OFT makes 'putting it on hold' announcement

jinkssick

Im glad about this ruling, they probably would have got a legality which means I would lose 100's in court. Now theres no escape. Settlements and longetivity are their only friends now.

ukmonkey

Rafter wrote: »

Looks like the games go on!

It was always going to be "game on", OFT announcement or no OFT announcement.

oldwiring

Once the OFT report is done and dusted. will it have 'qua legal' force in determining the allowable charge by a bank? If it will, then could a bank defeat a plaintiff by agreeing to refund any amounts above the level to be determined by the OFT? If the OFT's final decision shold not have legal force then IMO it remains carte blanche for those who conduct their accounts properly to be ripped off, albeit indirectly, by those who cannot, among whom must be some !!!!less and reckless, who certainly do not deserve such an advantage over good customers, who my have to pay charges>

krisskross

I have to say it totally amazes me just how many banks and cards some people are claiming charges back from. Why on earth would someone want several current accounts and a multitude of credit and store cards? I have one of each and still managed somehow to miss making a payment on the credit card. I would have loads of charges if I had multiple accounts to keep track of.

The_Scarlet_Pimpernel

Twinkly wrote: »

I saw all the study I needed in BBC1's Whistleblower program last week. 9p to bounce a cheque through an automated process. £1.50 - £2.00 if done manually. Tsk Tsk.

At the risk of being wrongfully accused again of trolling:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/yorkshire-bank-clydesdale-bank/76081-our-very-good-friend.html

Hope this helps clarifying things.

The_Scarlet_Pimpernel

oldwiring wrote: »

Once the OFT report is done and dusted. will it have 'qua legal' force in determining the allowable charge by a bank?

Unlikely if their previous report on credit card charges is anything to go by. In it, the OFT plainly stated that they could not determine what made a charge lawful, only a court could.

If it will, then could a bank defeat a plaintiff by agreeing to refund any amounts above the level to be determined by the OFT?

Again, unlikely, although I'm sure some will try it as part of their dirty tricks. Even if it were a possibility (putting aside the fact that a penalty is non-enforceable in its entirety), it could not be applied retroactively.

If the OFT's final decision shold not have legal force

It doesn't, not "if" about it.

then IMO it remains carte blanche for those who conduct their accounts properly to be ripped off, albeit indirectly, by those who cannot, among whom must be some !!!!less and reckless, who certainly do not deserve such an advantage over good customers, who my have to pay charges

So it's the poor bstrds who rip off the "good" customers? Funny, from where I was looking, it looked as if it was the opposite, if opposite there must be, as the poor bstrds subsidise free banking for the more fortunate by birth or luck. :rolleyes:
Or maybe, instead of judging people in "them v us", you could see that the only rip-off was the one by the banks both sides trusted, and who have managed to convince the lucky ones that it's all the fault of the others... Divide and conquer springs to mind.

Twinkly

The_Scarlet_Pimpernel wrote: »

At the risk of being wrongfully accused again of trolling:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/yorkshire-bank-clydesdale-bank/76081-our-very-good-friend.html

Hope this helps clarifying things.

A helpful correction with additional information exact to the nature of intent in my post as opposed to arguementative and derisory misconstrued debate cannot be construed as trolling. I will not edit my previous post for the purpose of continuity in this thread and you are duly thanked.

oldwiring

The_Scarlet_Pimpernel wrote: »

Unlikely if their previous report on credit card charges is anything to go by. In it, the OFT plainly stated that they could not determine what made a charge lawful, only a court could.



Again, unlikely, although I'm sure some will try it as part of their dirty tricks. Even if it were a possibility (putting aside the fact that a penalty is non-enforceable in its entirety), it could not be applied retroactively.



It doesn't, not "if" about it.



So it's the poor bstrds who rip off the "good" customers? Funny, from where I was looking, it looked as if it was the opposite, if opposite there must be, as the poor bstrds subsidise free banking for the more fortunate by birth or luck. :rolleyes:
Or maybe, instead of judging people in "them v us", you could see that the only rip-off was the one by the banks both sides trusted, and who have managed to convince the lucky ones that it's all the fault of the others... Divide and conquer springs to mind.

So, and I have no objection to the genuine having their charges reduced but certainly not to nothing, it is becoming a charter for the !!!!ess and reckless to do their own rip off act/ Lord help us. Let's hope some of those merchants get well and truly stuffed by being somehow completely black listed by the banks!

marky_boy_uk

Shouldn't the banks charge these charges once a month from our accounts like the interest?
Just thinking out loud?

Matts_Money

The_Scarlet_Pimpernel wrote: »

So it's the poor bstrds who rip off the "good" customers? Funny, from where I was looking, it looked as if it was the opposite, if opposite there must be, as the poor bstrds subsidise free banking for the more fortunate by birth or luck. :rolleyes:
Or maybe, instead of judging people in "them v us", you could see that the only rip-off was the one by the banks both sides trusted, and who have managed to convince the lucky ones that it's all the fault of the others... Divide and conquer springs to mind.

I couldnt agree more. It amazes me how many people are thinking that the end of free banking would be the fault of people claiming back UNLAWFUL charges. The way I see it it all boils down to the greed of a multi billion pound company who see this as an excuse to charge for a bank account like they do elsewhere in the world.

Like Mr pimpernel said, they are just trying to divide and conquer