OFT and Banks to decide on "fair charge"

davedon31

Help , ive been dealing with claiming my charges back from the halifax since nov last year and only got my statements after 4 letters to them 21/2 weeks ago , i gave them 2 weeks to respond or i would start court proceedings , its been two weeks today and no responce from the bank , under the circumstances of todays news should i proceed with court proceedings or not , help please someone , im disabled with a partner and two children to support and struggling like mad at the moment .

techspec

davedon31 wrote: »

Help , ive been dealing with claiming my charges back from the halifax since nov last year and only got my statements after 4 letters to them 21/2 weeks ago , i gave them 2 weeks to respond or i would start court proceedings , its been two weeks today and no responce from the bank , under the circumstances of todays news should i proceed with court proceedings or not , help please someone , im disabled with a partner and two children to support and struggling like mad at the moment .

Sounds like you may qualify under the hardship rules. The banks and the FOS, have been told they must still handle cases where a delay will cause hardship.

The courts are likely to suspend all cases shortly, or accept requests for a stay, which will delay things until after the test case.

You may be better writing to the FOS, pointing out your circumstances, and see what they say. If you visit the FSA website, it explains that hardship cases must still be heard.

Then, if you get no joy from the FOS, you can still go to court.

katecheshire

I have a letter (2nd reply) from Nationwide saying that if I wished to refer my case to the FOS I had 6 months from the date of the letter. I could not afford to go through the courts and only found out recently that I could claim through FOS (at least until now:mad: ) Is there any point in trying to register my claim with the FOS?
Is it possible to find out whether this 'six months limit' has any legal standing?

katecheshire

markaty wrote: »

surprise of public feeling.

The banks will try and claim each time anyone goes over their overdraft etc, they have someone look at that persons account and credit score it, or so said that stupid woman on GMTV pre 7am today. Really, I say, then why is each letter I recieve from them exactly the same, except for the date!
Automatic letters triggered by someone going overdrawn I think.

If the bank never sends you a letter to say that you have gone everdrawn or that they have bounced something, what can they show as the cost to them? If the 'bounce' is done automatically by a computer programme, they will have to cost that action in order to show it to the courts as part of this test case. £12 ? I don't think so!!

sandrashaw

sods law!! the statement was made after i had just posted my letter been planning for weeks and just got around to it lloyds tsb for charges i will have to wait and see probably a long wait now too !!!!!!!!!!!
sandra

piggypoo

magicmadam wrote: »

Hi, I have just copied this from another forum I was reading.


Hello all. Just heard on the news that the Office of Fair Trading is to sue the banks over unfair charges. Sounds good, but it also means that anyone currently trying to claim their bank charges back, will not now recieve any rebates until after the OTT have had a thorough investigation and the law courts have decided on an outcome.
Sorry for anyone currently hoping for some money back ...

Do you know if it is true? MM

Yes it is ,however the earliest this will hit court is October 2007,and any claims outstanding will be put on hold until then.
The only course open now is by the banking ombudsman and claiming financial hardship.....surely this is the main reason why we are claiming.
The OFT and 7 banks and one building society were consulted....none of MSE 1.2 million plus other consumer groups were considered.
Watch Martins Channel 4 interview...he gave the head of british banking a good pasting.

cyberman_3

The latest BBC report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6918803.stm

THE OFT ARGUE
Under contract law imposing a penalty for breach of contract - in this instance going into unauthorised overdraft - may be unlawful.

However, the banks and building societies have put a strong counter argument.
They have said that unauthorised overdraft fees are a payment for a service, not a penalty, and are therefore perfectly legal.

A SERVICE CHARGE ?
A service charge is an agreeable amount between two parties. The Banks have been applying service charges without our permission and it is doubtful that your T&C show the amounts of up to £38
Therefore the Terms and conditions could be classed as misleading and therefore unlawful.

What the courts must understand is just one service charge (as they put it), attracts further service charges which then accumulates to a debt in favour of the bank and very detrimental to the consumer.

THIS IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE CONSUMER.
This by the way is the phrase used by the DTI when they apply to a court to have a company closed.

The banks are operating a modern Peter Rackman system which was outlawed many years ago.
For those who don't know who Peter Rackman was see this site
http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/knowledge/posts.php?thread=1512
(see post from Ted Ridge)

Whilst Rackman was in property, you will see how he made his money.
In essence, the banks are doing the same and attempting to make money from the less well off and the vunerable thereby creating huge debt problems which cannot be paid. The Rackman system was outlawed and it is the responsibility of the DTI to take the same action against the Banks

Licenced by the FSA (The Financial Services Authority) the banks have a code of practice.
For instance, the code's general promises to treat customers in financial difficulty "sympathetically and positively" has a two-page treatment all to itself in the notes.
The banks however are not obliged to follow this and they abuse the code.

As the banks well know they are causing financial distress to people, it could be classed as discrimination

cyberman_3

WHAT ABOUT FUTURE CHARGES

Already mentioned in this forum, "will the banks continue to apply the charges"

PROBABLY YES
As we the consumer have been blocked in the reclaim process due to the court action, the banks will see this as an open door to increase their profits by applying charges upon charges upon charges.

If the court case last for 12 months, the banks will earn £millions back
IT'S AN AWESOME THOUGHT.

UNFAIR PRACTICE
If the banks are not told to stop applying the charges whilst the action is being taken, it will be very one sided and that is UNFAIR PRACTICE

If your bank continues to apply the charges by all means write to your bank claiming "unfair practice" ...... but the best thing to do will be to issue a formal complaint in writing to both the OFT and FOS CLAIMING UNFAIR PRACTICE.

Yes, this could produce millions of letters for both authorities and such information could well be used by the OFT in their case showing the court the way the banks behave themselves.

Stokey125

From some of the posts I have read I detect a view that MSE and CAG should be heard as they represent the consumers. If this is correct the only way of this being done is for an application being made to intervene in this case. To do this you will need to make an application for permission to intervene in this case. The Court is unlikely to agree unless you are able to show that you will advance arguments other than ones already being advanced.

Michael

Andy_Spoo_2

I never trust these large PLC.'s. If they were trust worthy we wouldn't have to claim our money back in the first place. So how easy would it be for a multi billion pound company to give a few dodgey handshakes and a very large back-hander to some comparatively low paid OFT people/person. Damned easy I would say. :shhh:. If someone offered me a few million and a big pension for killing this I'd be tempted.

And if you loose your job at the OFT, you can always work at a bank though eh.

I hope their are whistle-blowers out there who can keep an eye on these things :lipsrseal.

Remember that just because you signed a contract doesn't make it legal. If it said " you must kill a minimum of 4 people a day " and you signed it, your still braking the law. :eek:.