We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

new template letters

Options
2

Comments

  • Premier wrote: »
    For a few days whilst Martin was initially shocked at the decision of the Supreme Court on 25 November, and didn't know what to advise until he had time to consider the future (in conjuction with legal experts) he may have said 'you have no chance' but I don't recall that. :confused:
    I haven't said that Martin Lewis has said that.
    Prior to the court decision the message was reclaim, reclaim, reclaim; the charges were unlawful, illegal and/or unenforcible.
    I wasn't referring to the Supreme Court decision with regards to the no chance at all.
    Since 02 December (possibly earlier), following requests to put a figure on the chance of getting charges back it has been:

    "only a 10-20% chance of most people now getting charges back.",
    I wasn't referring to the post SC articles either apart from the 10-20% bit.
    but the basic message has remained from 25 November i.e.

    "it's likely to be thrown out if your argument was based on the premise of the OFT's original case"
    Again the original POC of the OFT did mention Regulation 5(1) grey list but proceeded with Regulation 6.2(b) and in fact the banks asked for declarations under Reg 5(1) which were denied in the OFT test case.
    and, even with new legal arguments,
    New legal arguments are being tested in court and have not been prior to that
    "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers."

    I would agree with your quote since at the moment, there is no way of defining or working out what the banks' will respond to the newer POC's based on those arguments which is very similar to the original arguments way back when but untested within the OFT test case.
    Hope the clarification helps with what I was advising to the OP which is to make sure that they are fully aware of what they are doing and to expect nothing since newer legal arguments are tested. I am sure you would agree Premier, that until newer arguments are heard and judged on that no one should assume that by simply signing their name to a template without understanding it and sending to the bank that they will simply pay out without a by your leave, would you say that is fair to assume?
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 19 January 2010 at 4:41PM
    ...I am sure you would agree Premier, that until newer arguments are heard and judged on that no one should assume that by simply signing their name to a template without understanding it and sending to the bank that they will simply pay out without a by your leave, would you say that is fair to assume?
    That is what was essentially assumed with the old templates. i.e file your claim and get your meney back.

    Now Martin (presumably on the advice of his QC) is saying with the new template letters, whenever they get published, there is:

    "only a 10-20% chance of most people now getting charges back"

    and

    "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers"


    The legal arguments are declared as being very complex. It was hoped the OFT would champion the matter, but they decided there was little chance of success. As individual cases are being heard in county court, any individual decision made will not set legal precident
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier wrote: »
    That is what was essentially assumed with the old templates. i.e file your claim and get your meney back.
    Once banks started paying out as though they were giving their money away.
    Now Martin (presumably on the advice of his QC) is saying with the new template letters, whenever they get published, there is:

    "only a 10-20% chance of most people now getting charges back"

    and

    "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers"

    So is that yes you agree with me that until a court does test the templates that you should expect to get nothing?
    And that a 10-20% chance is better than a 0% chance?

    I thought we were actually agreeing, are we not?
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • Premier wrote: »

    The legal arguments are declared as being very complex. It was hoped the OFT would champion the matter, but they decided there was little chance of success. As individual cases are being heard in county court, any individual decision made will not set legal precident


    Wish you would stop editing the post Premier, albeit, it helps my post count ;)
    The OFT pulled out of it and from reading their report I can fully understand their position both in terms of a collective challenge and on how it would fit in with their own specific goals.
    I would totally agree with you that individual cases in county court do not set a precedent but no one is really looking to set a precedent in their own cases, just their money back and if they do that then more will follow. I do agree with you that it is very complex which is why people have to be fully aware of what the arguments are and what they are doing. Even in the early stages prior to the OFT Test case people simply filled in county court claims and assumed they would roll over. Some people lost their cases in county court because they didn't prepare for court. That is why it is important that people are fully aware of what they are doing BEFORE starting the process or either filing or amending a POC.
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    So is that yes you agree with me that until a court does test the templates that you should expect to get nothing?
    And that a 10-20% chance is better than a 0% chance?

    I thought we were actually agreeing, are we not?
    I agree that a 10% - 20% chance is greater than a 0% chance, but that isn't what Martin is saying

    He says that there is:

    "only a 10-20% chance of most people now getting charges back"

    and hence:

    "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers"



    That is a subtly different argument and hence why both statements are concurrently valid
    (but I accept you may need an above average understanding of the subject of statistics to fully comprehend why)
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ... The OFT pulled out of it and from reading their report I can fully understand their position both in terms of a collective challenge and on how it would fit in with their own specific goals...

    Yes, let us not forget why they pulled out of continuing with any claim
    ... 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...

    John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said:
    ...'Having now considered in detail all the options available to us in light of the judgment, we have decided not to continue what would be a narrow investigation with limited prospects of success....
    http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/144-09
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier wrote: »
    I agree that a 10% - 20% chance is greater than a 0% chance, but that isn't what Martin is saying

    He says that there is:

    "only a 10-20% chance of most people now getting charges back"

    and hence:

    "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers"



    That is a subtly different argument and hence why both statements are concurrently valid
    (but I accept you may need an above average understanding of the subject of statistics to fully comprehend why)

    I don understand those quotes but it is a valid point. The MSE reclaims article states this:

    "We now believe there are still strong arguments to assess charges' fairness that haven't been tested yet; however, these are complex, and it'll be tough for individuals to argue them in the small claims court, but there are still some easier arguments to be put through the Ombudsman."

    He clearly states that they have not been tested yet which is why I would agree with the statements based on that comment as well. Furthermore, Martin appears to be suggesting that going through the Ombudsman would be easier. Has Martin commented on the Ombudsman route with regards to the chances of reclaiming yet(cos I haven't read all his articles)?
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • Premier wrote: »
    Yes, let us not forget why they pulled out of continuing with any claim

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

    The key to your quote is about their investigation. They considered the arguments based upon what their goals were in their investigation. If you read the report in full, I would completely agree with their position not to continue with a further case based on cost(it would be unlikely the bank would cover their own costs) and on what they are looking to achieve within their investigation and how they can better achieve this which would not be to litigate again, to be honest.
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    The key to your quote is about their investigation. They considered the arguments based upon what their goals were in their investigation. If you read the report in full, I would completely agree with their position not to continue with a further case based on cost(it would be unlikely the bank would cover their own costs) and on what they are looking to achieve within their investigation and how they can better achieve this which would not be to litigate again, to be honest.
    Well if the OFT can't afford it, how is Joe Public supposed to? That was the basic arguement MSE Martin had for why the OFT should bring the case.
    Yes, individual cases will be cheaper, but if the banks start losing, expect them to appeal ... all the way up to the Supreme Court again if necessary.

    As for the result the OFT wanted, well yes they would want to succeed in any case they brought, but they felt there was "very limited scope and low prospects of success"
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier wrote: »
    Well if the OFT can't afford it, how is Joe Public supposed to? That was the basic arguement MSE Martin had for why the OFT should bring the case.
    Yes, individual cases will be cheaper, but if the banks start losing, expect them to appeal ... all the way up to the Supreme Court again if necessary.
    Premier, there will be CMC's(I'm never gonna be a fan of theirs) who will want to do this even to appeal level because of the amount of publicity it will bring their company by doing so. The individual themselves will have to argue their case based on their own circumstances and relevant terms and conditions in force at the time they were charged. You can see already that an individual has to be committed and not half hearted if they want to pursue a claim(again it could draw them to a CMC(no win no fee company).
    As for the result the OFT wanted, well yes they would want to succeed in any case they brought, but they felt there was "very limited scope and low prospects of success"

    The OFT had hoped that it would deal with current account charges for the future. Since a number of banks have changed their terms and conditions on charges(or fees if you would like me to call them) then a further case is unlikely to reach a goal that the OFT are after. Many cases in court may well be based on charges historically rather than necessarily newer charging structures. In fact, I would have thought that it would have meant a lot more expensive a case if the OFT had continued. Their approach is to talk to all sides of the divide to make sure the system is fairer and transparent going forwards than to look at the past charges that will not or may not be the same today(apart from a few providers that were part of the original 7: Nationwide if memory serves me right).
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.