Why Reclaim Bank Charges

ThunderBird_3

Some things are just out of our control - i question why the bank's bother, what will it really achieve in the end - all this greed?

Do the right thing Mr Banker please.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10010909

natweststaffmember

Chrysalis wrote: »

its evident the oft, fsa and banks were all in collusion. I worked this out the moment they decided to suspend all individual claims, that was a outrageous decision in itself. At that point I knew what the result of the oft case would be.

Utter rubbish. Considering that there was the Berwick case before a hold to claims which the banks trumpeted as a win even though no barrister for the bank turned up. We had cases where claimants did not turn up to court and lost by default and cases like Berwick where the claimant turned up and the bank didn't and he LOST in court.

Did you read the transcripts of the cases and did you read the judgements because they were very informative even for a lay person like myself?
It was a well argued case that in the end stumbled at a collective challenge based on the level of charges but not the fairness of them.

Chrysalis

I never said the banks had never won individual cases, it was not even mentioned in my post.

But facts are 99% of individual cases were been won, the majority of these cases were easy wins and if the oft had not got involved the banks would have paid out many more millions then they have done and cases would not have been suspended.

There was no real need to suspend claims whilst at the same allowing bank charges to continue, that immediatly made me suspicious.

obviously I cannot prove it, so I dont expect everyone to agree with me, I am just giving my thoughts. But remember it was very evident with the bank bailouts where the governments priorities were.

chipbeck

I know you know what you are talking about natty and you do a great job for nowt.

I agree with last post thought they would have continued paying I think.

Alpine_Star

chipbeck wrote: »

I know you know what you are talking about natty and you do a great job for nowt.

I agree with last post thought they would have continued paying I think.

If they were prepared to continue paying the banks wouldn't have initiated a test case and applied for a waiver to suspend paying out..

chipbeck

Alpine_Star wrote: »

If they were prepared to continue paying the banks wouldn't have initiated a test case and applied for a waiver to suspend paying out..

Fair comment you probably have a better understanding than me. I thought they had gone to court and lost, gone to court and lost then gone to the supreme court and not lost.

I didn't realise that it was the banks that demanded these cases I thought it was OFT, apologies for my ignorance.

Alpine_Star

chipbeck wrote: »

Fair comment you probably have a better understanding than me. I thought they had gone to court and lost, gone to court and lost then gone to the supreme court and not lost.

I didn't realise that it was the banks that demanded these cases I thought it was OFT, apologies for my ignorance.

No need to apologise. It's quite logical to think that because the banks were the defendants in the test case, it was the OFT who brought the action - and technically they did - but it is quite well documented that it was they who initiated it.

hicskis

Well technically it wasn't:

The case was sparked initially by the request of Stephen Hone, a law student Plymouth, England, for a refund of charges by Abbey. He argued that under the UTCCR, all penalty charges had to truly reflect the cost of administering them. Hone believed that penalty charges which are higher than their administrative costs are illegal. After filing in small claims court against Abbey, Hone eventually recovered £5000 from the bank, although his original claim was for £840. The banks then sought a declaration that their charges for exceeding overdraft limits were not penalty clauses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Fair_Trading_v_Abbey_National_plc

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

Well technically it wasn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Fair_Trading_v_Abbey_National_plc

That wikipedia entry is wrong hicskis with regards to the context of the OFT test case. That part is relevant to the bank charges campaign as a whole but Stephen Hone's case was 2005 which was covered in National newspapers. MSE first had an article in 2006 by Dave Smith of Consumer Action Group(which I remember very well since I read the article at the time). The OFT test case was sparked by the OFT investigation into Personal Current Accounts. It may have even had a reasonance in the initial OFT report on credit cards published April 2006 which stated that UTCCR's may cross over into personal current accounts.
EDIT with reference to the OFT report page 36

"5.14 The broad principles set out in this statement are likely to be relevant to other default charges in standard agreements with consumers, such as those for mortgages, store cards and bank accounts. We expect the banks and other finance businesses to consider the wider implications of these principles, and to bring any similar charges they impose for breach of contract into line with them, where and as appropriate bearing in mind the different legal and practical contexts in which they operate. If appropriate steps are not taken within a reasonable timescale, further regulatory investigation of the position can be expected"


Sorry to Wikipedia but the context of that article reference to Stephen Hone is regrettably incorrect.

hicskis

Well either way Nattie it doesn't come across to me that the banks initiated it as we are led to believe by the posts above. This is an event that has come about by a whole series of other events - shall we just leave it at that....???