MSE News: OFT 'to drop' bank charges case

Premier_2

Premier wrote: »

They thought it was over ... it is now

(although some still don't want to believe it 'til the morning)

...Individuals can still pursue claims against their banks but to do so will be costly and if the OFT lawyers can't see a way forward it would take a brave person to try. The barrister, Daniel Barnett, believes this is now the end of the road for the outstanding claims....

Sorry, bad etiquette quoting own post I know

But it appears some still don't want to accept it despite having read the official OFT announcement


New legislation may occur at some time in the future (my crystal ball has clouded over ) but it's unlikely any new legislation will be applied retrospectively i.e. affect bank charges already made.

But just in case, pigs are fully fed and watered and ready to fly!

orc_2

Premier wrote: »

Sorry, bad etiquette quoting own post I know

But it appears some still don't want to accept it despite having read the official OFT announcement


New legislation may occur at some time in the future (my crystal ball has clouded over ) but it's unlikely any new legislation will be applied retrospectively i.e. affect bank charges already made.

But just in case, pigs are fully fed and watered and ready to fly!

Yes, bad etiquette, but we are getting used to it.:rolleyes:

BTW, why pin your sail to the musings of David Barnett, who is an employment law specialist, who does not specialise in finance, banking etc.? If you look hard enough, you can always find someone, who says something, that put in the wrong context can back up your argument.

Glad to see you are feeding the pigs. If they are fully fed and watered, I would be careful where you stand as you might get more than you expected!:rotfl:

Premier_2

orc wrote: »

Yes, bad etiquette, but we are getting used to it.:rolleyes:

You probably are, you started it remember when you posted the entire article?

orc wrote: »

BTW, why pin your sail to the musings of David Barnett, ...

I think others will see that I merely have posted an excerpt from an article I linked to.

Still, don't let the facts get in the way of your musings

orc_2

Well premier, have a very pleasant and happy Christmas.:D

BigBudgie

and Premier, make sure you eat plenty of the green triangles !!!

Some of us are like you in many respects, we never give up.

Some of us will never give up the fight against unfair and unlawful practices in the banking industry.

You, I suppose, will never give up spouting negative propaganda.

Have a Merry Christmas anyway.:rotfl:

natweststaffmember

alexjohnson wrote: »

I don't know whether you people don't know when you're beat, or don't know when you've won.
I love you too, have a man kiss xxxxx
Beat: the cases are over. I've seen how this developed over the years and I note that all the apparent legal reasons - which I always thought would not hold up - have been chucked out, one after the other.
Quizz time: Name all the legal reasons from beginning to end and the reasons why they would be chucked out?


The only basis for a successful claim is "fairness" and the case, pretty obviously, was not proved. Reclaimers kept on moving the goalposts to match their own hopes.
Reclaimers didn't move on UTCCR 1999 regulation 5(1). The OFT went with 6.2(b) as well. The banks went with a declaration on regulation 5(1) and lost. Furthermore, one of the terms of NatWest terms 2001-2003 was incapable of not being penal in law(that is Judge Smith and it was not appealed by the bank). The goalposts were initially set by campaigners, then taken up by the OFT, then other arguments came into the fray in the meantime. The way it is beaten is in a Court of Law, ie all arguments are finally defeated in Court. THEN and only THEN am I beaten on it. Furthermore, changes have happened as a result of the bank charges campaign so not everything is doom and gloom.

I wonder why people continue to search for the pot of gold, but I suppose the chance of several thousand pounds is worth printing off a few letters.
Not a good idea quoting me since my pot of gold would be £0.00. Not a dime has the bank charged me.

As ever, it's always been the bleating and moral outrage that has annoyed me - I'd certainly print off a letter for a few grand too, but I wouldn't claim to be a martyr while doing so.
I'm not sure anyone is claiming to be a martyr but they are claiming that the bank charges themselves when it hit them made things worse.

Anyway, that is clearly over. I'd wish you good luck, but actually it's such an astonishing waste of energy. If reclaimers put half as much energy into just looking at their bank statements as they have in reading (in some cases) 100-year old case law they likely would naver have incurred the charges in the first place.
UTCCR 1999 is from an EC directive from 1993. CCA is from 1974 as amended 2006. CPUT is from 2008....not sure where the 100 years bit is from.

Think of what you could have done if you'd directed that sense of outrage at a cause worthy of it, rather than the inability of some people to balance their chequebooks. It's actually both pathetic and quite tragic, isn't it?
I think financial hardship cases is more than just that. Some people are, I will admit, financially inept but that did not stop the bank allowing the individual an account, without an aptitude test.
BUT, you Won! Across the board, overdraft charges have come down or been modified. As everyone was, apparently, desperately concerned about the hard up in society, and not at all about the few thousands they were hoping to get tax free for themselves -
(sorry for the break, I fell off my chair laughing!)
then we're all better off now, aren't we? While the OFT didn't get charges to (say) £12, they are, in general, lower. Why not be happy that you went a long way to getting what you (supposedly) wanted?

I think the £12 thing you are referring to is Credit cards(which are still reclaimable in their entirety under UTCCR 1999).
Man oh man, some days you really do talk a load of crap.

davidgmmafan

"if, as they do, the OFT and their huge legal team believe they have no chance of making a legal claim stick, what chance have you?"

Well given that whole thing was going MUCH better before the OFT got involved one could make the argument that they are useless and cocked it right up. All they managed to do is get claims, which people were winning even when they were heard in court, on hold for several years.

Then when the bank appealed the OFT did not appeal the decision of the lower courts on the penalties argument. I do not know if they could legally do this, but I figure they should be able to. I mean the banks were denied leave to appeal and did so anyway.

The great problem now, for all the progress in getting SOME charges reduced (Halifax new charges are ridiculous IMHO) the thorny issue remains... As things stand now there is nothing to stop the banks gradually increasing the charges. Which is what, in my view, caused the whole issue.

If the charges were say £5 per time nobody would have kicked up a fuss. Based on work helping a relative Natwest charged around £12 in 2000, this had shot up to £39 until recently. Now its £5, this could still be more than thier costs (given that there is NO work in an unpaid DD) but we've no way of knowing. But given that this is half the original figure it seems reasonable to assume £39 was pure profiteering.

The OFT had one QC, the banks had one each. If you need 7 QC's to beat one then you were on very dodgy groun.

I recall a prediction on CAG saying the OFT would in order to get good value for the taxpayer hire a budget QC and lose. Whomever that was appears to be correct.

For the record I don't believe full refunds were fair or right, but again the banks contributed to this because they did not want this to go to court.

I don't think its right to hold the OFT up as some sort of brilliant consumer protection organisation. In fact if you look at others like OFCOM, OFGEM, the FSA its no surprise to find out they are pretty useless.

Chrysalis

dmg24 wrote: »

The recent court decision 'went the way' of a fair proportion of the people in this country.

is it always about serving the majority then regardless of whats right and wrong?

Chrysalis

[Deleted User] wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the banks paying out well before OFT even became involved... from where I'm sitting we're just back the stage were the consumer takes it forward themselves via new templates which will be winging their way soon I hope and banks have the option of expensive and difficult defenses in court or pay off settlements as we still have no clarity like at the start of it all.

We are worse off I believe.

Various cases were put on hold for no logical reason other than to give the courts a break.
Now individual cases can proceed again but there will be a much higher failure rate as judges will possibly use the supreme court case as a precedent.

The OFT ball'sed up plain and simple.

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"if, as they do, the OFT and their huge legal team believe they have no chance of making a legal claim stick, what chance have you?"

Well given that whole thing was going MUCH better before the OFT got involved one could make the argument that they are useless and cocked it right up. All they managed to do is get claims, which people were winning even when they were heard in court, on hold for several years.
That's right people didn't bother to turn up in court and LOST, Barwick case where he did turn up and lost. We need to be better on the issue that people HAVE got to do something themselves and understand the arguments clearly cos they'll lose otherwise.
Then when the bank appealed the OFT did not appeal the decision of the lower courts on the penalties argument. I do not know if they could legally do this, but I figure they should be able to. I mean the banks were denied leave to appeal and did so anyway.
The penalties in law argument is on the whole DEAD. Do not rely on it because you will get nowhere with it apart from losing your case.
The great problem now, for all the progress in getting SOME charges reduced (Halifax new charges are ridiculous IMHO) the thorny issue remains... As things stand now there is nothing to stop the banks gradually increasing the charges. Which is what, in my view, caused the whole issue.
I don't think it will happen since the OFT would have the right to refer it to the Competition Commission.
If the charges were say £5 per time nobody would have kicked up a fuss. Based on work helping a relative Natwest charged around £12 in 2000, this had shot up to £39 until recently. Now its £5, this could still be more than thier costs (given that there is NO work in an unpaid DD) but we've no way of knowing. But given that this is half the original figure it seems reasonable to assume £39 was pure profiteering.
It was £38.00(Halifax used to charge £39 ). I don't think you can assume anything to be honest.
The OFT had one QC, the banks had one each. If you need 7 QC's to beat one then you were on very dodgy groun.
Nonsense argument. The OFT was suing as an individual entity so they would have a QC and staff as would the banks. Considering there was 7 companies being sued would you have expected 1 QC to turn up?
I recall a prediction on CAG saying the OFT would in order to get good value for the taxpayer hire a budget QC and lose. Whomever that was appears to be correct.
Hang on, Brian Doctor QC was hired and the banks tried to get a declaration under regulation 5(1) of UTCCR and failed. In fact he won the lower court case and was then changed to a very good QC in Jonathan Crow who won the appeal and lost the Supreme Court case. If you are now going to rubbish a QC based on mere ramblings then you are on very very thin ice. I suggest you research Jonathan Crow's work and then say he was a budget QC.
For the record I don't believe full refunds were fair or right, but again the banks contributed to this because they did not want this to go to court.

I don't think its right to hold the OFT up as some sort of brilliant consumer protection organisation. In fact if you look at others like OFCOM, OFGEM, the FSA its no surprise to find out they are pretty useless.

You really are talking crap and have no idea how the regulators work. Drivel, utter drivel and it was predicted that this kinda crap would be written on forums by the late great Mark Twain who said "news of my death has been greatly exaggerated!"

As you can tell by the last quote, it was completely off topic and utterly useless to the debate which kinda sums up the post. I have a feeling I am getting too long in the tooth for this stuff or I need to have coffee before coming on MSE cos there is so much nonsense around at the minute.