MSE News: PM wants swift bank charges compensation

suicidal

Through all these reclaiming and what nots, I think all of us have kept the post offices going for the last couple of years with stamps and recorded deliveries lol

MSE_Martin

BigBudgie wrote: »

Good Morning Martin,

Just re-emphasising my question from yesterday's post

"Has anything that I or others have posted actually encouraged you to re-evaluate what you now consider to now be a fair settlement ?"

I.E. After reading the various posts concerning this matter on this and other websites are you inclined to modify your original PROVISIONAL assessment of what you consider to be a fair settlement?

I always try and listen and learn whenever I can - the info is food for thought - however equally are those who've emailed me or PM'd me privately saying "please do whatever you can to get this sorted asap". So everything is in balance - what I want is a just, speedy, settlement though there's some conflict in those two adjectives.

As for changing my provisional thoughts - well they're provisional - what counts is the final ones, and for that I wait to see what we can do to bring all the parties together and form a consensus.

Orford

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/09/tories-agree-to-automatic-bank-charges-payback-principles :

The Tories' worry The real worry the Conservatives have is how to ensure any system of payback is a quick, efficient solution that provides financial certainty and closure.

What they don't want to see is, for a solution to be agreed or negotiated, which banks and many consumers follow, only for others who are more militant to challenge the agreement through the courts.So the Conservatives don't agree with your idea of a negociated settlement



There are two obvious groups that might launch such a challenge: the first are campaign sites like this one, Are you saying that MSE may challenge a negociated settlement that you, yourself are championing?

Ensuring any settlement is legally watertight won't be easy; the FSA can provide a regulatory solution but it cannot rule the courts. That may need legislation.How long would that take? Surely better to let the court case run it's course?

BigBudgie

Having spent most of yesterday studying the recent correspondance between MSE and the various politicial leaders, the original litigation agreement between the OFT and the banks and just generally refreshing myself with European law and UK legal processes in relation to this matter in general it is blindingly obvious that there cannot be a negotiated settlement along the lines that Martin has suggested.

The test case ( and by test case I do not just mean this initial stage ) MUST run it's course. The final decision as to whether historic and present charges are fair or unfair and perhaps more importantly what actually does constitute a fair charge and future regulation etc can only be decided by the Court. When all of that has been legally decided the matter of refunds, compensation and limitation etc can all be resolved but all of that will also need to be resolved via the Courts.
That, as I see it, is the end of the legal process that Gordon Brown has referred to and of course once that stage has been reached then EVERYONE would desire and expect no further delay in the payment of the legally decided refunds.

As a result, I believe that Martin's provisional proposal of what constitutes a fair settlement is at this stage just as irrelevant as my own proposal. At the end of the day the Courts have to decide these matters.

A couple of final comments :-

Natweststaffmember makes two very sensible points in an earlier post.

"I think if we had explained the OFT test case and how it worked properly rather than jumping up and down with headlines all over the shop people would understand that it is a two step process."
and
"With respect to MSE, CAG, LB et al you aren't designated consumer groups so you would not be consulted. "

I echo the former 100%, the media and most of the reclaiming sites are guilty of sensationalising every minor piece of test case news so are all equally responsible in providing consumers with the impression that matters might be resolved sooner than is realistic. This activity needs to cease.
The latter point is also extremely relevent and demonstrates the necessity for the existing reclaiming sites such as MSE, CAG, LB etc to co-operate more with each other and MAKE 100% SURE that their combined voice is heard in any consultation process.

Budgie

BarryHarveyUK

Orford wrote: »

Already it's having an effect:

There has been a lot of talk about reclaiming the difference between what was actually charged and what is considered fair. I have a feeling that somewhere I have read that in law if a charge is unfair it must be refunded in full. Can anybody shed any light on this?

natweststaffmember

BarryHarveyUK wrote: »

There has been a lot of talk about reclaiming the difference between what was actually charged and what is considered fair. I have a feeling that somewhere I have read that in law if a charge is unfair it must be refunded in full. Can anybody shed any light on this?

Under the Unfair Terms in consumer contract Regulations 1999, commonly referred to as UTCCR 1999, a term that is unfair is unenforceable in its entirety and under that legislation it is up to the National Courts to decide on how far back.
At the moment I am swaying backwards and forwards as to whether that will mean 2001 or 1999 or even 1995.

Nathan_Spleen

BarryHarveyUK wrote: »

There has been a lot of talk about reclaiming the difference between what was actually charged and what is considered fair. I have a feeling that somewhere I have read that in law if a charge is unfair it must be refunded in full. Can anybody shed any light on this?

Further to what natweststaffmember wrote the theory that eventual refunds should be minus the cost of administering the default arose because it was widely assumed that the charges were technically penalties and as such the banks could ligitimately counter claim for the cost. Since then Justice Smith declared that by and large the charges are not capable of being penal and so the above no longer applies.

It is now very likely the charges are unfair and for any term that is deemed 'unfair' there is only one consequence under the regulations which is made clear in section 8.1&2 of UTCCR:

Effect of unfair term
8. - (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

(2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

tiddler66

Would'nt the best start for a negotiated decision be to let the legal process continue but relax the guidlines on financial hardship. My own experience of trying to claim hardship from hsbc was as i was still breathing and did not live in a cardbox i did not qualify. Surley relaxing the guidlines forcing banks to make more interim payments and also set a final stop date for these neverending waivers would alleaviate suffering and put pressure on the banks stop appealling. just a few thoughts from your average joe. gaz

Nathan_Spleen

tiddler66 wrote: »

Would'nt the best start for a negotiated decision be to let the legal process continue but relax the guidlines on financial hardship. My own experience of trying to claim hardship from hsbc was as i was still breathing and did not live in a cardbox i did not qualify. Surley relaxing the guidlines forcing banks to make more interim payments and also set a final stop date for these neverending waivers would alleaviate suffering and put pressure on the banks stop appealling. just a few thoughts from your average joe. gaz

The hardship elements of the waiver have been strengthened on each occasion it has been renewed but is still not good enough. It may well be further stengthened if and when it is renewed in January.

As for the idea of a 'negotiated settlement' in favour of allowing the test case litigation run it's course, I think that one's already languishing in the 'Where are they now?'' file.

natweststaffmember

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

The hardship elements of the waiver have been strengthened on each occasion it has been renewed but is still not good enough. It may well be further stengthened if and when it is renewed in January.

As for the idea of a 'negotiated settlement' in favour of allowing the test case litigation run it's course, I think that one's already languishing in the 'Where are they now?'' file.

I would agree with Nathan with regards to a negotiated settlement, since I can't see the point of it and have no idea at which point the politicians are asking for one.

With regards to financial hardship waiver there was 18 complaints against the waiver from August 2008 to July 2009 so far from it being weak it would appear to be right since there has been a lack of complaints about the application. I personally want to see the £500.00 thing within the waiver removed.