Why Reclaim Bank Charges

davidgmmafan

Enjoying reading this lively debate and thought I'd wade in.

First let me say I was as disappointed as anyone when the stay was granted because it left many people up the creek without a boat let alone a paddle. However there IS a certain logic to it. You cannot have a situation where there is a hugely important test case going on where people are having thier own seperate cases.

Put yourself on the other side of the divide for a moment. You've paid out on some court claims, for whatever reason, and finally agreed to a test case to settle the issue. Is it right that you should have to continue to fight hundreds, nay thousands, of individual cases in addition to the main test case?

I'd say not.

I don't think either party can claim conclusively that they initiated the test case because of the context at the time. Banks paying out hundreds of thousands of pounds in goodwill gestures, the courts being swamped by claims, the FOS too and the OFT probably feeling it should so something since millions of customers were challenging the legality of the charges.

So yeah the banks did want some breathing space, and in a sense the OFT was damned if it did and damned if it didn't. If it didn't act we'd all be saying dammit why didn't the OFT get involved? In fact it did intervene and failed in its bid to challenged the charges as a regulator.

As Nattie says the test case really raised more questions than it answered. One of the goals was to give legal clarity it manifestly failed to give.

Regarding the FSA waiver again that's reasonable if you look at it from an impartial point of view. How can a firm address a complaint in the usual timescale (no more than 56 days) when the very legal issues the complaint is based on are being hammered out in court?

Alpine_Star

hicskis wrote: »

I don't understand what you don't agree to? You cannot accept that the bank's started a legal process based on the circumstances of the time (lots of people suing), and succeded in shuting down the claims of thousands whilst they brought this action on their terms and won?

You're ignoring the fact that the OFT were already investigating bank charges under UTCCR long before the test case came about, that the April 2006 statement on credit cards was the catalyst for that investigation and that the OFT were also conducting a market study into personal current accounts, all long before the test case started. Yet to suit your argument you choose to concentrate exclusively on the county court cases.

It might have been better for the OFT to have allowed one individual case to go to the Supreme Court for an answer? But that didn't happen so we will never know the outcome.

Really? Can you name one individual who could possibly afford to take their case to the Supreme Court - not to mention taking on the risk of losing? And before you ask, the OFT do not have the jurisdiction to sponsor individual cases.

But what i do know is the bank's had control over this legal process - and that need not have been if the OFT was truly on the consumer's side, as they did not have to conduct the test case on the bank's terms.

You keep banging on about the banks conducting the test case on their terms but you somehow concede that if the OFT had instigated it the stays and waiver would still have applied. Just what ''terms'' are you talking about?

It raises serious questions to Government in how this plan was executed.

The Government? What role did the government have in the test case? About as much as the Tweenies. And again, before you ask, the OFT are independent of government.

Cleany

there are a lot of people that want to believe that whatever happened in the courts, it was biased in favour of the banks, and controlled by them somehow.

some people are going to believe that no matter what because they want to believe it.

hicskis

Originally Posted by hicskis
I don't understand what you don't agree to? You cannot accept that the bank's started a legal process based on the circumstances of the time (lots of people suing), and succeded in shuting down the claims of thousands whilst they brought this action on their terms and won?

You're ignoring the fact that the OFT were already investigating bank charges under UTCCR long before the test case came about, that the April 2006 statement on credit cards was the catalyst for that investigation and that the OFT were also conducting a market study into personal current accounts, all long before the test case started. Yet to suit your argument you choose to concentrate exclusively on the county court cases. which came first - the chicken or the egg?

It might have been better for the OFT to have allowed one individual case to go to the Supreme Court for an answer? But that didn't happen so we will never know the outcome.

Really? Can you name one individual who could possibly afford to take their case to the Supreme Court - not to mention taking on the risk of losing? And before you ask, the OFT do not have the jurisdiction to sponsor individual cases. many legal cases end up in the highest courts of the land even though individuals personally cannot fund them

But what i do know is the bank's had control over this legal process - and that need not have been if the OFT was truly on the consumer's side, as they did not have to conduct the test case on the bank's terms.

You keep banging on about the banks conducting the test case on their terms but you somehow concede that if the OFT had instigated it the stays and waiver would still have applied - just to be clear - I did not concede that - I said i cannot comment on what has not happenned. Just what ''terms'' are you talking about? Their terms - how they wanted it.

It raises serious questions to Government in how this plan was executed.

By Alpine Star:

The Government? What role did the government have in the test case? About as much as the Tweenies. And again, before you ask, the OFT are independent of government.

Really - "The OFT is a non-ministerial government department established by statute in 1973" - and that came straight off the OFT's home page at:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about/

If the OFT is non-government:

1. Who finances them - which billionaire prey tell me - Richard Branson?, and;
2. Why do they have "gov" in their web name.

You Idiot

Alpine_Star

hicskis wrote: »

Really - "The OFT is a non-ministerial government department established by statute in 1973" - and that came straight off the OFT's home page at:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about/

If the OFT is non-government:

1. Who finances them - which billionaire prey tell me - Richard Branson?, and;
The FSA are financed by the the financial services industry. Is the FSA accountable to the banks?

2. Why do they have "gov" in their web name.
Just how bright are you? Again, so do the FSA.. Would you call them 'government' too?

You Idiot

Governance

The Office of Fair Trading is an independent competition and consumer protection authority. For government accounting purposes, it is categorised as a non-ministerial government department. The Enterprise Act established the OFT as a statutory corporation on 1 April 2003. It is led by a Board consisting of a chairman, an executive director and five non-executive members.
Statement of accountability

The OFT is accountable to the public.......http://www.oft.gov.uk/about/governance/

Alpine_Star

Also, straight from the horses mouth:

Dear Nick

The OFT is the UK's independent consumer and competition authority. Our mission is to make markets work well for consumers. It is in order to make the personal current account market work well for consumers that we are conducting the market study and the investigation and test case under the UTCCRs. We do expect to understand the wider context of consumer interests in the market, hence the market study, but we will do that independently, not in response to any political pressure.

You have commented favourably on OFT's positive approach recently on the test case. Let's see how we get on when it gets into court mid-January (we currently anticipate it starting on the 16th).

Have a very good Christmas,

Regards

Kate Farrow | Retail Banking| Markets & Projects - Services| Office of Fair Trading

hicskis

And this is the Law my friend - Enterprise Act 2002 Part (1) section(1) para(2):

Part 1 The Office of Fair Trading

Establishment of OFT

1 The Office of Fair Trading

(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Office of Fair Trading (in this Act referred to as “the OFT”).
(2) The functions of the OFT are carried out on behalf of the Crown.
(3) Schedule 1 (which makes further provision about the OFT) has effect.
(4) In managing its affairs the OFT shall have regard, in addition to any relevant general guidance as to the governance of public bodies, to such generally accepted principles of good corporate governance as it is reasonable to regard as applicable to the OFT.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020040_en_2#pt1-pb1

Alpine_Star

hicskis wrote: »

And this is the Law my friend - Enterprise Act 2002 Part (1) section(1) para(2):

(2) The functions of the OFT are carried out on behalf of the Crown.

The functions of the judiciary are also carried out on behalf of the crown. Are you telling me that they're not independent of government either?

Like I said, the OFT are independent - just like they say they are. It doesn't get anymore complicated than that.

And for the avoidance of doubt I am not your ''friend''.

hicskis

A - Z of Central Government (website of the UK Government)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/A-ZOfCentralGovernment/index.htm

Ministry of Justice:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/DG_067880

Office of Fair Trading (a non-ministerial government department)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/DG_10010835

Alpine_Star

hicskis wrote: »

A - Z of Central Government (website of the UK Government)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/A-ZOfCentralGovernment/index.htm

Ministry of Justice:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/DG_067880

Office of Fair Trading (a non-ministerial government department)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/DG_10010835

Do I have to spoon-feed you?

I am arguing that the OFT is independent.

I am not arguing that they are not a non-ministerial government department. This is patently clear.

None the less you are arguing that, err, they are a non-ministerial government department.

In short, you are stupid. And you think I am too.