Have the banks gone mad?!?!?

tomocb

I've just read a news report about Lloyds planning to ask local courts to dimiss any pending bank charge cases.

Have the banks completely misunderstood what the original case was about given that it has been going on for so long?

The supreme court's latest ruling means that the OFT is no position to decid whether or not the charges are fair.

This has absolutley nothing to do with consumers taking legal action against banks on the basis that the cost of the charges are not reasonable or they are disproportionate.

The OFT are nor representing consumers in court are they??

This was the original premise of this entire issue. The only reason that the cases were put on hold was because they were clogging up the courts justic system and they made the decision that if the supreme court decided that the charges were unfair then the banks would you have to pay the charges back to everyone without any court case being a prerequisite!

How is it that everyone has forgotten about this and now the banks are trying to insult everyone's intelligence by claming that any pending cases are not longer valid?!?!?

Someone please tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree here.

P.S. I do not personally having pending court cases.

Morglin

Yes, apparantly, all the banks have asked for all the claims to be dismissed, in light of the court case, as the issue of fairness, and anyone's right to challenge it has been lost.

They have said they will be writing to all claimers shortly.

I presume anyone still wanting to take action would have to reclaim?

Lin

tomocb

Ok. That's is how I read the article also. But the court case decided that the OFT could not decide as they did not have the authority to do so on the basis of fairness.

Surely this still has nothing to do with any consumer putting a case forward on the basis that the charges are not reasonable and that they are disproportionate.

If you were synical enough, you could say that the banks are playing dumb to their own advantage, hoping they will hoodwink everyone with this latest ploy.

MillaJoJo

tomocb wrote: »

If you were synical enough, you could say that the banks are playing dumb to their own advantage, hoping they will hoodwink everyone with this latest ploy.

This is exactly what they are doing. As we've seen, scare tactics have been used frequently in this saga.

Premier_2

It would depend on the basis of the original claims submitted. Since most were probably based on the charge being unfair due to the charge not reflecting the cost incurred, they'll probably be struck out anyway.

WestonDave

Its worth understanding the history here.

Initially the banks paid out to avoid going to court. It then got to the stage where cases were coming faster and they started arguing them in county courts. However county court decisions aren't a binding precedent for other courts so each case had to be heard individually, and the whole court system was being clogged up, plus the banks were having to spend a lot of money representing themselves in each court case.

It was therefore agreed that all the county court cases would be stayed pending a test case brought by the OFT as a proxy for the claimants in the court cases, in order to provide a higher court judgment that would produce a precedent for all the cases. Had the OFT won, (and gone on to decide the charges were unfair) then that would have resolved all the cases in the claimants favour. As the OFT has lost (this round at least) that in effect resolves all the cases brought on the same matter of law in favour of the banks. You can't have a scenario where a precedent is binding one way and not the other.

So in that sense the banks are doing the sensible thing and getting all the cases dismissed before anyone can redraft their claims under new arguments.

tomocb

Premier - I though quite the opposite actually, in that this was the original issue. The charges were not reasonable and are still not. This is wheer consumers can still beat the banks in a court of law. All this judegment confirms is that the OFT cannot bring a class action against the banks on the grounds of fairness because it doe not have the aurhority to do so.

Premier_2

tomocb wrote: »

Premier - I though quite the opposite actually, in that this was the original issue. The charges were not reasonable and are still not. This is wheer consumers can still beat the banks in a court of law. All this judegment confirms is that the OFT cannot bring a class action against the banks on the grounds of fairness because it doe not have the aurhority to do so.

Well if the Office of Fair Trading can't accuse the banks of such charges being unfair on those specific grounds, who can?
Best of luck if you wish to try. Even Martin has given up on that basis it appears.

Q. My case is on hold with the courts, what is going to happen?

A. ...
If your case is based on the old template letters and the court deals with it, it's very likely to be struck out...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-qa-door-reopened-for-reclaimers

tomocb

WestonDave wrote: »

Its worth understanding the history here.

Initially the banks paid out to avoid going to court. It then got to the stage where cases were coming faster and they started arguing them in county courts. However county court decisions aren't a binding precedent for other courts so each case had to be heard individually, and the whole court system was being clogged up, plus the banks were having to spend a lot of money representing themselves in each court case.

It was therefore agreed that all the county court cases would be stayed pending a test case brought by the OFT as a proxy for the claimants in the court cases, in order to provide a higher court judgment that would produce a precedent for all the cases. Had the OFT won, (and gone on to decide the charges were unfair) then that would have resolved all the cases in the claimants favour. As the OFT has lost (this round at least) that in effect resolves all the cases brought on the same matter of law in favour of the banks. You can't have a scenario where a precedent is binding one way and not the other.

So in that sense the banks are doing the sensible thing and getting all the cases dismissed before anyone can redraft their claims under new arguments.

Most of what you have said is from my original post part from the cases being dismissed which is not correct.

The OFT challenge/authority/class action has very little to do with pending court cases. All it meant was that the banks would have automatically had to repay the money so that the justice system was not clogged up any longer.

There is very good thread titled "stephen hone" in this part of the forum which confirms this.

MrLeeLee

MillaJoJo wrote: »

This is exactly what they are doing. As we've seen, scare tactics have been used frequently in this saga.

Just like they threatened they'd have to start charging people for their accounts and also charging £2.50 every time you use a cash machine.

Premier_2

MrLeeLee wrote: »

Just like they threatened they'd have to start charging people for their accounts and also charging £2.50 every time you use a cash machine.

Where else were they going to get the £2bn+ lost income from?