Bank Charges Charter/Petition Discussion

TANZARELLI

Well put Perseus couldn't agree more.

Dragonlady_2

maccy_d wrote: »

Hi,

I have been going through this process since February this year when I requested my bank statements. I have come up against a brick wall every step of the way, Abbey owes me over £2000 in charges but yet keep telling me that the charges were lawful and that they do not have to repay me. I am now at the point of taking them to court and have just written to the Banking Ombudsman in a last ditch attempt to get my money back when BAM! Bank Charges Test Case and everything gets put on hold. Abbey send me a letter referring me to the Ombudsman and the Banking Ombudsman says they cant help now due to this case...

What do I do now? do I go ahead and send the court letter to the bank and get put in the holding system? do I wait and see what the High Court has to say? or do I just give up?

:mad:

Maccy,

I would still go through the process of the reclaiming, get it registered with the bank and with the Court. Of course if it is hardship you can apply for a the waiver to be lifted.

You definitely do NOT give up.

TANZARELLI

Dragonlady wrote: »

Martin,

Section 85 is very interesting and every credit company is breach of the Section of the Act. If they think the bank charges opened the floodgates wait until this one hits full force. People are getting all their interest back because of non-compliance. This is not the place for this discussion. If anyone is interested, you can come and have look and see what is happening.

Well put also DL, lets hope the CCA thread over on CCS doesn't get as big, what is the page count on the CAG one currently 434?

Dragonlady_2

I will try to keep it pruned to size Tanzarelli.

I am a moderator and administrator of CCS. I had better admit it here, also one of the founding members of the site.

www.consumercreditsupport.co.uk

TANZARELLI

Lol Dl..........

natweststaffmember

Martin, there are a lot of charters around and so my question is really what is the aim of a consumer charter. Is it just something for the consumer to do while the OFT and the banks have their soiree, or is it part of a wider context because words are just that. I guess I am asking what is the charter aiming to do? Is it something aimed at lobbying, as the banks seem to have their own lobbyists who have made an impact on things such as CCA bill 2006. Is this about lobbying?

TANZARELLI

Natty that is a question I would also like to know the answer too. Who will see it?

Calculator

Just subscribingThread Tools don't work properly

Tools

Martin , I am afraid I have to echo the thoughts of many of the members posting on here . I appreciate you trying to retake control of the matter and suggest a `fair` compromise but that is all it is , a compromise .

I began my reclaiming the Yorkshire Bank and have been successful on two accounts dating back 6 years . I began on CAG but have now moved on to other groups (as many have for various reasons) and I am currently a Team Leader on www.legalbeagles.info .


The results of the OFT test case should not be suggesting a `fair maximum limit` , it should be forcing the banks to disclose their true costs .

The proof I have seen regarding how calculations are made for Yorkshire Bank (i.e. CYNthesys) proves that at least one of the banks involved in the test case already knows what amounts are proportionate but still act unlawfully by profiting from penalties . The petition should be asking for the courts to order disclosure , not suggesting a `fair maximum limit of £5`. The law is the law if it is disproportionate in favour of the bank then it is unlawful . If the courts ignore this and do actually take heed of the petition then it makes a mockery of what everyone has been fighting for DISCLOSURE OF TRUE COSTS . As also suggested the limitation of 6 years should also be looked at as well as fraudulent concealment , even the Master of Rolls himself Sir Anthony Clarke has made comment regarding fraudulent concealment

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/speeches/2006/sp270406.htm

I also feel that a stay on charges by the banks is a bad idea unless once the test case is over the banks are going to write these off . Imagine the test case , for example , drags on for a year . Throughout this time people are slowly but surely accumulating charges , when the test case is finally decided , what then?? Do the banks suddenly say `never mind we will let you off ` I very much doubt it . People will be forced into even more debt possibly taking out loans they cannot afford , which if secured , coud lose them their homes . BAD BAD IDEA.

This test case should be testing those cases put to the FSA and FOS but individual litigation should be allowed to continue THAT is what you should be lobbying for not some limp half hearted compromise of £5.

May i also say that sites such as the FREE Legal Beagles self help forum were not offered the invitation of input because Consumer Action Group have personal differences with the Team/Members and have taken it upon themselves to deem it as a profit making organisation , when in fact they are doing the same as( and if you speak to Stephen Hone himself ) and have good relations with penalty charges forum as well as consumer credit support forum.

Thank you for the opportunity to add my views .

Dragonlady_2

Excellent post Tools. You have stated what we all are trying to accomplish DISCLOSURE OF TRUE COSTS. We have the figures from the Yorkshire Bank and surmise the costs are similar for all banks. £5.00 is appeasement and in twelve months is will creep to £7.00 and then escalter from there and we will back hwere we started, sanctioned by our own complicity and all the agony we have experienced will have been for nothing.