Meeting with OFT

I_Perseus

I would hope that on such an important issue, an update/release might be forthcoming soon???

brownbabygirl

LOL we are so impatient :-D. I am sure he will get in touch pretty soon

BigBudgie

PLEASE CAN WE HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION REGARDING THIS THREAD.

DID MARTIN LEWIS ACTUALLY MEET WITH THE OFT LAST WEEK.

IF HE DID THEN WHY HAVENT WE BEEN UPDATED ?

IF HE DIDN'T THEN COULD THE ORIGINAL POSTER PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY ?

Regards Budgie

MSE_Martin

Hi folks.

It's in this weeks email - so I'd assumed you'd all see it there - that's where I communcate such things. I've also updated the emergency article wit hthe new info

Martin

techspec

So you wern't kidnapped by the OFT and put in a vault at Barclays.

You can't believe owt you read in the papers these days.

BigBudgie

Here's what Martin put in his email newsletter

Bank Charges Court Date Announced: 14 Jan. Plus clarity over credit card reclaiming?
Last week I met with the Office of Fair Trading to discuss Bank Charges and learnt the test case is scheduled for 14 Jan and should take around 10 days. It'll only decide whether 'unfair contractual terms' rules can apply to bank charges; after that OFT must decide if they are unfair. At that point it'll return to the banks who'll either concede or it'll go back to court. While there, I strongly requested it clarify that the test case and ‘stay’ on reclaiming only applies to bank charges; outrageously some courts are incorrectly blocking credit card cases too. Full briefing in the Updated Article: Bank Charges OFT Details Related Articles: Bank Charges Reclaiming, Mortgage Fee Reclaiming, No. 10 Petition Coming Soon: Full standalone credit card reclaiming article.


Sorry Martin, thanks for your reply, but I was rather hoping for a bit more information than you have included in the weekly email and I can't really see very much by way of an update to the Emergency article. I suppose I was really hoping to see some answers to some of the interesting questions posted by other Claimers in this thread. Smasher's in particular is screaming out to be answered.

The Test case, scheduled to start on 14th January 2007, WILL actually cover more issues than just whether a test of fairness according to terms detailed in the UTCCR 1999 applies to Bank Charges. From the agreement made between the OFT and the group of eight involved in the test case it is clear that the Banks will be submitting their own or a collective Defence and Counterclaim to the OFT's Particulars of Claim by tomorrow ( 28th September ). The Banks will not just be arguing against the relevance of UTCCR 1999 they will also be arguing that their charges provide for payment of remuneration for services supplied by the banks, in exchange, rather than payment of a sum by the customer for breach of a contractural duty owed to the Banks and are therefore not capable of amounting to penalty at common law. We will obviously need to see the various individual or collective defences and counterclaim's to see exactly what is written in the issued versions.

Your comments would be much appreciated.

Budgie

Norfolk_Shot

Were any of the questions from this thread used? As i thought that's what this thread was set up for ?

Or were the OFT just as evasive as they have been all through this saga?

Nathan_Spleen

I have to say that Martins 'report' on the meeting told us absolutely nothing
we didn't already know and seems like an opportunity missed to me

MSE_Martin

Hi folks

Sorry you feel the meeting was a waste. I didnt myself. Not so much for what we learned but more for what it gave the opportunity to say to the people deciding

This was primarily a journalists breifing not a campaigners one - but I pushed the issue as far as possible.

1. The problem with credit card cases
2. That they must address the issue of retrospectivity on the decision - they argued that the case was current charges - and I reiterated strongly that this is about reclaiming and ignore that and it will be a farce
3. That this should not be a carve up with the banks - the OFT are 'joining' this campaign not leading it

Yes there was obfuscation - much of it I was often told "that's not us, that's the FSA", or "that between us and the banks as its commercially sensitive" yet this is to be expected.

As regards the questions on the forum. Yes they were asked - but as expected they weren't forthcoming. Discussion of the waiver was fruitless and I didnt push it.

Sadly while the OFT is there to represent consumers views it doesn't actually have to listen to them and I had a number of heated discussions as part of this. Having said that the hope is we're working on the same side.

As for information outflow, there wasn't that much too new, regards the penalties issue - the OFT says that it doesn't believe thats a main issue and it isn't primarily within its powers. In some ways this isn't a bad thing - it means the Fighting Fund can continue to focus on it and we don't have to rely on the OFTS judgements on it.

So I dont think it was a wasted meeting at all - but its important to understand it wasn't "the OFT answers at the consumer campaigners court" it was a two sided information meeting. If they answered to us it might be different, but they don't and opening the doors to communication is a very important start to all this.

Martin

Norfolk_Shot

Martin,

Thanks for the more indepth explanation, unfortunately at the moment all i can see is that the OFT getting involved has only helped the Banks and caused an obstruction to us the consumers....

The banks were paying up before the OFT got involved...

All i can say is keep fighting for us....at the moment it's a hard slog for us but we do appreciate the work you do and the advice you give.