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

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

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"
"1.5 The OFT has considered a number of potential avenues for continuing an
investigation under the UTCCRs. Any such investigation would be
narrow in scope, would appear to have a low probability of success and,
in any event, would appear to make only a limited contribution to
achieving the OFT's objectives. When considered against the risks and
resources involved, the OFT does not think it appropriate to continue an
investigation.
1.6 This is a decision about the OFT’s own investigation. It sets out the
OFT’s understanding of aspects of the Supreme Court judgment that are
relevant to individual complaints and claims for redress associated with
UOCs, but it does not mean that these individual actions are barred or
necessarily are likely to fail. Individual litigants should seek advice about
their own cases that takes into account their particular circumstances.
The FSA and FOS have published advice on their websites for customers
with complaints about bank charges."
To translate, the OFT has decided that if it were to litigate again they may not necessarily succeed on a collective basis and that it would be limited in scope. Furthermore, the OFT could face costs if it lost so like the "barbeque summer" of last year by the weather forecasters the risk of winning two cases and losing again could lead to substantial costs against them and they felt that the banks' would not cover their own bill on this occasion. It does not prevent individuals from doing this themselves. As I have constantly said, I do understand their viewpoints in light of the judgements since a lot of banks have changed terms and conditions in such a way that some could argue that they are fairer. Furthermore, there is limited scope on the penal argument against NatWest 2001-2003 terms(that is from OFT test case judgement by Justice Smith which would mean signalling one bank out. The resources of the OFT would and should be better dealt with in other areas.

What newer arguments?
You read the guide. Have you read UTCCR 1999 or even better the EC directive from 1993.
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)
They have published most of the arguments that an individual can argue. Remember, the OFT was a collective assault based on general principles of UTCCR but not based on individual cases.
If you have the winning formula, please divulge and help all those eagerly awaiting the news from Martin and his expensive legal team.

The winning formula as I keep saying is having a post SC judgement case win by either settlement prior to court or settlement in court, excluding hardship cases. When that happens then we will have concrete rather than theoretical success.
The reclaim guide is proving to be an obstacle on MSE than any other site. I hope site team takes note that some of it is accurate only to a point.

the_insider

jamans wrote: »

On the 11th of February I did pay in £7 to more than cover the original £1.21 interest plus the interest on all the other charges.

Why did they stop applying charges in May? Why are they not still applying them to this date as I still haven't paid? Is this because if it was now £400 it would seem too ridiculous?

I have just checked and the month that I paid everything off I had a £100 OD limit, the next month when I had the £1.21 interest go on the OD limit had gone. I don't remember cancelling it, it may just have run out of its agreed time limit though, it was a long time ago and I can't remember.

This thread seems to have gone a bit off topic. If your account is with Moorcroft it will have been defaulted and this will be marked on your credit file. Once a Notice of Default has been registered the creditor can no longer apply interest or charges to the account. As the balance is so small I would recommend that you speak to Abbey directly, explain the situation in a calm and rational way without threatening court action and see if there is any way that they can reduce the balance. It sounds like the original unauthorised overdraft charges were not stopped manually, you would need to be over a certain amount to start incurring them (usually £5). So for the first few months only interest would have been applied until you hit that amount.

But I do agree with previous posters that you should have taken steps to resolve this sooner.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

...They have published most of the arguments that an individual can argue...

Ah yes, so they have

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/mse-hires-top-qc-to-continue-bank-charges-fight

...we're under no illusions of the difficulty of the task, and don't want any reclaimers to bank on getting their money back...

Q. How likely is it I will get my money back?

A. Much less likely than prior to the result, but not impossible. Still, the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers.

As we know many people would like a 'what's the chance' type answer, our instinctive guess is even with the new argument there is only a 10-20% chance of most people now getting charges back.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-qa-door-reopened-for-reclaimers

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

Ah yes, so they have

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/mse-hires-top-qc-to-continue-bank-charges-fight



http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-qa-door-reopened-for-reclaimers

But the quotes you've selectively used aren't the arguments that MSE said they're putting forward ie UTCCR sec 5 and CCA 140. Fancy that!

Premier_2

At least I provide links - a shame others who claim they are trying to help don't actually bother, but pefer to just snipe at those who care to do so.:rolleyes:

Here's another from the latest article on reclaiming, effectively saying the same thing (or perhaps even lower odds?):

How likely is it I will get my money back?
A. Much less likely than prior to the Supreme Court result, but not impossible. The strongest hope is for those who fulfill the Ombudsman's criteria above... still, the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers.

We believe there is a strong legal case under the new arguments yet it is complex and it takes time for these things to play through. For money management's sake, its very important to assume you won't get a payout – though we hope there is still a chance.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

At least I provide links - a shame others who claim they are trying to help don't actually bother, but pefer to just snipe at those who care to do so.:rolleyes:

Premier_2

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Premier wrote: »

At least I provide links - a shame others who claim they are trying to help don't actually bother, but pefer to just snipe at those who care to do so.:rolleyes:

Sheer brilliance! One couldn't ask for a better example!

Alpine_Star

At the risk of repeating myself the issue I and others have with you and your posts is the steady drip drip of anti reclaim propaganda in the guise of 'advice'.

Until definitive guidance is given contrary this forum is for helping those reclaim bank and credit card charges and not for discouraging them from doing so. There is no doubt that the legal options left open to us are more complicated, reclaiming will be more individualistic, less dependant on one-size-fits-all templates, will require more work on the part of the claimant and won't be easy. But this does not mean that at this point - to use one of your quotes - ''forget it, it's over'', because until the alternative arguments are fully tested in court, the future prospects of reclaiming will not be decided.

Premier_2

Alpine_Star wrote: »

... to use one of your quotes - ''forget it, it's over'', ...

See, still no links to back up that alleged quote.:rolleyes:

What I think I've often said was "It's over, forget it"

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28559801&postcount=2

As you see, not just my interpetation, but that of a number of others.

Here's another example of saying the same thing:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28269203&postcount=34

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

See, still no links to back up that alleged quote.:rolleyes:

What I think I've often said was "It's over, forget it"

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28559801&postcount=2

As you see, not just my interpetation, but that of a number of others.

Here's another example of saying the same thing:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28269203&postcount=34

To clarify the point, Premier, the OFT have given up for a number of reasons contained within OFT 1154. The view of Martin based on the intial viewpoint was that it would be difficult for those claiming to receive anything. The initial viewpoint has to be taken in context of the immediate aftermath of the OFT test case judgement and awaiting further advice from the OFT as to their way forward which came at the end of the michealmas term or 22nd December. We have had Christmas and New Year and so we have all taken a step backwards to assess the situation. For those in Financial Hardship the process has remained largely unchanged apart from the end of the FSA Waiver on hardship.
However, for those looking to reclaim charges it will mean that they will have to do a lot more work than simply a templated letter. The article on Sky, btw, was one where I wanted to thump the lawyer on it because it is the same scare mongering story of, the banks have millions of pounds at their hands so go away stupid. Had reclaimers done that in 2006, millions of pounds would not have been refunded. The same arguments are being applied again to it. I would probably say that at the moment, the concentration of efforts is on those who have a live claim in court where there is movement, ie strike outs or where there is financial hardship cases. With regards to new claims, I think those looking at that route need to do the basics, ie get a list of charges and await further guidance and advice. NEVER give up cos the SC judgement didn't say it was over(in spite of media interpretation to the contrary).