Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

jim_colville

Hi I am currently living on pension credits because of poor health following a work related accident and other injury to my back,I have debts of approx 2000 pounds do I qualify to have hardship payout

Jim

susanmarie

Has the judge made a decision yet?

Edinburghlass_2

jim_colville wrote: »

Hi I am currently living on pension credits because of poor health following a work related accident and other injury to my back,I have debts of approx 2000 pounds do I qualify to have hardship payout

Jim

You need to ask your bank if they will treat your case as financial hardship, please read Martin's article here regarding this...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges#other

Edinburghlass_2

susanmarie wrote: »

Has the judge made a decision yet?

It is expected to take until July at the earliest and then there could be appeals.

dchurch24

Smasher wrote: »

I still don't trust the OFT to "act in our interests" after all, they wouldn't even listen to consumers and made damn sure that no campaigners or any of those affected had a got an opportunity to air their views & concerns..

Firstly, they claim that the test case was prompted by the overwhelming number of claims against banks for bank charges believed to be penalties. So, why didn't they test any of those cases? Isn't that what a "test case" is?

The OFT test case pretty much has nothing to do with the vast majority of claims made to date, in that the principles in question are not the same.

If they really were serious, they could have rigorously compared the two in court (the original to cover our administration costs Vs Fees for a service). Surely the first thing to have done would be to address the legalities of all the thousands of cases over the last 3-5 years first. After all, it is those cases that the OFT say "prompted" this test case.
Once that was settled, then get on to the arguments over the new T&Cs and examine how or if the two are any different.. It still baffles me how services that were introduced only weeks ago can be part of the core terms of an account that was opened 10 years ago.

It is the failure to address and fully include the original principles and the flat refusal of the OFT to even listen to the concerns of those they are are supposed to be representing that still makes me suspicious of what the actual intention of this case is.

Well, they did consult Which! and a few others first.

The case needed to be heard in a higher court than the county courts so as to create a precedent. Although, I would have thought that the existing precedents would have sufficed TBH!!

The original principles where those of fairness under the 1999 UTCCR - this is what the case was about, to see if the UTCCR applied, and then if so, the OFT would have 'juristiction'. If that fails, the OFT plan to appeal on the grounds of penalties v liquidated damages - hence the change of the wording in some of the contracts in an attempt to 'cloak a penalty'. You'd hope that such an old trick wouldn't get past a judge wouldn't you?

...also, it's really only been the last 2 years since this started - I believe there were a handfull of cases over the last 5 - but the two that I know of conceded to confidentiality clauses.

Nathan_Spleen

Smasher wrote: »

I still don't trust the OFT to "act in our interests" after all, they wouldn't even listen to consumers and made damn sure that no campaigners or any of those affected had a got an opportunity to air their views & concerns..

Firstly, they claim that the test case was prompted by the overwhelming number of claims against banks for bank charges believed to be penalties. So, why didn't they test any of those cases? Isn't that what a "test case" is?

The OFT test case pretty much has nothing to do with the vast majority of claims made to date, in that the principles in question are not the same.

If they really were serious, they could have rigorously compared the two in court (the original to cover our administration costs Vs Fees for a service). Surely the first thing to have done would be to address the legalities of all the thousands of cases over the last 3-5 years first. After all, it is those cases that the OFT say "prompted" this test case.
Once that was settled, then get on to the arguments over the new T&Cs and examine how or if the two are any different.. It still baffles me how services that were introduced only weeks ago can be part of the core terms of an account that was opened 10 years ago.

It is the failure to address and fully include the original principles and the flat refusal of the OFT to even listen to the concerns of those they are are supposed to be representing that still makes me suspicious of what the actual intention of this case is.

dchurch is absolutely right. Four consumer groups were consulted prior to the test case announcement including Which? and the NCC. There are disclosure rules that prevent consultation on commercial litigation with anyone other than 'designated' consumer groups. Also, the OFT invited anyone to submit evidence for their PCA investigation. Did you?

The OFT did exactly the right thing in addressing future charges first. What's more important? The next few centuries or the last six years? Think about it.

dchurch24

I must say though, that I did supply evidence and sadly, all I received back was a pre-written email telling me when the case was due to start and what it was about.

I know what it was about, I started the whole bloody thing off in the first place!!!!

I was trying to get them to investigate the Wages act with regards to the banks claiming that if they lost the case, that they would have to recoup the money elsewhere - and the legalities of doing so.

Smasher

dchurch24 wrote: »

Well, they did consult Which! and a few others first.

The case needed to be heard in a higher court than the county courts so as to create a precedent. Although, I would have thought that the existing precedents would have sufficed TBH!!

The original principles where those of fairness under the 1999 UTCCR - this is what the case was about, to see if the UTCCR applied, and then if so, the OFT would have 'juristiction'. If that fails, the OFT plan to appeal on the grounds of penalties v liquidated damages - hence the change of the wording in some of the contracts in an attempt to 'cloak a penalty'. You'd hope that such an old trick wouldn't get past a judge wouldn't you?

...also, it's really only been the last 2 years since this started - I believe there were a handfull of cases over the last 5 - but the two that I know of conceded to confidentiality clauses.

Which? are a business, I was talking more along the lines of the consumer action group & other such groups. There is a huge amount of information there & I'm sure they & other campaigners would have liked the opportunity to at least be heard.

I agree entirely that existing precedents should be sufficient. Indeed this is precisely why banks refused to challenge a claim in court. Why do the OFT want juristiction? So they can slap on a £12 threshold of intervention like they did with credit cards & pat themselves on the back for a problem solved?
Surely it wouldn't have been long before the courts picked out a test case (a real test case) and I dare suggest it would have been over & done with rather quickly..
Whatever happens, I hope that there is a proper & thorough examination of the original T&Cs and comparison with the new 'disguised penalties' T&Cs to get a ruling on what is blindingly obvious to everyone, yet is being granted credibility (for now at least). Its crazy that such a pathetic argument is what currently denies consumers a right to justice.

As you said "You'd hope that such an old trick wouldn't get past a judge wouldn't you?" Agreed, which I guess is why Lloyds continued to settle claims despite using this 'fee for a service' crap for quite a while prior to the mass T&C changes by the other banks, even after they got lucky & one particular judge fell for it..

This whole thing actually started in 1994 see this link:
http://stevewhiting.co.uk/fairbanking.aspx
But yes you're right, only really since 2005/2006 did it really start to take off!

Nathan_Spleen

Smasher wrote: »

Which? are a business, I was talking more along the lines of the consumer action group & other such groups. There is a huge amount of information there & I'm sure they & other campaigners would have liked the opportunity to at least be heard.

I agree entirely that existing precedents should be sufficient. Indeed this is precisely why banks refused to challenge a claim in court. Why do the OFT want juristiction? So they can slap on a £12 threshold of intervention like they did with credit cards & pat themselves on the back for a problem solved?
Surely it wouldn't have been long before the courts picked out a test case (a real test case) and I dare suggest it would have been over & done with rather quickly..
Whatever happens, I hope that there is a proper & thorough examination of the original T&Cs and comparison with the new 'disguised penalties' T&Cs to get a ruling on what is blindingly obvious to everyone, yet is being granted credibility (for now at least). Its crazy that such a pathetic argument is what currently denies consumers a right to justice.

As you said "You'd hope that such an old trick wouldn't get past a judge wouldn't you?" Agreed, which I guess is why Lloyds continued to settle claims despite using this 'fee for a service' crap for quite a while prior to the mass T&C changes by the other banks, even after they got lucky & one particular judge fell for it..

This whole thing actually started in 1994 see this link:
http://stevewhiting.co.uk/fairbanking.aspx
But yes you're right, only really since 2005/2006 did it really start to take off!

This site is a business. CAG and others like it are not consumer groups, let alone designated consumer groups. They are self help websites, they have no status as such. And if they hadn't made the fatal and naive error of protesting outside the OFTs offices, they may have had a meaningful working relationship with them. Would you consult with a bunch of placard waiving
protesters demanding to be let in to your office?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDP5mcBW-MA

Smasher

Yes Nathan I've seen the video, it was a long time ago. No, of course the OFT weren't going to let them in, but given that there are so many of these self help websites dedicated to this particular issue, you might think that given the enormous amount of information & issues being tackled there, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who now members of them, the OFT might have lent them an ear. After all, these are the very people they are representing.