Meeting with OFT

TANZARELLI

Also why does this whole case seem to be about the big boys club?

TANZARELLI

Why have the OFT got no balls to argue that the charges are penalties and that the banks have been deliberately concealing the nature of these penalties?

TANZARELLI

Why is the OFT not argueing that the limitations act should not apply to penalty charge claims because the banks have been deliberately cloaking/veiling the charges by changing T&Cs in a further attempt to conceal the nature of the charging regimes again proving concealment?<!-- / message -->

TANZARELLI

Why didn't the OFT stand up to and disagree with the waiver?

TANZARELLI

Why hasn't the OFT approached the courts to clarify why not all claims such as business, mortgage and creditcard claims should be stayed?

TANZARELLI

Is the reason for this test case purely a weak attempt by the OFT to try to make out it is doing something when in fact all it has done is cause more untold suffering for claimants who have been doing fine without their input?

Norfolk_Shot

Tell the OFT we'd all have been better off without them....Banks were settling before they got involved!!!

dk67

Urgent clarification of 'hardship cases' needed and an enforceable time limit on dealing with these claims.

For all those on very low incomes, who have invested money they can ill afford into the Court System - (£120 for the MCOL in my case plus £100 for the court cost) - will this be returned if and when the test case is complete?

Not only am I over £3k out of pocket due to these penalties, the fact that I seem to have 'lost' this money is gut wrenching!

Please Martin, ask what the FOS etc will be doing to assist in genuine hardship cases and those involving the theft of benefit payments by the banks

esmerellda

I would like to ask - Once the declaration has been made by the court that the UTCCR test of fairness is applicable to the banks charges, what timescales does the OFT undertake to apply the fairness test to the individual banks.

Smasher

See below. Would like to know why the complete U-turn by the OFT & if will they will now amend the 2006 report & say that disguised penalties are now perfectly ok? This is the clearest evidence that the OFT are NOT acting in the interests of consumers..

OFT_Report_2006 wrote:

Disguised penalties
4.21
The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default
fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of
default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made
should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge
where grounds of unfairness exist.12 (For example, a charge for 'agreeing
to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from
a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.) The
UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just
their mechanism.

OFT_Statement_in_BBC_news_report wrote:

Agreement

Intriguingly, the OFT revealed that it actually agrees with part of the banks' arguments.

They claim that their charges are not penalties, but are fees for a service - for running a current account while it is in the red.

"In most instances we would probably agree with the banks' arguments that these are not penalties as defined in common law," said Mr Elithorn.

But he insisted that the OFT still believes the charges are unfair - even if they are "fees for a service".

If we accept in principle that penalties are ok whether they are disguised or simply within an agreed limit, how soon before all goods & services have these extra "services" for which "fees" are applicable? and at what rate & how often would they increase?