Why Reclaim Bank Charges

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

From MSE:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges



Even I could have told you that bank charges were a fundamental part of the contract - it beggars belief that two courts saw differently and raises a serious question - why?

The Supreme Court decision gives you the reason why so please read it and you will see why the judges erred on earlier judgements.

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

You are not a strategist are you?

Have you heard of the term - "cover your bases"?

These are only my thoughts Nattie - but i'm not stupid.

1. Lots of legal cases in the courts and with Ombudsman;
2. Banks ask for a test case based on their own terms of argument;
3. Banks get cases stayed by FSA;
You mean the county courts who were given advice from the Master of the Rolls which was further given in February 2009 in the High Court in London. It is a reasonable request.
4. Banks win.

The OFT screwed up - they should have brought the argument on their terms - not the banks.

The banks asked for declarations under Regulation 5 which was denied. If you are going down this avenue then I suspect I will eventually get bored of repeating the same things on this thread and this forum time and time and time again.

Alpine_Star

hicskis wrote: »

......... i'm not stupid......Banks get cases stayed by FSA;

Who got cases ''stayed''? The FSA?

hicskis

It's argument for argument's sake isn't it?

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2007/090.shtml

Who told the courts - who........who...........who?????

This is from the horse's mouth:

FSA/PN/090/2007
27 July 2007
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today (Friday 27 July) issued a 'waiver' from its complaints handling rules that apply to unauthorised overdraft charges complaints. This follows the decision by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and some firms to initiate a test case in the High Court to resolve legal uncertainties on the application of the law to these charges.

We had already decided that the bank's had initiated this test case process.

Alpine_Star

hicskis wrote: »

Who told the courts - who........who...........who?????

The FSA granted a complaints handling waiver. It is the courts that granted the stays.

hicskis

By Alpine Star:
The FSA granted a complaints handling waiver. It is the courts that granted the stays.

And who prey asked the courts - it was the banks initiation of a test case, agreed to by the OFT that came about by all the people out there that were suing at the time.

The important point that i was making is that the bank's initiated the test case on their terms, and in that process had delayed all cases in the system.

chipbeck

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The FSA granted a complaints handling waiver. It is the courts that granted the stays.

Don't understand this.
The FSA said you don't have to deal with peoples complaints, so the courts stayed the cases?

If that is right how are the two related?

Alpine_Star

hicskis wrote: »

And who prey asked the courts

On completion of the litigation agreement the Deputy Head of Civil Justice - Justice Moore-Bick - wrote to all County Court judges informing them of the test case and inviting them to stay cases pending the outcome, stressing that they were under no obligation to do so. At the same time all the banks applied to the County Courts for stays in each bank charge case.

On enquiry the secretary to J Moore-Bick confirmed that this was not as a result of any communication from the FSA and an in response to an FoIA request the FSA confirmed that they had no communication with Moore-Bick or the Judiciary on the matter.

Alpine_Star

chipbeck wrote: »

Don't understand this.
The FSA said you don't have to deal with peoples complaints, so the courts stayed the cases?

It was the other way round really. A condition of the waiver was that the banks had to successfully apply for stays. So the waiver was dependent on the stays being in place but not vica versa

hicskis

Let me make sure i understand this as we are getting down to the nitty gritty and quite technical.

So the banks asked for the test case with the OFT- a litigation agreement was entered into between the banks and the OFT, as a consequence the Judiciary advised the county courts and one would assume the High Court as well to stay cases - but Judges were not obliged to do so because it was subject to the banks making a legal application for these Stay's.

At the very same time the banks applied to the courts (legally) for the stay, under the letter of the Law which forced the FSA to intervene and state that all cases were now Stayed.

So to sum up - the banks initiated a legal process on their terms and the regulators had no choice but to play ball - well they did have a choice because they didn't have to accept on those terms.

Holy mother of Cow!!!