How long can this situation persist?

davidgmmafan

The system was changed, some of the changes were applied retrospectively. That's the main point I'm making, generally speaking you wouldn't make retrospective changes to rules and laws but sometimes it IS called for. I believe bank charges is such a case, you do not.

I put in the bit about saying there was nothing wrong as this is the impression I got when I quickly read your posts.

I don't see how you can accept that the system was flawed ie it was not policed at all, and then say that MP's were not acting dis-honestly. Essentially the past system relied on thier integrity AS ELECTED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. We know now they cannot be trusted. If they were honest then changes wouldn't have been needed...

Putting it another way these people are making laws and taking decisions which affect the whole country (well england anyway but that's a whole different point), and yet when the system relied on thier conscience it failed pretty dramatically.

Furthermore we still would never know if somebody hadn't have leaked the info because they felt the public had a right to know.

We can agree to dis-agree, I'm merely making the point it IS possible to make retrospective changes, its just something that is rarely done. One of the fundamental principles of our constitution, such as it is, is that no Parliament can bind its successor.

I'm not sure how such a change would stand in terms of European Law, because I am not an expect on European Law. But assuming such a retrospective law was made, say capping the charges at £5 would that be a bad thing?

The banks could appeal to Europe if they felt they had grounds, but then some people feel the issue should've gone to Europe anyway.

I do find the OFT's position somewhat bizarre, if they don't look back and understand how can they move forward? Its like saying we're going to prevent this kind of financial crisis again, without trying to learn from what happened before...

I also feel the criteria for success, and what that means, are hazy. All we can say is the OFT is looking into that, but then what? They'll likely do another report saying good progress is being made... And say the'll report again in... blah blah blah.

natweststaffmember

David have you read the OFT stuff or not? Next major report is 2012.

davidgmmafan

Exactly, another year or two...

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the next report will say that good progress is being made and they'll report back again in a year or two...

Given the failure of the OFT in court I fail to see what they can do to shall we say encourage the banks to change. Clearly they cannot force them.

Also re MP's expenses there is another parallel. When you complaint about bank charges the bank responds by saying we are satisfied we have complied with the conditions which we ourselves laid down. Sounds familiar doesn't it

davidgmmafan

For avoidance of doubt re MP's not being honest (and I can't believe I'm having to spell this out). Flipping your home so that you can tart it up at tax payers expense is not honest. Furthermore making a change when you seel to minimize the amount of tax is not honest, and I don't care what the rules say.

Finally NONE of this would have come out if it hadn't been for people leaking the information, I don't think concelaing it could be deacribed as honest either....

orc_2

Hello David

you should have a read of articles by Bank Buster which is heartfelt to say the least and gives an interesting perspective on the OFT case. Its well written and thought provoking.

http://www.bankbuster.co.uk/ofttestcase.html

and a reflection after the test case

http://www.bankbuster.co.uk/testcasereflecti.html

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

For avoidance of doubt re MP's not being honest (and I can't believe I'm having to spell this out). Flipping your home so that you can tart it up at tax payers expense is not honest. Furthermore making a change when you seel to minimize the amount of tax is not honest, and I don't care what the rules say.
It's about using the rules to your advantage as I would do as well in the same position. Not every MP was dishonest and not every MP IS dishonest.
Finally NONE of this would have come out if it hadn't been for people leaking the information, I don't think concelaing it could be deacribed as honest either....

It was actually a Freedom of Information request that triggered the saga and the government trying to not reveal the details that lead to the leak. Ultimately, the leak of the information was not the reason but the FOI request and the concealment of information pertaining to it.

davidgmmafan

Oh come on lets call a spade a spade, a property is either your second home or it isn't. It certainly can't be both at the same time yet that's exactly what some claimed.

Even when they promised, in the spirit of openness to publish four years info they blanked a lot of the stuff on security grounds. That information which was blanked out was the sort of info which would've revealing flipping. Remarkable co-incidence...

I am not suggesting every MP is or was dis-honest, I can respect those who actually have principles likes Robin Cook who resigned over Iraq, but there aren't many of them.

Bringing the analogy back to bank charges I would be willing to accept that there are more honest MP's than honest/trustworthy banks, which is all the more reason to come down hard on them.

So you would do the same as them, I wouldn't, what does this mean? Not a lot as we're not likely to run for office (as far as I know!).

Anyway the main point is you CAN make retrospective changes, and in some cases people will accept it.

davidgmmafan

Interesting links ORC, couldn't see much there I a disagree with. I'm not sure if the OFT WAS under political pressure, but I agree with lots of the other points.

I hope the new government is not so spineless as the previous adminisitration on this issue, I would settle for a cap of £5 on charges going forward and ad-hoc goowdill gestures to help people who have been royally shafted in the past and are struggling now.

The biggest problem of all is I honeslty believe the banks don't think they've done anything wrong, which in itself is amazing. We British are mostely an accepting lot so when millions of us complain chances are you've made an almighty !!!! up (see Iraq war for further evidence!).

orc_2

Oh I think they knew they were wrong and thats why so much was paid out, to avoid precedents.

The OFT handling of the situation was diabolical. I am swaying towards the conspiacy theory but would like to retain my faith in the system.

davidgmmafan

I'd agree with a non-spiracy... ie that the test case had no real benefit to the OFT or customers and was of great benefit to the banks. Plus the fact they lost so what exactly is the point of the work they are doing now (which has vague timescales and no criteria for success)?

If they want change the banks can just say no, with credit cards they threaten court for charges over £12. For bank charges they already tried that and lost so they can't do anything. The Office of Fair Trading cannot act on an issue of fairness. Only in Great Britain