Overdraft £1.21 - fees £148.81 - should I pay?

Premier_2

However ""the OFT decided it wasn't willing to fight on; it had looked at the law and didn't think there was much chance of success"

If you think the MSE article is factually incorrect, why not bring the matter to the attention of those in power to have the article revised/amended?

If you manage to convince Martin to do that, you'll be helping not only yourself (as you know I'll just keep quoting the articles at you) but also the many people who just use the main site and don't even bother with this forum.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

However ""the OFT decided it wasn't willing to fight on; it had looked at the law and didn't think there was much chance of success"

If you think the MSE article is factually incorrect, why not bring the matter to the attention of those in power to have the article revised/amended?

If you manage to convince Martin to do that, you'll be helping not only yourself (as you know I'll just keep quoting the articles at you) but also the many people who just use the main site and don't even bother with this forum.

Have you read OFT1154?

The basic fact is that the OFT did not believe that it would achieve its objectives by further litigation and with the resources it had. Furthermore, it did not believe that a collective challenge would achieve success for all, ie a one size fits all approach. On that basis the statement that they have chosen not to continue itself and that it does not believe that a collective challenge would produce the objectives it is setting out to achieve is correct but does not tell the whole story.

EDIT: I'll keep looking at the original sources rather than a site interpretation of something(have always done that no matter which forum I am on).

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Have you read OFT1154?..

As I said, if you think the MSE article is factually incorrect, take it up with the author

"the OFT decided it wasn't willing to fight on; it had looked at the law and didn't think there was much chance of success"

I'm sure the site owner wouldn't want to knowingly be giving out factually incorrect information on his own site. You are arguing with the wrong person here and the site owner doesn't read every post in the forum.

Edit: from the OFT's own website & press release 22 Dec 2009:

...After detailed consideration of the judgment and of the various options available to it, the OFT has concluded that any investigation it were to continue into the fairness of current unarranged overdraft charging terms under the UTCCRs would have a very limited scope and low prospects of success. Given this, it has decided against taking forward such an investigation...

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/144-09

The MSE article appears to have summed that up quite accurately I believe.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

As I said, if you think the MSE article is factually incorrect, take it up with the author

"the OFT decided it wasn't willing to fight on; it had looked at the law and didn't think there was much chance of success"

I'm sure the site owner wouldn't want to knowingly be giving out factually incorrect information on his own site

That is correct, the OFT decided it was not willing to fight on, it had looked at the law and didn;t think there was much chance of success(as a regulator)

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/12/oft-gives-up-bank-charges-fight

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/12/bank-charges-they-think-its-all-over-its-not-quite

The above are the other news stories. I don't necessarily agree with Martin's quoted statements. Can you link me to the statement as I will take this up with site team as well(which you are suggesting since clearly the quote is misleading as such).

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

... Can you link me to the statement as I will take this up with site team as well(which you are suggesting since clearly the quote is misleading as such).

You should know, unlike some, I always give links to quotes from elsewhere. The link is given in the first post of this thread that I quoted the comment. Post#15, if no posts are removed (which appears to be happening with remarkable regularity on this sub-forum at present)

I suggest you refer first to the appended comment to my previous post if you haven't already done so

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

You should know, unlike some, I always give links to quotes from elsewhere. The link is given in the first post of this thread that I quoted the comment. Post#15, if no posts are removed (which appears to be happening with remarkable regularity on this sub-forum at present)

Thanks for that and yes I am going to take up that wording with MSE site team because whilst the paragraph is correct it does not bring into the context that they did not believe that further litigation would achieve its own objectives which is important to note.
As for disappearing posts, I haven't noticed since we are having quite a good discussion over the forums.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Thanks for that and yes I am going to take up that wording with MSE site team because whilst the paragraph is correct it does not bring into the context that they did not believe that further litigation would achieve its own objectives which is important to note.
...

The OFT have no current plans to litigate in regards to bank charges.

If you mean the opportunity for individuals to litigate, the article does indeed mention this ... and the risks involved in so doing

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

The OFT have no current plans to litigate in regards to bank charges.
.....because they cannot achieve their objectives within the PCA market and are exploring other avenues with the banks, the Government and campaign groups. They will of course keep a watching brief on what is happening within the reclaiming world of course.
If you mean the opportunity for individuals to litigate, the article does indeed mention this ... and the risks involved in so doing

I read the article on MSE and I think the risks of diving in without properly reading what you are doing(which I freely admit I have seen on the forums) could lead to a loss. Pre OFT test case the Berwick case is an example of going to court and losing in front of a judge. We will see what happens since there are live cases going through the court system now with newer arguments so we will see if that brightens or darkens the arena so to speak.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

.....because they cannot achieve their objectives within the PCA market and are exploring other avenues with the banks, the Government and campaign groups. ..

Why? Perhaps because:
"the OFT decided it wasn't willing to fight on; it had looked at the law and didn't think there was much chance of success"

natweststaffmember wrote: »

...We will see what happens since there are live cases going through the court system now with newer arguments...

What newer arguments?

As far as I know, Martin and his QCs (there appear to be two of them now, perhaps due to the complexity of the matter) haven't published any details yet.(just some vague hints)

If you have the winning formula, please divulge and help all those eagerly awaiting the news from Martin and his expensive legal team.

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

What newer arguments?

As far as I know, Martin and his QCs (there appear to be two of them now, perhaps due to the complexity of the matter) haven't published any details yet.(just some vague hints)

If you have the winning formula, please divulge and help all those eagerly awaiting the news from Martin and his expensive legal team.

The fact is new arguments are being developed will be published regardless.