What impact will the OFT have?

web_wiz

I was wondering the very same thing Flip77...

Thinking logically, as you (and me!) started the ball rolling before the FSA pronouncement, it shouldn't have any effect on our claims - but as the Banks are experts at wriggling out of stuff, they may try and use the FSA decision as 'ammuntion' to beat us moneysavers over the head & try and put us off.:mad:

Personally, I will go the distance if necessary, i.e to court, to get the whole amount back, but as it's money we all thought lost anyway, some may decide to accept the 'difference' between the new charge amounts (whatever that is) and the original charge amounts.

Any more thoughts?
Cheers

wiz

kondormid

Oh my, still so many questions.

Look, the fact is that the OFT is going to make a suggestion, someone will call it a ruling, that bank charges should be £12.

This does not mean a fat lot, it just means that the OFT have decided that a figure of £12 is a sort of "good for everyone" figure.

At that point, you will probably find it will be a lot less hassle to get some of your bank charges back, the chances are they will want to hang on to your £12

Now, this is where it goes a bit pear shaped. You see, many people would not have incured charges month on month if they had not been stung with illegal charges month in month out. It is a plain fact that if I take more money than I am supposed to out of your account then the chances of you incuring a bank charge are increased.

So, in other words, the OFT ruling does not mean a fat lot in legal terms although it should make it a lot easier to get some of your money back. You can still take them to court and argue that you still do not know the real cost of the charges AND the charges would not have happened if the bank had not piled illegal charges on you.

As far as what result you get, it depends on how well it is fought by the banks. The banks have a problem in that they will still be required to show evidence of how much you should have been charged yet if they do show it, and it is less than £12 then it would basically make a joke out of the OFT ruling. So there is a very good chance the banks will still refuse to turn up in court. And you still get 100% + interest. Time will tell.

My ball is rolling, but it should not make any difference legally.

mjanet

stanbaxter68 wrote:

I would of thought that your claim would be from your first contact with the bank.

your claim starts from when you submit it into court , and you can reclaim charges going back 6 yrs from the day you submit your claim into court .It does not start from the day you first contacted the bank

there is a way you can go back more then six years and thats arguing points of the limitation act .If you are not fully versed on the legalalities of these charges then I wouldn't recommend it .

as for your other question I have already answered it in my last post

System

I do think people are worrying too much about the OFT opinion - and that's all it is, an opinion. It's not based on fact or law.

There's absolutely no reason why people can't push on as normal with claims, because (as many have already posted) banks will still be very reluctant to appear in court and disclose their true costs. And this is the very thing that makes - and will still make - the majority of claims successful.

So keep up the fight everyone - I am

Regards
UNDERGROUND

krisskross

I feel the OFT opinion will only start to have any effect after it has been made. thus I think charges levied until the date of the OFT report will be paid without much of a fight.

The charges that are levied after the report then I do think the banks will take a much harder line, even going to the lengths of rewriting T&Cs, perhaps renaming the charges as service charges.

The banks HAVE to come up with some method to deter people from helping themselves to the banks money. If they don't then they will be further accused of irresponsible lending (??) and encouraging debt.

Jez_1_2000

I sent my first letter to the bank 2 weeks ago requesting a statement of charges, with this OFT thing on the way aren't banks more likely to drag their heels and take as much time as possible replying in order to try and use the OFT report to get out of repaying as much money?

paul1e

UNDERGROUND wrote:

I do think people are worrying too much about the OFT opinion - and that's all it is, an opinion. It's not based on fact or law.

Agree with you underground, if the oft ruling is worded anything like the ruling on credit cards, then it will merely be a threshold amount and the oft will not intervene if charges are kept under this threshold, this does not make it a fair charge just the amount the banks (or in this case the credit card companies) can charge with out being investigated, so will still be for the banks to justify the amount and if not then there is no defence....... And also what difference has the ruling on credit cards made, bearing in mind that most if not all credit cards are run by the banks anyway and they are not taking these all the way in court!!!!!!!!!!

scotswoman_3

jamalfatty wrote:

Point taken. However, regardless of what the OFT says, think it will still be up to the banks to demonstrate in court that it actually does cost them £12 or whatever the OFT set the charge at. We all know this is not going to happen as it is still way above what it costs them, dont see any reason therefore not to push for all charges.
Can see how many more people might back down though before it got to court stage.

I would be extremely interested to see what the actual cost to Natwest is in particular as they do not even send an automated letter. I questioned a member of Natwest about why a letter is not sent out each time an item is refused or an overdraft is exceeded.

She explained the procedure is to send out a letter the first time this happens, no more letters will be sent out after this. So if initially my direct debit is refused in the January they will send me out a letter saying that it has been refused. If it happens again say in the October no letter will be sent.

I asked how are people supposed to know when this has happened if no letter is sent, her response was people need to check their bank account on a regular basis.

At the time I had spent three weeks trying to arrange for my mother to have access to their internet banking to no avail (I have used LLoyds TSB internet banking since it was introduced and don't know what i would do without it - it was also so easy to set up in the first place) I explained this to her. Her suggestion was that my mother come into the bank on a daily basis to check her balance.

I pointed out that this would not be practical nor feasible for my mother and for a large number of elderly or disabled people, even people who do not live near a bank or have transport to a bank. She had no answer.

There is always telephone banking however this does not suit everyone for various reasons. Some people don't have a phone, some people, especially those on a low income, will not want to pay for the cost of a phone call to the bank on a daily basis. Do any banks provide a free phone number? Others will not have the ability to understand how the process works, especially some of the older generation who find these sorts of situations difficult to cope with.

Each time I hear someone talking about the cost of bank charges I hear them talking about the actual cost of a computer sending out an automated letter. Natwest do not even have this cost - so where other banks may be able to justify some costs, how can Natwest?

Very frustrated!:eek:

lustydog

[
As banks make just a small proportion of their profits from personal banking they could decide they only want the 'good' customers as using your reasoning they cannot charge the 'bad' ones. Barclays make a small amount on my account by using my money until I need it. Perhaps they would prefer to just have customers like me?[/QUOTE]

This comment may not be absolutely relevant to this thread and for that I apologise. However I remember the days when wages were paid weekly, Cash in a see through envelope so that you could check the amount.
There came a time when business ,including the banks, decided that everyone should have their wages paid into the bank whether they liked it or not because it was easier for them. The banks were delighted as they knew that the majority of working people lived hand to mouth, sometimes having no money left on payday, and ripe for paying the very charges that are the subject of this forum. Unless you kept a very tight rein on your account it was easy to slip into the red and into the deadly financial spiral that we are witnessing today. Along with credit cards, this was the start of the massive debts which are starting to cripple the country.
In the days of the wage packet, if you ran out of money on thursday you went without till friday. It didn't happen too often as people were extremely careful with their money. Good luck to anyone who manages to screw the banks, it's about time they felt some of the pressure

paul1e

Jez_1_2000 wrote:

I sent my first letter to the bank 2 weeks ago requesting a statement of charges, with this OFT thing on the way aren't banks more likely to drag their heels and take as much time as possible replying in order to try and use the OFT report to get out of repaying as much money?

Can't drag their heels anymore then normal, under the D.P.A they have 40 calender days or you report them to the I.C....