What impact will the OFT have?

Twinkly

Chrysalis wrote: »

debit card is essential for me, my charges are around £500 which whilst useful to me having a debit card is worth more then £500.

-edit-

Ok had a rethink and getting a prepay mastercard whilst expensive to use I can understand would still cost alot less then £500 and would be acceptable for me so I may now just go ahead with my claiming and use the prepay mastercard as fallback if my account is closed.

Glad you found a way to get around the problem and good luck reclaiming

Frenzy

Well ive sent my first letter to abbey and nationwide today (recorded). so ill await my reply. glad i stumbled on this site cos its been very helpful in gettin my claim started. im tryin for £1600 from abbey (not includin the interest) and £500 from nationwide. lets hope i get 99% of it back.

phil4321

Chrysalis wrote: »

debit card is essential for me, my charges are around £500 which whilst useful to me having a debit card is worth more then £500.

-edit-

Ok had a rethink and getting a prepay mastercard whilst expensive to use I can understand would still cost alot less then £500 and would be acceptable for me so I may now just go ahead with my claiming and use the prepay mastercard as fallback if my account is closed.

I went up to HSBC the other day with my wife, after she was approved for one of their basic accounts over the phone (ok for D.D's, S.O's, internet banking and has a debit card), but when we got there we were told she couldn't open the account if she had an account somewhere else as they are only for people with no account and can't get an account..also said they wanted proof of her wages being paid into an account as proof of income, then said she couldn't have it cause she already had an account elsewhere!?!?!!! Weirdos!!!! Anyway....Long story Short...you can open a basic account with them if you have a bank statement saying account closed on it, ie.after you've got your money and your running away, singing and dancing, skip into your local branch and smile as you tell them you'd like to close your account and you'd like all your money and a statement saying that your account is now closed...Yipeee

oldwiring

phil4321 wrote: »

I went up to HSBC the other day with my wife, after she was approved for one of their basic accounts over the phone (ok for D.D's, S.O's, internet banking and has a debit card), but when we got there we were told she couldn't open the account if she had an account somewhere else as they are only for people with no account and can't get an account..also said they wanted proof of her wages being paid into an account as proof of income, then said she couldn't have it cause she already had an account elsewhere!?!?!!! Weirdos!!!! Anyway....Long story Short...you can open a basic account with them if you have a bank statement saying account closed on it, ie.after you've got your money and your running away, singing and dancing, skip into your local branch and smile as you tell them you'd like to close your account and you'd like all your money and a statement saying that your account is now closed...Yipeee

Comment: I wonder if banks will be as they used to be, and frown on persons having numerous accounts, that hold the danger of cross firing etc. If they are going back to some of the old standards, that is IMO not a bad thing.

susank

I really thought this thread was about what will happen after the OFT have made decisions on the bank charges and posted about the clydesdale letter received regarding said charges after end april only to find this thread has really taken off on all sorts of tangents! can we sort it please?

hibees1875_2

Why should the OFT ruling change anything? Banks will still charge what they want. We will still claim our costs. The courts will continue to deal with the claims presumably until a precedent is set and a bank is taken all the way! It just means that people have to be strong when they decide to reclaim charges and not be bullied. OFT don't have legal powers, and the basis of bank charge reclaiming is in relation to contract law. The only thing OFT ruling will do is encourage more people to take a settlement offer rather than go to court with the fear of getting nothing. Just because the OFT rules that banks can charge £X doesn't make it right and without a change in contract law it doesnt make it legal and OFT don't have the power to change contract law.

I also suggest people make use of their MP's in terms of getting them to question the ethicality of what the OFT finally comes up with if not happy with eventual report.

oldwiring

hibees1875 wrote: »

Why should the OFT ruling change anything? Banks will still charge what they want. We will still claim our costs. The courts will continue to deal with the claims presumably until a precedent is set and a bank is taken all the way! It just means that people have to be strong when they decide to reclaim charges and not be bullied. OFT don't have legal powers, and the basis of bank charge reclaiming is in relation to contract law. The only thing OFT ruling will do is encourage more people to take a settlement offer rather than go to court with the fear of getting nothing. Just because the OFT rules that banks can charge £X doesn't make it right and without a change in contract law it doesnt make it legal and OFT don't have the power to change contract law.

I also suggest people make use of their MP's in terms of getting them to question the ethicality of what the OFT finally comes up with if not happy with eventual report.

Ok guys, carry on insisiting that your charges are unlawful, even if they are within OFT guidelines. Anyone who thinks the banks will go on for ever repaying charges and thus effectivley giving bad customers a service with no costs recovered for control, is living in clud cuckoo land. They will just close the accounts, possibly sell ypur debts on, and because of your credit status you'll end up paying cash for everything. Best of luck!

esmerellda

Old Wiring .... the charges ARE unlawful...if they were lawful a bank would stand up in court and prove the costs of each individual breach of contract.

If accounts are closed and passed on due to unlawful charges the defaults can be removed by order of the courts. The credit record will not be damaged.

Take note of my signature ....watch the program.

Frenzy

hey esmerelda ill def be watchin the proggy tomo nite, but the banks cant repair the credit record if its already been damaged as such. martin has said that in one of his other articles about this problem that people seem to think their credit problems will jus go away.

oldwiring

esmerellda wrote: »

Old Wiring .... the charges ARE unlawful...if they were lawful a bank would stand up in court and prove the costs of each individual breach of contract.

If accounts are closed and passed on due to unlawful charges the defaults can be removed by order of the courts. The credit record will not be damaged.

Take note of my signature ....watch the program.

I think you have the wrong end of a stick. If you really think a bank will tolderaste customers that want it to retain them, when they are rubbish customers, for that is what a lot of them are. The custoemrs will get theor money back, be wanred that if the account is not conducted properly, it will be closed. In that way there will be no connection with the refund; it will be the custoemr's conduxt that is the reason for closure. Equally the matter of a debt once decoupked from the matter of the charges, will be persuable by the bank as it would be by any other creditor.

As to watching the progamme, I shall be engaged in a regular choral society practice.