MSE News: Wait goes on for bank charges ruling

marcharrison1979

this is !!!!!!!!, if the banks cant afford to pay out what they have wrongly taken from their loyal customers, surely as keepers of their customers hard earned money they have a responsibility not to jeprodise that money and use it in a responsible and just way, if they are at fault for losing that money, which they clearly are, there should be some kind of insurance policy available to them, instead they just take the easy way out and just turn to the government because they employ a lot of people thay use it as an excuse. it suks! and it has gon on and on since trading began, nothing is gonna change ever! our great, great, great granchildren are gonna be having the same argument over an over again!

Alpine_Star

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Wake up and smell the roses Alpine Star

They delay because the banks can not afford to repay, if you, or even Martin can not see that, and accept the excuse of due process, and anything else they can dream up is just delaying tactics.

The wrong or right is now irrelevant, it’s the cost that is important, if the final judgement goes against the banks, they simply can not afford it.

If you can not see that well………


However this pans out, who it will benefit is questionable, I feel if the banks lose we all will

Such is life


It is wrong, but where finance is concerned there is no wrong, just profit and loss, the sooner everyone realises that, the sooner they will understand the fight, and the the prize, or cost of the prize

In essence you're accusing the highest court in the land of collusion with the defendants in a case on the basis that judgment is taking longer than you think it should.

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

In short, I don't believe it for a heartbeat.

vonrumble

You sir, are a twonk. obv you dont have money problems at the moment and isnt an issue. If these bank charges are refunded it will really help a lot of people at such a difficult time. Besides the money given out will be going back into the banks anyway in one form or other. Do they really loose i think not.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Martin,
I am getting sick and tired of the word "DELAY" and your comment is so frustrating to see in print.
You do understand that this is a court case? You do understand that there is tons of evidence which I am sure MSE Wendy would have told you the reams and reams of evidence?
You do realise that banks can charge because we still do not know if the bank charges can be assessed legally for fairness?
You post is soooooo frustrating because every day i am trying and trying and trying to get into people's heads that this is a legal process with loads of evidence and that the OFT CAN apply, if the charges are legally assessable, for an injunction against the charging terms that they believe are unfair.
The deadlines given are based on guesswork, ie July(because that was the recess of the House of Lords). October(because that was the start of the new session of the Supreme Court), and November comes from the fact that one of the Law Lords offices have confirmed that one judge is writing up his judgement with an indication of November 19th as a possible date for handing down that judgement.
I get frustrated that as campaigners we are failing to give a fair account of what is actually going on and descend into this farcical language or delaying tactic, delay delay delay, and yet we fail to communicate the process properly which leads to this utter drivel of a view.
I'm sorry, but I have been battling this viewpoint for months and then you make this sweeping statement and I feel again that just as you start to get people to see the wood from the trees that we are back down in the earth. I'm sorry but I cannot believe the article was posted. I nearly posted something up yesterday about this issue but thought, no, I can deal with the posters on a one to one basis on the forum. I give up answering questions on the OFT Test case and the supreme court decision because the article has just enraged rather than engaged me.

natweststaffmember

omcornwall wrote: »

NATWESTSTAFFMEMBER

I agree with your comments regarding the necessity for due process to take place. Of course the full evidence needs to be looked at in details. I am sure the majority appreciate this needs to be done.

I must say however that it seems from a customers point of view the process is biased in that banks can continue charging even though there is a block on cases going through courts. I think as they are having this test case then all charges should be stopped for the time being and dependent on which side won then they could claim any charges owed, either banks or customers.

Hope you understand.

I will answer you as you have addressed me directly.
It is not a question of a block but if you remember before the process began that one person, Barwick was his name lost a case in county court in front of a judge even though the bank did not turn up. We would have the farcical situation in which the law relating to whether bank charges applied to the regulations of UTCCR 1999 were applicable while judges would be asked to decide if the charges were unfair even though we would be uncertain whether the rules on fairness even applied to bank charges.
Will post up something which came up in the appeal.

natweststaffmember

"22 LORD MANCE: What is its actual impact, then, the OFT having
23 got permission to affect the fairness of terms? What
24 can the OFT do to enforce the use of different terms if
25 it decides they are unfair?
1 MR CROW: The whole proceedings are, in a sense, slightly
2 back to front. The answer to your question is that what
3 can happen is the OFT can continue with the
4 investigation that it has been conducting and conduct
5 a full assessment of fairness.
6 LORD MANCE: Quite. And if it concludes they are unfair, it
7 can make an order?
8 MR CROW: It can, yes. The process is -- I think this is
9 covered at an earlier stage of our case, but the actual
10 administrative process is, first of all, the
11 investigation is completed, a view is taken as to
12 whether or not the terms are unfair, there is then
13 a process of dialogue with the supplier as to whether or
14 not acceptable undertakings can be offered, and, if not,
15 then under regulation 12 there is the power to apply for
16 an injunction. It was through the application of an
17 injunction that the First National Bank case came before
18 the court."

Day 3 of the House of Lords appeal. Transcripts courtesy of the Legal beagles site.

The bit in bold is a potential consequence of the Banks' losing the appeal, ie that the terms that are used to make charges can be prevented by way of an injunction.

natweststaffmember

vonrumble wrote: »

You sir, are a twonk. obv you dont have money problems at the moment and isnt an issue. If these bank charges are refunded it will really help a lot of people at such a difficult time. Besides the money given out will be going back into the banks anyway in one form or other. Do they really loose i think not.

What is the issue you have with the post I made?
I have said specifically that the current legal judgement we are awaiting will not lead to refunds. Declaring the terms as assessable for fairness leads to the second part of the OFT test case which WILL lead to refunds. People are making assumptions on the OFT test case that are simply untrue and it may be due to spending the money they have yet to receive. We all do that.
I do not expect to see you having a refund in your pocket for at least 12 months.
Please read what is in my post and not what is not in the post.

Pammy

Perhaps the Natwest guy is just being objective, perhaps.

But the wait is frustrating and annoying.

I put in my claim a few years ago and the way I see its MY money. I have a right to feel frustrated.

In my case I was ill for a long time, and informed I had cancer. This led to me going overdrawn considerably. The bank in question - Abby National. Decided to take a sum of 800 in one go. At that point I didnt even dispute the charges, just asked them if I could pay it off in installments otherwise the next few months I would be in a similar position. They delined. I literally begged them . I went as far as their head office and they refused to help in any way shape or form.

Thus they took the money and I was then in a complete mess and in a cycle of debt.

For me it wasnt even the bank charges as such it was the whole cold way they dealt with it.

If I owed money to anyone else they would have worked out a payment plan. But the banks can do what they want and they continue to do so.

So it is frustrating.

The_Enforcer

This process is a joke:

1. Decision in the public's favour.

2. Appeal - decision in the public's favour.

3. Appeal - decision in the public's favour.

4. Appeal - decision awaited.

5. What next - another appeal perhaps?

jonpnash

Remember that some responsibility for the delay in an outcome lies at the door of the banks for it is the banks whom are choosing to appeal the case, after losing the last case. If they lose in the supreme court, they can choose to take it the European court of appeal. We should be questioning the stance the bank is taking, i.e. fighting their case rather than sorting out an more ethical banking system which profits fairly from its customers. Especially when we as tax payers have helped them out.
Ultimately we should demand better ethical standards from our banks. They are probably quite aware that there is a flaw in their charging system, and that it is unfairly charging some people, especially those who are struggling with financial pressure. The financial model used in high street banking used in the UK, is very different from many other European countries which have much fairer and more transparent charging systems*.

Irrespective of the court case this comes down to an issue of ethics. Evident by the recent flurry of albeit inconsistent changes in charging structures we are seeing almost every week. What I find strange is that the banks are mostly continuing to operate a financial model based on this system, when they in up to 12 months time may be forced to pay back a large proportion of their profits and radically change the way they profit from high street banking.
My only explanation it that in the mean time, they can continue to make big profits from this system. Then when this moment arrives, they will ask us the taxpayers to sort them out again. Thus they get to keep their profits since most will have already been paid out in wages, dividends and bonuses.


* I lived in Belgium for several years and their banking system is completely different and based around a fairer payment for the services you use. The do not allow un-authorised overdraft. I.e. they don't use this method in their financial model.
And before I hear an outcry of that will be an end to free banking. Banking in the UK is one of the most expensive in Europe, even taking the bank charge issue out of the equation.

natweststaffmember

The_Enforcer wrote: »

This process is a joke:

1. Decision in the public's favour.

2. Appeal - decision in the public's favour.

3. Appeal - decision in the public's favour.

4. Appeal - decision awaited.

5. What next - another appeal perhaps?

And so far they aren't even deciding whether the charges are fair or not.

Let's look at this way.
Lower court case then decision then appeal to higher court which agrees with lower court and then further appeal to highest court in the UK and decision could be referred to the European Court of Justice which could ultimately give the final decision on whether bank charges terms are applicable to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. This is only the half way mark as well yet its decision could have an impact on your life for years and years to come. That is how important this case is and it must be dealt with judicially.

The problem lies when we start speculating and giving false hope to claimants.