MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

kittiej

Ah Gobbo you've got me, yes I'm a racist and an ageist.

My children are Welsh, my OH is Welsh and they are lovely, what a mixed up world we live in. Oh no I'm planetist now.

Your username would suggest you are from the land of song actually. That obviously got your back up so I recon you're English and could be the friend from Spain.

Either way you just like the sound of your own words because nobody else appears to

natweststaffmember

kittiej wrote: »

Ah Gobbo you've got me, yes I'm a racist and an ageist.

My children are Welsh, my OH is Welsh and they are lovely, what a mixed up world we live in. Oh no I'm planetist now.

Your username would suggest you are from the land of song actually. That obviously got your back up so I recon you're English and could be the friend from Spain.

Either way you just like the sound of your own words because nobody else appears to

Surprisingly, your post and gobbo's kinda hits the whole aspect of a lot of posts on the forum. It is about perception, ie perception on each individual's circumstances to form an impression. One person cannot understand how they are charged in spite of previously being charged and another one sees how they are charged and accuses them of stupidity. The OFT Personal Current account study hit this point on the head ie people were unable to work out why they were charged or why.
No doubt the debate will continue but new POC's are due towards the end of next month so whether the OFT will not take the case on and from reading their response I DO understand that position but individuals will be able to do so.

gobbo

Thank you for confirming my point

As you say "it's regulatory and enforcement powers are provided to it bt statute" which means that the government could just bring in a new law to curb its remit.

thanks again

Alpine_Star wrote: »

There is not a single piece of legislation that allows Government to ''instruct'' or ''control'' the Office of Fair Trading and you won't be able to come up with one.

It is independent from Government and it's regulatory and enforcement powers are provided to it by statute. If the Government could ''instruct'' and ''control'' it then the Prime Minister wouldn't have 'called upon them' to work out a negotiated settlement in the same way he calls upon other bodies he has no control over - such as calling on Iran to cease it's nuclear programme. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article6847201.ece

In short, you are naive and stupid. And you think we are too.

gobbo

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Which means that the government would have to bring in legislation to get rid of the regulator. You are talking nonsense with regards to this.

What are your proposals for a regulator?

Even though we are going way off topic here, but I can run with it.

thanks for agreeing with me , the government just need to bring in new legislation

gobbo

kittiej wrote: »

Ah Gobbo you've got me, yes I'm a racist and an ageist.

My children are Welsh, my OH is Welsh and they are lovely, what a mixed up world we live in. Oh no I'm planetist now.

Your username would suggest you are from the land of song actually. That obviously got your back up so I recon you're English and could be the friend from Spain.

Either way you just like the sound of your own words because nobody else appears to

sorry I did forget nationalisationist

ffacoffipawb

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

The only way to decide is to have an MSE poll.

GG

There is another way ............

FIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!

kittiej

Thanks for that nattie,

It does very much feel like a them and us situation, which could happen to anyone at any time.

On the one hand someone could be widowed, made redundant etc and see a significant drop in income, but on the other someone could get a promotion, or come into a windfall and not have to worry about getting close to their limit.

I just don't see the point in having a go at people who have cut back to the barest of bones and who cannot miraculously acquire money.

Of course the ultimate answer is to go bankrupt and get rid of debts that way, but I do think that for those who are trying to reclaim it is a way of getting on top of their circumstances.

For example in my house I don't incur bank charges, I not only check my bank account cos that is a false thing to do, but I have to sit down with a calculator to see what I have coming in and when and I budget accordingly. I also get paid monthly from work and 4 weekly child benefit.

My OH on the other hand does not sit down to go through his finances and incurs loads of charges. He is paid weekly but cannot grasp the idea that he should work out how much he will need at certain times of the month for his monthly DD's. If he was given a choice to pay weekly - as with his Black Horse loan which never gets missed, then this would help him.

To top it all off he has been off work sick for 4 months and we don't know if he will ever be fit enough to work - effects from suffering suspected swine flu :rolleyes:

I have tried to sort things out but at the end of the day he is an adult and I'm not his mother lol.

This is why banking is such a personal thing, it is not and I don't expect it ever will be the same experience for everyone, and if there were more choices within the way a personal account is run then I think a lot of people would benefit.

Alpine_Star

gobbo wrote: »

thanks for agreeing with me , the government just need to bring in new legislation

I'm not agreeing with you.

1) Bringing in new legislation isn't ''instructing'' by any definition.

2) Governments don't bring in new legislation - Parliament does.

3) Parliament cannot change the law to have any influence over an independent regulator, by statute.

*MF*

gobbo wrote: »

thanks for agreeing with me , the government just need to bring in new legislation

The recent decision of the Supreme Court was indeed based on laws implemented in the UK Parliament. However, the genesis of the UK legal position is an EU directive - which is binding on all EU members - and the UK Parliament cannot unilaterally do as you suggest.

FYI:

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/unf_cont_terms/index_en.htm

moo_cow

clear some space kittiej, your inbox is full