Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

Edinburghlass_2

If you check the letter they sent you I think you will probably find they put a time limit on the offer they made you.

Chanina

If Im correct, the end date on the waiver that most of the banks signed is the 26/07/08. Martin said that he was approx expecting the judge to announce his decision sometime in August.

Does anyone know however, what will happen if a decision is not made until long after the 26th July. Will that mean that the previous rule of reclaiming will be open again and then theres the possiblity that Barclays will have to give me my reclaim money?
:think:

Nathan_Spleen

Chanina wrote: »

If Im correct, the end date on the waiver that most of the banks signed is the 26/07/08. Martin said that he was approx expecting the judge to announce his decision sometime in August.

Does anyone know however, what will happen if a decision is not made until long after the 26th July. Will that mean that the previous rule of reclaiming will be open again and then theres the possiblity that Barclays will have to give me my reclaim money?
:think:

In the event that judgement will be made beyond July the waiver will simply be extended. The waiver could be revoked after judgement and will be revoked if some stays are lifted.

---

Original Message

---

From: Nathan Spleen
To: Clive Briault Financial Services Authority
Sent: Sun Jan 20 12:26:35 2008
Subject: CC Stays & Waiver

Dear Mr Briault

During the second day of the OFT test case hearing Justice Andrew Smith made clear his intention to make a recommendation to the County Courts on the status of current stays on bank charge cases, once a judgement had been made on the outcome of the hearing.

He also made it clear that any recommendation would be made regardless of any appeal to his judgement being made.

If, in the event that the judgement is found in favour of the Office of Fair Trading and a recommendation to the County Courts results in the stays being lifted, is it the FSA's intention to revoke the complaints handling waiver?

I would be very grateful if you could take the trouble to reply in person. There are a large number of poor and disadvantaged families who feel their banks have ripped them off and then been afforded the luxury of the cosy shelter your waiver provides them.

I look forward to a prompt and concise reply

Regards
Nathan Spleen

---

Original Message

---

From: "Consumer Queries" <[EMAIL="Consumer.Queries&#64;fsa.gov.uk"]Consumer.Queries@fsa.gov.uk[/EMAIL]>
To: Nathan Spleen Sent:
Friday, February 01, 2008 5:27 PM
Subject: Ref ISS668672



Our Ref: .ISS00668672

Dear Mr Spleen


Thank you for your email of 20 January 2008 sent to Financial Services Authority (FSA) Managing Director of Retail Markets Clive Briault. This enquiry has been passed to the Consumer Contact Centre (CCC) which acts as point of contact for general written enquiries from consumers and other persons who are not firms regulated by the FSA.

Your Enquiry

I understand that you are interested in the current High Court test case between the Office of Fair Trading and several banks and one building society. Your email has asked:

'If, in the event that the judgement is found in favour of the Office of Fair Trading and a recommendation to the County Courts results in the stays being lifted, is it the FSA's intention to revoke the complaints handling waiver?'

FSA intentions

The FSA initially granted the Waiver (which allows the banks to put on hold their consideration of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges) for one year; it is due to expire on 26 July 2008. We will need to consider the position of the waiver in the light of the circumstances at the relevant time e.g. the outcome of the test case.

I hope that this has clarified the FSA's position on this matter.

Yours sincerely


A Franks (Mr)
Consumer Contact Centre
Financial Services Authority
Consumer Helpline: 0845 602 2185 (call rates may vary)
www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk
Get clear, impartial information from the UK's financial watchdog.
No selling. No jargon. Just the facts

---

Original Message

---

From Nathan Spleen
Date Sent: 10/02/2008 08:41:39
To: [EMAIL="Consumer.Queries&#64;fsa.gov.uk"]Consumer.Queries@fsa.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
Subject: RE: Ref ISS668672, ISS00678806

Dear Mr Franks

Thank you for your e-mail of 1 February.

Your answer ends ''I hope that this has clarified the FSA's position on this matter'' but of course it has done nothing of the sort. Your answer was predictably vague and uninformative. Please allow me to clarify my inquiry.

1) You say that the FSA will consider the position of the waiver on ''the outcome of the test case'' but are you referring to the judgement of the initial hearing that concluded last Friday (that deals with the preliminary issues) or on the outcome of the substantive issues yet to be heard?

2) If, on the outcome of the preliminary hearing, a significant number of stays are lifted, would the waiver be revoked?

3) Is it conditional that stays must remain in place for the waiver to remain in place?


Regards

Nathan Spleen

---

Original Message

---

From: "Consumer Queries" <[EMAIL="Consumer.Queries&#64;fsa.gov.uk"]Consumer.Queries@fsa.gov.uk[/EMAIL]>
To: Nathan Spleen
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: Ref ISS668672, ISS00678806



Our Ref: .ISS00678806

In order that we can deal with this matter as quickly as possible please do not delete the Subject line of this email when you reply. You can add further wording to it but please do not Remove "ISS00678806".

Dear Mr Spleen

Thank you for your email of 10 February 2008.

About your enquiry

Following our previous response, you have contacted the Financial Services Authority (FSA) with several further questions relating to the FSA's bank charges waiver. I have detailed your questions, and our responses below.

Your enquiries

1) "You say that the FSA will consider the position of the waiver on ''the outcome of the test case'' but are you referring to the judgement of the initial hearing that concluded last Friday (that deals with the preliminary issues) or on the outcome of the substantive issues yet to be heard?"

- I can confirm that the FSA will need to consider the position of the waiver in the light of the circumstances at the relevant time e.g. both the outcome of the preliminary hearing and subsequent outcomes.

2) "If, on the outcome of the preliminary hearing, a significant number of stays are lifted, would the waiver be revoked?"

The terms of the waiver included guidance that we intended to review the continued satisfaction of the criteria for giving the waiver two months after the date it was granted, and that in conducting this review we would have particular regard to several criteria including whether there was a stay of relevant proceedings in the courts of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in materially all cases. The waiver guidance also states that if we were no longer satisfied as to the above criteria at any time while the waiver remained in force, we would expect to revoke the waiver.

3) "Is it conditional that stays must remain in place for the waiver to remain in place?"

Please refer to the answer given in 2) above. For further information about the details of the waivers issued, you may wish to view this link - http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/direction_disp.pdf

Yours sincerely


A Franks (Mr)
Consumer Contact Centre
Financial Services Authority

nenecoghlan

Hi, I may seem to be quite dumb when I ask this question, but I really want to make sure I get my facts right. I tried to reclaim my charges back in July last year but Natwest said they were putting the claim on hold until the High Court hearing had gone through...I have read the above posts but it all seems a bit gobble-de-gook to me (I have got 2 children under the age of 2 so only have limited stimulation!!) - please can someone say in leyman's terms what is happening with the High Court case and does anyone know whether you can still push for claims to go through?
Many thanks, and I am sorry for being a pain!

natweststaffmember

the court case is over but the judge has not made up him mind who has won. When he does both the OFT and the Banks will not like it and ask another court to take a look at it and make another decision. That decision could either agree or disagree with the first judge. Once the highest court has heard the case which could take 2 years then what that judge at the top says is the one that will be used as law and the banks will make a decision at that moment in time.
I hope that is simplistic an explanation as possible even if the post may seem a little patronising(I hope its not).

gartshore

if the judge finds in favour off oft will the banks have to contact all customers or will we have to put in claims as at present .

krisskross

gartshore wrote: »

if the judge finds in favour off oft will the banks have to contact all customers or will we have to put in claims as at present .

I honestly think it is unlikely the banks will lose. If they had thought they would then they wouldn't have gone to court. As it is they are all busily changing their terms and conditions so this reclaiming malarkey won't happen again.

Plus of course anyone who is putting off trying to reclaim until after the court case is finalised will find loads of the charges they wanted to claim for statute barred as they will be too old.

I think the end result of a very expensive court case will be a sort of draw. There will still be charges for the financially imprudent, not so much as at present and called something different, but enough to satisfy the banks. Certainly it won't be the couple of quid per transgression that people have said it costs.

I also think it will be more difficult to get an authorised overdraft so there will be a bit more dosh to be made by the banks there, disguised as being in the customers best interests of course.

Smasher

krisskross wrote: »

I honestly think it is unlikely the banks will lose. If they had thought they would then they wouldn't have gone to court. As it is they are all busily changing their terms and conditions so this reclaiming malarkey won't happen again.

They had no choice. Despite the PR spin, they never decided to go to court, they were dragged there by the OFT. That is why they all hastily revised their T&Cs. They couldn't possibly have gone into court with the T&Cs as they were, the case would have been over before lunch on day 1..

I do believe that the judge will rule largely in favour of the OFT, despite their man tying himself up in knots at times. Any fool can see that all these bankers are doing is trying to disguise their penalty charges as a service. This judge is no fool, and I would hope he makes his ruling on common sense & what is blindingly obvious.

After that, I would also hope that they stays are immediately lifted. It would be grossly unfair if, having had stays imposed because there was no ruling, to have them remain once there is a ruling whilst the bankers appeal. That would completely contradict the principles & the reasons given for the stays which are imposed right now.

tadpole13

Hello,
I have been charged a coupleof hunderd pounds by HSBC in the last couple of mnths - s it worth trying toclaim them back as the moment. I ama bit confused as to whether to start now, or to wait untikl after the test case result.
Thanks

Smasher

This should explain tadpole.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=721985