MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

MrLeeLee

UncleJaysus wrote: »

And lastly, here's another idea: why don't the banks simply prevent people from going into unauthorised borrowing? Ie, if a customer has an overdraft of £500 and attempts to go £550 overdrawn, the system simply doesn't let him?

As the self-righteous keep pointing out, the money isn't theirs, so why should the banks give it to them? Oh, of course, because banks want people to get into trouble, so they can bleed people of cash they don't have.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

orc_2

UncleJaysus wrote: »

And lastly, here's another idea: why don't the banks simply prevent people from going into unauthorised borrowing? Ie, if a customer has an overdraft of £500 and attempts to go £550 overdrawn, the system simply doesn't let him?

Excellent point.

The banks could easily have done this through their automated systems. The reason they don't- simply down to the fact that they can generate additional revenue through further bank charges.

PartylitePrincess

I filed my claim with Natwest early in June 2007 BEFORE the Test Case put mine and many other claims on hold.

Natwest didn't even bother to aknowledge my claim until 8th August 2007 when I was told of the Test Case, etc.

If the Test Case wasn't even agreed until after I had filed my claim (end of July), why should my claim (and thousands of others - I expect), have been put on hold? I would have thought that claims filed before the agreement for the Test Case was confirmed should still have been processed.

The reason I ended up with charges on my account was due to suffering 2 consecutive miscarriages -twins (late in pregnancy), which left me unable to work for quite some time. I was also diagnosed with other health problems around this time that took well over a year to recover from.

Obviously around this time my mind was pre-occupied with other things and as a result my account went overdrawn (initially without me realising). Unfortunately, because direct debits were sceduled Natwest charged for each one PLUS unarranged borrowing fees, etc which I was unable to repay immediately as I had no income so the whole thing snow-balled quickly resulting in charges of £1,500+.

I tried contacting Natwest to discuss my options, but despit running my account perfectly up until this point and never being overdrawn I was not offered any help.

I strongly suspect that Natwest knew the Test Case was pending when I filed my complaint to reclaim my charges and that is why they 'held off' from responding until almost 2 months later.

I thought banks were there to help their customers - or at least I did 2 years ago!

marcharrison1979

2 questions please:

Why do the OFT have no power and money?
Why does it cost so much to judge on such cases?

I think perhaps some people are being over paid?
Just think of all the good that could have been done with the millions this has cost the tax payer, just think all the good that could have been done with the Billions the government have handed out to the banks? cancer research, better child protection agencies, better schooling, research into greener energy. Why didn't the public get the opportunity to vote on this matter? seems that we don't live in a democratic country after all. Public opinion means is so important, it means everything, it's what people have fought and died for and peoples opinions should be respected, why aren't we allowed to vote on all the major expenditure issues that the government makes?

orc_2

PartylitePrincess wrote: »

I thought banks were there to help their customers - or at least I did 2 years ago!

I am very sorry about what you went through and hope things are a lot better now.

No-one should be under any illusions.

The banks will only ever help themselves to whatever they went, when they want it, etc.

They will only help others, if they are forced to through legislation, regulation or the threat of court action.

ian6pot

People keep going on about unauthorized overdrafts.I dont have an overdraft and never have so when i dont have money in my account the bill dont get paid.

But they still charge me £38 for doing nothing so its not about spending what you have not got as that makes no difference.

withabix

orc wrote: »

Please provide facts for your statement.

Otherwise, please do not fabricate posts based on total nonsense. Totally unfair and shows a nasty streak as you are trying to wind people up and worry them without cause.

Anyone who has had bank charges repaid will NOT have to repay them.

No need to provide and facts as it wasn't a statement. It was a valid question.

There were many people stating that the bank charges were illegal. I didn't see you asking them to provide facts for that statement.

What about those who have had charges repaid following a Moneyclaim-type court judgement? The banks can presumably request that the judgments are overturned? Again, this is a valid question.

marcharrison1979

Sickens me how self involved and unsympathetic people can be to the greater problems that exist today.


What a lovely, lovely world.[/QUOTE]


Very well said my friend. It seems to me that it's very likely that the people who make these self absorbed comments are some of societies rudest, pig headed and greedy people with no moral fiber who only care about themselves and are willing to hurt anyone and back stab anyone to get what they want and to where they want. Career driven bank workers who may have lost their jobs if the court case ruling had gone the other way. Even though they know what the are doing is wrong, they still do it for the wage and promise of further riches at the cost of others. Heartless scum plain and simple.

davidglos

I think the OFT has seriously mishandled this case. Its decision today is really disappointing, given that there was action it could have taken.

However, I still completely fail to understand the way in which it responded to the original High Court decision.

The judge found in favour of the OFT in relation to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, i.e. he held that the OFT had the power to assess bank charges for fairness under the regulations. The banks took their case to the Court of Appeal on this point and lost but pursued it to the Supreme Court and won.

However, the High Court judge threw out the argument that bank charges are a penalty and not liquidated damages (see Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company and Murray v Leisureplay). Why did the OFT not appeal against this part of the decision?

The result of its failure to do so is that it went to the Supreme Court with only one argument to run, UTCCR. Whereas it could have had two and might well have stood a greater chance of success.

orc_2

withabix wrote: »

It was a valid question.

No it's not valid "question", it was designed to provoke. You are attempting to justify it as a legitimate "question" now that you are being challenged. The fact that banks paid out as a gesture of goodwill is incredibly well documented on all reclaim forums.

There were many people stating that the bank charges were illegal. I didn't see you asking them to provide facts for that statement.

The argument at the time was not defended individually by the banks in courts and therefore legitimate to use that term at the time. There is still an argument that the charges are still unfair. The judgement of the SC alluded to that. The OFT still thinks this to be the case.

What about those who have had charges repaid following a Moneyclaim-type court judgement? The banks can presumably request that the judgments are overturned? Again, this is a valid question.

No, they can't. Do some research if you are that interested in bank charges. The banks may well be frightened of individual cases, under new arguments eg CCA, being heard in court on an individual basis. I'm not saying that will happen, as its too early, but it is a distinct possibility.

Do you now understand that people will not have to repay anything?