From the weekly e-mail

bookworm1363

Twinkly wrote: »

The speculative information with implicit regard to the definite impact of the OFT report is to be considered as just that, speculative and not as fact. We all have opinions on the OFT report, posted on a thread or not. None of us are entirely correct or fully informed, we are not the OFT so we cannot possibly be.

Actually, mine is a little bit more than that, because I was already fully involved when last year's report, about the credit card charges, came out.

And there is a great sense of deja-vu, to be honest. To most people, it is: "Oh my god, what is the future going to hold?", to me, it's: "Oh, here we go again..." :rolleyes:

I could retrieve CAG threads from last year, where we had the same hysteria, the same sense of gloom and doom... and the great: "Well, that was a lot of fuss for nothing" afterwards.

You mention "definitive impact of the OFT report".

The FACT is this: The only definitive impact is that people who do not want to, or do not know they can, reclaim their charges will be better off, because the banks will drop their charges.

For those who do know about charges reclaim, there is no definitive impact.

Those who know how the law works will use the OFT's report to their advantage, will include it as part of their letters as proof that the banks have been applying unlawful charges and will get 100% of their money back, as they did before. Those who don't, stand to lose money because of misinformation. That, to me, is the real tragedy.

Twinkly

With regard to both quotes above from feedering and bookworm, for which I thank you. You raise some good points throughout and I must advise you are preaching to the choir here. I personally am able to make informed and factual decisions and act accordingly so while I thank you for your input in all posts I have read of yours I do not necessarily take anything as fact without making my own investigations.

To that end, for those that do not do as I do, it may help in future if when making posts you state clearly which parts are based on fact complete with source material for readers consideration and which are pure speculation. For my part I do try do this where possible.

Perhaps in this manner people who, as you state, lose money through misinformation may be better informed and so not slip through the net

Twinkly

bookworm1363 wrote: »

You mention "definitive impact of the OFT report".

The FACT is this: The only definitive impact is that people who do not want to, or do not know they can, reclaim their charges will be better off, because the banks will drop their charges.

For those who do know about charges reclaim, there is no definitive impact.

You state that banks will drop their charges as an irrefutable fact. Could I have the source of this fact ? I would like to investigate further and advise others on that if possible. Up until now I thought this was speculation.

For those who do not know about charges reclaim perhaps the media will report this sufficiently so as to bring more peoples attention to it. I would like to think that given the discussion fueled by this awaited report, on this site and others, that after its issue it will have the definitive impact that more people actually receive some portion of their claim with less hassle. If, as speculated, banks issue automatic refunds based on the figure of £12 to every customer and not just those claiming that will certainly make people sit up and take notice. Money appearing out of nowhere generally does and we're all too old to believe it was the tooth fairy

bookworm1363

Twinkly wrote: »

You state that banks will drop their charges as an irrefutable fact. Could I have the source of this fact ? I would like to investigate further and advise others on that if possible. Up until now I thought this was speculation.

Ok, I'll refine my answer.

The OFT report on credit cards of 5th April 2006, Summary here, states, amongst other things, that:

There is also a read across of the general principles in this work to other default charges in consumer contracts such as bank overdrafts, store cards and mortgages. We are inviting the banks and other financial services businesses to review such charges accordingly.

It is therefore inconceivable that the OFT upcoming report will not be following the same trend as the credit card one.

Once the OFT states what their intervention threshold is, the banks will have no choice but to lower their charges. Correction, they could challenge the OFT findings, and some credit card companies did say they would last year after the c/c report. To date, none of them have.

I would like to think that given the discussion fueled by this awaited report, on this site and others, that after its issue it will have the definitive impact that more people actually receive some portion of their claim with less hassle.

It would be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, experience shows that the c/c report made no difference in that respect, and I do not think that the one on bank charges will make any either.
Oh, and here's a fact: "portion" of a claim is nice, 100% is better. And 100% is what people get if they don't believe they're only entitled to a portion.

If, as speculated, banks issue automatic refunds based on the figure of £12 to every customer and not just those claiming that will certainly make people sit up and take notice.

And this is where your opinion and mine differ hugely.
I do not believe for one second that banks will issue automatic refunds. EVER. Not until a binding court decision is made, and the odds of that happening are tiny.

I'll also repeat that IMO, the intervention threshold figure will not be set at £12. My best estimate would be £18-£20. This is speculation on my behalf. And I'll happily admit to not being an economist, but it makes sense, if you think of what the comparative charges are between banks and credit cards, and their comparative overheads and running costs.

Money appearing out of nowhere generally does and we're all too old to believe it was the tooth fairy

Indeed.

Thank goodness for the likes of DChurch24 and Bankfodder and Stephen Hone who researched penalty law, tested it, won, and shared their knowledge freely to all. :T

Twinkly

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Ok, I'll refine my answer.

The OFT report on credit cards of 5th April 2006, Summary here, states, amongst other things, that:

Quote: There is also a read across of the general principles in this work to other default charges in consumer contracts such as bank overdrafts, store cards and mortgages. We are inviting the banks and other financial services businesses to review such charges accordingly.

It is therefore inconceivable that the OFT upcoming report will not be following the same trend as the credit card one.

Once the OFT states what their intervention threshold is, the banks will have no choice but to lower their charges. Correction, they could challenge the OFT findings, and some credit card companies did say they would last year after the c/c report. To date, none of them have.

So it isnt actually fact. The banks will not definitely lower their charges and you have stated it is a fact (in capital letters no less) when it is actually speculation, albeit based on some research in relation to credit card charges. In my opinion that classes as 'misinformation' that others have been accused of. Thank you for clarifying and replying to my query on this. I like to check.

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Quote:If, as speculated, banks issue automatic refunds based on the figure of £12 to every customer and not just those claiming that will certainly make people sit up and take notice.

And this is where your opinion and mine differ hugely.
I do not believe for one second that banks will issue automatic refunds. EVER. Not until a binding court decision is made, and the odds of that happening are tiny.

Our opinions do not differ since I did not state an opinion on whether I believe they will issue automatic refunds. I commented on the speculation that they would. For the record, I dont believe they will either.

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Thank goodness for the likes of DChurch24 and Bankfodder and Stephen Hone who researched penalty law, tested it, won, and shared their knowledge freely to all. :T

Agreed, with thanks also to Martin for this site, the provision of templates, the initial advice article and the forum to discuss the matter freely. Thanks also to the board guides for their patience, daily support and repeated posts.

While we're thanking people lets thank everyone who makes positive constructive input to this site as it all helps. As the success thread shows, all 86 pages of it to date, this site is furthering the cause and proving valuable (if not complete) insight into the process and results of following it (as it has been explained to date).

I agree there is room for change and improvement, where in life is anything ever perfect and pleases everyone, all of the time? It is in hand and needs no further discussion from me at this point. Suffice to say, credit where credit is due.

bookworm1363

Twinkly wrote: »

So it isnt actually fact. The banks will not definitely lower their charges and you have stated it is a fact (in capital letters no less) when it is actually speculation, albeit based on some research in relation to credit card charges. In my opinion that classes as 'misinformation' that others have been accused of. Thank you for clarifying and replying to my query on this. I like to check.

You are twisting my words.

IF the OFT sets an intervention threshold (that's the speculation part), the banks will lower their charges to comply. That's a fact.

If it rains (speculation), the ground will get wet. Fact.

The 2 are not incompatible.

As for your opinion... that's what it is. I am not interested in engaging in the nit-picking that seems to be ongoing lately. I am interested in not seeing people getting less than what they're owed because of the misinformation being bandied about. Everything else, ego-stroking and all, is irrelevant.

On a slightly separate note, here's an other fact: The banks are monitoring the bank charges reclaim sites. We have proof of that. Thanks to the misinformation about the "offering the difference between £12 and the actual charge", we are now aware of one bank having done this last week. Talk of a self-fulfilling prophecy, huh... Thank goodness, the user came to CAG and queried this, and was set straight. Result, 100% refund. As usual.

That will be my final word on the subject for now, unless I see my words being twisted again.

Mad_Hatter_2

I have read many posts on this site.. Its excellent at some things but bank charges it ain't..The information at times is very speculative and opinionated.. I have seen many people going to court on mis information, unusable PoC's, claiming for things they shouldn't and basically not doing the ground work properly...

I don't know it all but having done 3 claims successfully for 100% of charges, plus interest, i think i know enough about how it all works..

To be frank, some of the information, and the attitude of those better informed users, isn't up to scratch...

JMO

esmerellda

How did you do your claims then Mad ? Using templates from here or elsewhere ? Or write your own ?

Well done for getting the whole caboodle back each time

Twinkly

bookworm1363 wrote: »

You are twisting my words.

IF the OFT sets an intervention threshold (that's the speculation part), the banks will lower their charges to comply. That's a fact.

If it rains (speculation), the ground will get wet. Fact.

The 2 are not incompatible.

As for your opinion... that's what it is. I am not interested in engaging in the nit-picking that seems to be ongoing lately. I am interested in not seeing people getting less than what they're owed because of the misinformation being bandied about. Everything else, ego-stroking and all, is irrelevant.

That will be my final word on the subject for now, unless I see my words being twisted again.

"IF the OFT sets an intervention threshold (that's the speculation part), the banks will lower their charges to comply. That's a fact."

That entire sentence is reduced to speculation as is clearly indicated by the very first word....IF. A fact is not made so unless precedeeded by 'WHEN'. This is basic english.

Not a single one of us can say with absolutely certainty what the OFT reports impact will be until it actually happens. Ifs, buts and maybe's do not apply to facts. You can relate it to any previous announcement or analogy you wish but that does not make it fact. You can only suggest what it might be and nothing more.

As to 'nit-picking.' This is also something I have no interest in. I will query information presented as fact in posts on this forum for my own benefit and I will also highlight any irrelevant reply to content in my posts but that is all.

In answer to your accusation of twisting your words. Whether the banks do or do not lower the charges is not the issue. It is the statement that they will as a fact without concrete evidence or source material.

You stated it was fact that banks will lower their charges. Something is either fact or it isnt. To state something as fact when it isnt is misinformation and it is that simple. It is clearly shown in your own words that your statement was not factual and purely speculatory.

I have no interest in twisting peoples words nor the presentation of 'facts and figures' that only serve to cloud the issue for those that do not question their validity and relevance to the matter in hand.

I did not twist anything you said, I clarified, and an apology is in order for the injustice of the unwarranted accusation. I further request that you keep such accusations for those that are deserving of them and have clearly and deliberately done so.

bookworm1363

*yawn*

and good night.