from day to day.

If the banks hadn't robbed us in the first place then this situation would not have arisen, surely if anyone is only working part time & getting the rest of their income from benefits the banks can see that they cannot afford to pay bank charges, they see what comes in & what goes out of these accounts.

Isn't it time that Gordon Brown put his money where his mouth is?

Natalie, with all due respect to you and many others that may read this post. The CURRENT part of the OFT test case at the House Of Lords will not get you your bank charges back YET. There is a second part to the litigation which is on the fairness of SPECIFIC terms and there is no certainty that every term will be unfair necessarily. It is a big leap forward but not the end of the process.

natweststaffmember

Brennon wrote: »

Won't the banks just reintroduce charges for every transaction just like the good old bad old days????????

Yes and No. The short term losses the banks' may make may be a long term gain. Remember, once the charges system becomes fair then we won't be saying reclaim reclaim reclaim but explaining the charges and how it works.

JDPower

Oh what a surprise, the Tories have belatedly jumped on the bandwagon. Surprised it took their advisers/supporters so long to spot the opportunism that the Lib Dems beat them to.

And don't go expecting any kind of (meaningful) response from Labour - they're the only party in a position to do something about it so of course they'll stick to their usual routine of ignoring the public and doing nothing.

MakeitgoRIGHT

MSE_Wendy wrote: »

1. 12. August 2009 Nick Clegg.

"Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has pledged legislation on bank charges to back the MSE campaign to ensure everyone who's had an unfair charge will get their money back without having to ask.

2. 26 August 2009 David Cameron
"Tory leader David Cameron says victims of "unfair" bank charges must be compensated "quickly and fairly". He'll also consider automatic payback of all charges, which could total over £10 billion."
[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

Well done to Martin Lewis!

rejimental

Hi to all,
I work as an audio engineer and have had to listen to DC 27 times at different events and I am sorry, but he is the most untrustworthy person I have ever had the displeasure to work with. He tells whoever he is talking to just what they want to hear so they will support him. So Martin, you are being blagged, lied to and being treated like punter.

Those that can do, those that can't enter politics.

ProfessorX

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Natalie, with all due respect to you and many others that may read this post. The CURRENT part of the OFT test case at the House Of Lords will not get you your bank charges back YET. There is a second part to the litigation which is on the fairness of SPECIFIC terms and there is no certainty that every term will be unfair necessarily. It is a big leap forward but not the end of the process.

This fact raised by Natweststaffmember only serves to prove the real unfairness of the whole English Legal process and we need to demand answers from our MP's in Parliament, now they're due back from their hols, to these questions.

1. Why have the Banks been allowed to carry on levying such charges when they are clearly in breach of the UTCCR's first made in 1995, whilst at the same time dragging out this case, for who knows how long? It is they who have to prove their case that they have been fair and not the OFT's to prove that these charges are 'unfair', as it seems to have become. Consequently the OFT should have obtained an injunction against them, to prevent the continued use of unfair terms, so they can be stopped until they prove the 'fairness' of the charges. I'm sure that would speed things up in the courts.

2. Why does the Human Rights Act 1998 exclude any obligation on such Groups, as Banks and other companies or even individuals, to respect fundamental human rights regardless of Article 17 of the European Convention and Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of 1948?

3. Why have the Judges in every court also ignored those rights too, including the right not to be 'arbitrarily' deprived of their property (which includes money) by anyone, or the right to a fair and impartial hearing? Isn't that also denying claimants the right to just satisfaction? Is it just me who thinks that the system isn't impartial as it is favouring the Banks by allowing them to continue with any unfair terms or charges whilst stopping all claims until the OFT proves the charges are 'unfair' when they've never been fair or negotiable to say the least?

4. What will Clegg, Cameron or Brown do to protect consumers from all other unfair terms in consumer contracts, as clearly neither the OFT nor the 'sellers or suppliers' of goods and services has done anything to comply with any UTCCR's of 1994 or 1999? The European Commission investigation into mobile phone companies proved that the UK Government were biased in favour of unfair charges by those companies, probably because they sold them the rights to the 'bandwidths' in the first place.

I'd like to see Martin extend his campaign to all contracts and maybe he can press the OFT to act on above now too.

Rosie75

rejimental wrote: »

Hi to all,
I work as an audio engineer and have had to listen to DC 27 times at different events and I am sorry, but he is the most untrustworthy person I have ever had the displeasure to work with. He tells whoever he is talking to just what they want to hear so they will support him. So Martin, you are being blagged, lied to and being treated like punter.

Those that can do, those that can't enter politics.

I know someone who's a journalist and she said pretty much the same thing. She's a pretty tough interviewer but she said that Cameron had a snake-like ability to slip out the grasp of every tricky question she asked that would actually involve him revealing anything at all about his policies.

MSE_Martin

ProfessorX wrote: »

I'd like to see Martin extend his campaign to all contracts and maybe he can press the OFT to act on above now too.

One at a time - campaigns dont work if they're too broad

natweststaffmember

ProfessorX wrote: »

This fact raised by Natweststaffmember only serves to prove the real unfairness of the whole English Legal process and we need to demand answers from our MP's in Parliament, now they're due back from their hols, to these questions.

1. Why have the Banks been allowed to carry on levying such charges when they are clearly in breach of the UTCCR's first made in 1995, whilst at the same time dragging out this case, for who knows how long? It is they who have to prove their case that they have been fair and not the OFT's to prove that these charges are 'unfair', as it seems to have become. Consequently the OFT should have obtained an injunction against them, to prevent the continued use of unfair terms, so they can be stopped until they prove the 'fairness' of the charges. I'm sure that would speed things up in the courts.
Read the OFT test case transcripts from the House of Lords and the answer is revealed since the case is kinda in reverse ie currently the banks are arguing over whether the bank terms can be challenged under UTCCR 1999 and not whether a term is applicable to the test of fairness under UTCCR 1999.
2. Why does the Human Rights Act 1998 exclude any obligation on such Groups, as Banks and other companies or even individuals, to respect fundamental human rights regardless of Article 17 of the European Convention and Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of 1948?
You would need to seek legal advice on this question since the Rights of both parties need to be taken into account not just one party to a case.
3. Why have the Judges in every court also ignored those rights too, including the right not to be 'arbitrarily' deprived of their property (which includes money) by anyone, or the right to a fair and impartial hearing? Isn't that also denying claimants the right to just satisfaction? Is it just me who thinks that the system isn't impartial as it is favouring the Banks by allowing them to continue with any unfair terms or charges whilst stopping all claims until the OFT proves the charges are 'unfair' when they've never been fair or negotiable to say the least?
Since the legality of bank charges has not been decided it is reasonable for blanket stays whilst that is decided. For example, before the stays we had the Barwick case, he turned up and the bank didn't and he lost his case in court whilst others under similar circumstances won. It would be very much an unrational measure to allow cases whilst a test case is ongoing.
4. What will Clegg, Cameron or Brown do to protect consumers from all other unfair terms in consumer contracts, as clearly neither the OFT nor the 'sellers or suppliers' of goods and services has done anything to comply with any UTCCR's of 1994 or 1999? The European Commission investigation into mobile phone companies proved that the UK Government were biased in favour of unfair charges by those companies, probably because they sold them the rights to the 'bandwidths' in the first place.
I think that if this happens there is a read over on other financial contracts such as credit cards, catalogues and business accounts. Furthermore, if you look at OFT v. Foxtons 2009. it does kinda refer to the bank charges case since this one is about the assessment of the term themselves and whether they are fair.
I'd like to see Martin extend his campaign to all contracts and maybe he can press the OFT to act on above now too.

I think Martin doesn't need to campaign on other contracts since they are challengeable in court. There are ones that affect all of us like bank accounts, credit card accounts, PPI misselling(which was rife) and such like. There are also designated consumer groups who can challenge unfair practices that happen so I am not sure Martin needs to have all his fingers and toes in the pie, so to speak