Have the banks gone mad?!?!?

tomocb

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.

Yes. Don't get me wrong, I think there should always be a charge for when this happens. But when you read in crystal clear black and white in law that the charge has to be proportional to the costs incurred by the bank, there can be no grey area.

The amount the banks should be repaying should be the total in charges taken from consumers less the actual cost of the service of administration, IMO.

ILW

tomocb wrote: »

Yes. Don't get me wrong, I think there should always be a charge for when this happens. But when you read in crystal clear black and white in law that the charge has to be proportional to the costs incurred by the bank, there can be no grey area.

The amount the banks should be repaying should be the total in charges taken from consumers less the actual cost of the service of administration, IMO.

That seems to be saying that it would be illegal to make a profit.

dzug1

tomocb wrote: »

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.

But under what legislation is the consumer claiming?

The Court decided that charges do not fall under a crucial piece of consumer legislation (the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999)

There are other grounds that a consumer might put a case forward, but not unreasonableness/disproportionality.

WestonDave

tomocb wrote: »

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.

So you think that if the OFT case had found in favour of the claimants it would have been binding, but because it found against them its not? Sorry but that is not how class actions work.

There is a chance to restate claims under different law, but anyone who has claimed their charges back under regulation 6 will almost certainly have their cases dismissed by the courts as soon as the judge gets an application from the banks for that to happen.

People might choose to amend their claims to Regulation 5 or resubmit new claims under Regulation 5 but Reg 6 cases are deader than a dodo, and the banks will have their lawyers firing out applications to dismiss like the proverbial machine gun.

Premier_2

Thought you might be interested in this post if you've not yet seen it:

Edinburghlass wrote:

As you can imagine Martin is and has been very busy but has given me this message to post..

"The chances of getting money back now are certainly slim - maybe 10-20%. So no one should plan on it and you should work your finances as if the cash isn't coming - while crossing your fingers that we can pull the cat out of the bag. We are working as quickly as we can on analysing the situation - and will be putting stuff in the weekly email when we do. Im afraid people need be patient as we want to try and get it right, and we will of course be doing updates on the site.

The result is very disappointing, but we're not giving up yet."

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=27273117&postcount=5

tomocb

Premier wrote: »

Thought you might be interested in this post if you've not yet seen it:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=27273117&postcount=5

Yeah, thanks premier. I read that one earlier also. It's just conjecture. I know that sounds dismissive, but it doesn't stand up on its own compared to other staments that are doing the rounds in the national press at the moment.

What I would say is that there is no end in sight to this issue and the banks are naive for thinking this is over.

tomocb

WestonDave wrote: »

So you think that if the OFT case had found in favour of the claimants it would have been binding, but because it found against them its not? Sorry but that is not how class actions work.

There is a chance to restate claims under different law, but anyone who has claimed their charges back under regulation 6 will almost certainly have their cases dismissed by the courts as soon as the judge gets an application from the banks for that to happen.

People might choose to amend their claims to Regulation 5 or resubmit new claims under Regulation 5 but Reg 6 cases are deader than a dodo, and the banks will have their lawyers firing out applications to dismiss like the proverbial machine gun.

Yes and most people will have to amend their approach withe their claims, but the class action was the entire reason why all cases were put on hold, unless you are aware of another reason?

pie81

The argument being run by the OFT was the same argument being run by the template claims forms.

The OFT argument has lost in the supreme court. County courts district courts high court etc have to give decisions which are consistent with the Supreme court ruling.

Therefore the county courts district courts etc will have to say No to any template based claims, to be consisnt with the supreme court ruling..

The county courts will say "ok well all these claims are going to lose so no point taking them all the way to trial" and will strike them out.

tomocb

pie81 wrote: »

The argument being run by the OFT was the same argument being run by the template claims forms.

The OFT argument has lost in the supreme court. County courts district courts high court etc have to give decisions which are consistent with the Supreme court ruling.

Therefore the county courts district courts etc will have to say No to any template based claims, to be consisnt with the supreme court ruling..

The county courts will say "ok well all these claims are going to lose so no point taking them all the way to trial" and will strike them out.

If you're referring to the template letters from this site then not everyone was using them and also that does not mean that the banks do not have a case to answer, they are two completely separate things.

pingchris

the banks still to this date have not justified ther charges nor have they given a cost analysis and breakdown of how much it costs them to issue charges,there suppose to be non profit making charges,not a free for all.