MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

Alpine_Star

rickbonar wrote: »

"With no evidence whatsoever" is wrong as the last writer noted 'there was something fishy' also there are many cases where the law for an ordinary member of the public and the "great and the good" or large institutions or businesses the outcomes seem very different -very unbalanced.

With due respect, a post by an anonymous soul on an internet forum that ''there was something fishy'' and that the outcomes of various cases ''seem very different - very unbalanced'' is patently not ''evidence'' that the test case was fixed - by any standards imaginable.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

I'm glad you said that

It would probably have been removed if anyone else dared to suggest so.

I think you're probably right. We probably will never entirely agree with anything else for a while but we are on opposite sides of the divide

rickbonar

Alpine_Star wrote: »

With due respect, a post by an anonymous soul on an internet forum that ''there was something fishy'' and that the outcomes of various cases ''seem very different - very unbalanced'' is patently not ''evidence'' that the test case was fixed - by any standards imaginable.

natweststaffmember

rickbonar wrote: »

I have read only the cursory outline of the case true.

"With no evidence whatsoever" is wrong as the last writer noted 'there was something fishy' also there are many cases where the law for an ordinary member of the public and the "great and the good" or large institutions or businesses the outcomes seem very different -very unbalanced.
If one person says something is fishy about a case but provides no evidence then there is no evidence whatsoever that is verifiable.
I keep mentioning the de Menezes case do look it up ... Our good friend Sir Ian Blair like so many of his ilk eg. the Haringey social worker boss, The Railtrack chairman, Fred Goodwin etc. hung on never owning up to any incompetence.
The de Menezes case is nothing to do with bank charges and was a criminal NOT civil case(unless we are talking about the civil case taken up by the family that was settled by both parties BEFORE it came to court).
Most observers in these cases can see what is there ( the real truth) however courts and government seem to want to Black out the incriminating text.
I don't know what you are talking about on this bit.
Now don't you wonder why?
No, I don't. I see histrionics, conspiracy theories and no evidence of what these people are saying.
I would say it's a little more than "only my imagination" and I'm sure many others will agree!
I don't agree with you so I am sure someone else will come along and agree with you with the same lack of evidence as well.
Apparently the chinese can and do use the death penalty for fraud and major embezzlement crimes. I wonder how our present crop of MPs and bankers would fare there?

What relevance does the communist system that works in China have to do with UK Bank Charges Test Case?
oh, well, let's not that get in the way of the debate.

rickbonar

I have simply stated my viewpoint.

I mention the Chinese (but haven't they taken on capitalist system now) because this situation with rip off banks bent politicians, bankers, financiers, courts would not be tolerated as easily.

I'm sorry that you may disagree with me about bent bankers etc....

As for evidence what more do you need?

Going back to the this case Martin Lewis and OFT took on... everyone seemed to think it was a foregone conclusion - even some of the banks.
Yet lo and behold mass payouts have been stopped. The implications in the current financial climate could be enough to make some of the banks already slippery underfoot fall. This has obvious political implications endangering the financial security of the country as a whole as I said previously perhaps 2 or 3 years back the outcome could have been quite different.

Interestingly if individuals were to pursue their claims they could still get paid. Again let's be honest most people won't bother and give up. That will save the banks plenty.
It's a question of what you believe, to me it's obvious but it's a bit like some people here who blithely believe that their mortgages will stay low and next year the house price market bounce back and their cottage near the coast will be worth £2 million. Mr Brown wants to be re-elected has held back taxes and interest rates to try and shore up everything and let everyone believe it's all sorted out but sometime sooner or later it will be payback time.

Why did you leave nat west btw?

Evidence?

I see the likes of Sir Fred Goodwin and Sir Ian Blair get handsome golden handshakes and in Goodwin's case he was very concerned indeed about pensions and finances...............
(His own).
Really many of us feel their contribution to society should be rewarded - but not with Knighthoods and £4m;
This sort of attitude seems to run today throughout the entire society. When ordinary people see examples like this is it any wonder.
perhaps asset seizure, bankruptcy, stripping of their titles and a minimum term prison sentence of 35 years might be a little more appropriate.

Perhaps on poll page the forum could put this to the test.

natweststaffmember

rickbonar wrote: »

I have simply stated my viewpoint.
I understand that viewpoint but in a debate you can look at finding out more or less which can change that viewpoint.
I mention the Chinese (but haven't they taken on capitalist system now) because this situation with rip off banks bent politicians, bankers, financiers, courts would not be tolerated as easily.

I'm sorry that you may disagree with me about bent bankers etc....

As for evidence what more do you need?

Going back to the this case Martin Lewis and OFT took on... everyone seemed to think it was a foregone conclusion - even some of the banks.
Martin Lewis was not a party to the OFT test case.We all assumed one thing but we were all novices in this way back in 2007 and a test case was what was being called for.
Yet lo and behold mass payouts have been stopped.
In 2007, yet there are still mass payouts on credit card claims which use the same arguments ie UTCCR 1999.
The implications in the current financial climate could be enough to make some of the banks already slippery underfoot fall.
Which must have been why in February 2009, the Master of Rolls stated the banks had lost their Appeal when the crisis was at its worst in terms of financial climate.
This has obvious political implications endangering the financial security of the country as a whole as I said previously perhaps 2 or 3 years back the outcome could have been quite different.
I don't think the outcome would have been different based on the narrowness of the case when it went to Appeal and the SC. It does not preclude an individual from pursuing their own case based on UTCCR 1999.
Interestingly if individuals were to pursue their claims they could still get paid. Again let's be honest most people won't bother and give up. That will save the banks plenty.
There are certain cases where I don't think there is a case based on the current state of play. If however, the newer templates do produce a result then that opinion will change.
It's a question of what you believe, to me it's obvious but it's a bit like some people here who blithely believe that their mortgages will stay low and next year the house price market bounce back and their cottage near the coast will be worth £2 million. Mr Brown wants to be re-elected has held back taxes and interest rates to try and shore up everything and let everyone believe it's all sorted out but sometime sooner or later it will be payback time.
I don't understand your view, my understanding is that he has pumped money into the system to keep it going. I think even he realises that there will be difficult decisions to be made over the coming years but that is hardly a reason for a viewpoint of the SC. The decision was 5-0 so legally there was certainty amongst the SC judges.
Why did you leave nat west btw?
I got sacked.
Evidence?(about the only person you should NOT have asked that question to was me cos I can back it up with the article form Emily Dugan of the Independent on Sunday)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bank-employee-who-posted-advice-on-websites-is-fired-1622476.html
I see the likes of Sir Fred Goodwin and Sir Ian Blair get handsome golden handshakes and in Goodwin's case he was very concerned indeed about pensions and finances...............
(His own).
Really many of us feel their contribution to society should be rewarded - but not with Knighthoods and £4m;
This sort of attitude seems to run today throughout the entire society. When ordinary people see examples like this is it any wonder.
perhaps asset seizure, bankruptcy, stripping of their titles and a minimum term prison sentence of 35 years might be a little more appropriate.
So what reason would you bankrupt them for since their bills remain paid?
Why would you strip them of their knighthood since the entire board of RBS Group should be held accountable?
What charge would they be up for 35 years on?(murder hardly you gets you 20 years so it's not THAT bad).
Perhaps on poll page the forum could put this to the test.

You need to read a lot of the information rather than speculating based on unverifiable evidence.

gobbo

And what about minimum sentences for fraud and lying by politicians

rickbonar wrote: »

I have simply stated my viewpoint.

I mention the Chinese (but haven't they taken on capitalist system now) because this situation with rip off banks bent politicians, bankers, financiers, courts would not be tolerated as easily.

I'm sorry that you may disagree with me about bent bankers etc....

As for evidence what more do you need?

Going back to the this case Martin Lewis and OFT took on... everyone seemed to think it was a foregone conclusion - even some of the banks.
Yet lo and behold mass payouts have been stopped. The implications in the current financial climate could be enough to make some of the banks already slippery underfoot fall. This has obvious political implications endangering the financial security of the country as a whole as I said previously perhaps 2 or 3 years back the outcome could have been quite different.

Interestingly if individuals were to pursue their claims they could still get paid. Again let's be honest most people won't bother and give up. That will save the banks plenty.
It's a question of what you believe, to me it's obvious but it's a bit like some people here who blithely believe that their mortgages will stay low and next year the house price market bounce back and their cottage near the coast will be worth £2 million. Mr Brown wants to be re-elected has held back taxes and interest rates to try and shore up everything and let everyone believe it's all sorted out but sometime sooner or later it will be payback time.

Why did you leave nat west btw?

Evidence?

I see the likes of Sir Fred Goodwin and Sir Ian Blair get handsome golden handshakes and in Goodwin's case he was very concerned indeed about pensions and finances...............
(His own).
Really many of us feel their contribution to society should be rewarded - but not with Knighthoods and £4m;
This sort of attitude seems to run today throughout the entire society. When ordinary people see examples like this is it any wonder.
perhaps asset seizure, bankruptcy, stripping of their titles and a minimum term prison sentence of 35 years might be a little more appropriate.

Perhaps on poll page the forum could put this to the test.

pool-hustler

A.Jones wrote: »

I don't know what it is like with other people's direct debits, but every credit card and utility company for which I make a direct debit, I was allowed to select a date that payment will be taken. I made sure all were a week after my salary was paid, so I know there will not be a porblem with clearing times. I've never had a problem paying one.

completely different for me.
Each company takes money on different dates..
My union every 4 weeks, insurance on the 21st, others on 15th and begging or end of the month. I kive mont to month on my salary so innevitably get DD charges.
Do we have a new template yet since OFT quit. MSE said a week or so around a month ago :rolleyes:

Premier_2

pool-hustler wrote: »

...Do we have a new template yet since OFT quit. MSE said a week or so around a month ago :rolleyes:

Unfortunately not. Following the decision of the OFT to not continue with any legal challenge because it believed to do so would "have a very limited scope and low prospects of success", development of the template letters based on complex legal arguments are taking longer than expected.

In yesterdays email, Martin gave an update as follows:

We're still working on the new guide, there's a lot to get through and it's taking a little longer than expected, we hope it'll be ready in the next few weeks. Do remember, while we believe some will still be able to reclaim, for most it will be tough, so plan NOT to get the cash.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips/20-01-2010/

You can sign up to the free weekly e-mail here to keep up to date with latest updates.

davidgmmafan

The direct debit system itself is riddled with problems, not least of which is the so called direct debit guarantee. Some banks will process an indemnity and still not budge on the charges. I don't understand that at all. In any even the DD guarantee should include consequential loss. If one DD is taken early or in error which cases others to fail the company should cover the charges, or the bank should cancel them either way.

If you have an immediate refund then the transaction which caused the trouble did not occur, therefore I can't see how the charges can stand.

And I know some people say don't pay by DD but that means more expensive bills. So the poor have a choice, higher bills (which they may struggle to afford) or make savings on DD knowing if the slightest thing goes wrong you could be screwed forever.