New Bank Charges £100,000 Fighting Fund & Legal News (including the Berwick case)

techspec

Lloyds have broken the terms of the waiver with their new charges, but the OFT/FSA/FOS don't seem to care.

For those who do not know, if you bring the account back into credit by about 3pm the same day as you go overdrawn, you will no-longer be charged.

Nathan_Spleen

So, what happened to the £100.000 legal fighting fund?

Well, post Berwick, the fund actually comprised of a single donation from one private individual of £25.000 and all the expenditure from the fund was put against that donation alone.

Most of it went on one case which was inevitabley stayed. Other extravagant costs met by the fund included a single 'conference call' between various idividuals to 'discuss the way forward' that cost an eye-watering £750.

The fund was mis-represented, mis-managed and mis-spent. Despite press reports that the money was to be held in trust, it wasn't. And the balance of some £5000 remains in the hands of a 'solicitor' in a non interest paying account.

MSE_Martin

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

So, what happened to the £100.000 legal fighting fund?

Well, post Berwick, the fund actually comprised of a single donation from one private individual of £25.000 and all the expenditure from the fund was put against that donation alone.

Most of it went on one case which was inevitabley stayed. Other extravagant costs met by the fund included a single 'conference call' between various idividuals to 'discuss the way forward' that cost an eye-watering £750.

The fund was mis-represented, mis-managed and mis-spent. Despite press reports that the money was to be held in trust, it wasn't. And the balance of some £5000 remains in the hands of a 'solicitor' in a non interest paying account.

The above is factually incorrect and potentially defamatory, and I would ask the poster to be very careful about making such statements.

Let me lay out the actual situation.

1. The fighting fund was formed by PLEDGES to meet the cost of any precedent setting legal cases in bank charges. It was set up prior to the OFT test case. See the original announcement http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=465002

2. The amount to be donated was split between MSE and the CAG. While MSE is paying the money directly the CAG was doing it as a split between private donators and the site itself.

3. To date, MSE has paid out £10,000, which is every penny requested for MSE's share of costs by the Govan Law Centre, the non-profit legal advice centre which manages the fund. The balance of MSE's money pledged is still available to pay for any precedent setting legal work as and when its needed.

4. The fighting fund has done less than originally thought, as we were very surprised (and pleased) the OFT took on the test case. We fed informnation into the OFT, but with the test case going on there have been little precedent setting opportunies. It's for this reason and this reason alone the fighting fund hasn't been out there spending money (and my view is, if we dont need to spend it, let the OFT do it instead!)

5. The conference call mentioned above. Frankly I don't know if the number given for the cost is accurate though it wouldn't be surprised. Yet it needs to be understood what that paid for... the fund has a leading banking QC working for it.

That conference call was an extended call just after the bank charges test case was announced to decide strategy and take legal advice. As far as I am aware, only the QC was being paid for advice, and frankly you don't get a QC like that without paying. Anyone with any experience of legal matters will explain this is a perfectly standard fee for the time taken

6. The question of the amount of money given by an individual is really something I don't know about as it is to do with the CAG's share not MSEs. I would prefer comment on it isn't made here as that's inappropriate and is for CAG not MSE boards.

However its important to understand that any money paid is technically a donation to Govan which is a charity, if someone did give a lump sum and that hasn't been used, then from my (limited) knowledge a charity can't simply hand the cash back. Once donated its the charities money.

Yet overall as I say that is an issue for the CAG not for MSE.

7. As for the accusation of mismanagment, from my perspective this is bizarre. We fought a number of cases, prepared documents, got top legal advice that 100,000s benefitted from. I knwo every penny of this site's money has gone to pay for legal advice the bank charges reclaiming and to help individuals, gather research and fight precedents, I'm happy we were involved and happy we paid out.

Martin

Nathan_Spleen

Thanks for your response, it was very interesting.

Nathan_Spleen

I'd just like to make clear that I have no beef with yourself or MSE whatsover and I don't doubt your sincerity for a moment.