Meeting with OFT

TANZARELLI

What was the response to the charter (not that I sign up to it anyway)?

Also was the question that was asked by others asked re hardship clarification?

TANZARELLI

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

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

Deaf ears?:rolleyes:

BigBudgie

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the more detailed response. I apologise for the tone of my earlier posts. I was mistakenly under the impression from the original post on this thread that your meeting with the OFT might have been more of a 'one on one' meeting.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

I have made a few comments and notes regarding your update.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

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.<O:p</O:p
I cannot understand how or why the OFT can be arguing that the test case was for current charges only. Please refer to the agreement between the OFT and the Banks ( dated 25th July 2007 section F ). This makes it quite clear that the test case proceedings were commenced to ensure that matters relating to current and HISTORIC and intended Relevant Terms and Relevant Charges are brought before the Courts. This obviously needs to be pointed out again to the OFT as they appear to have forgotten what they have written in their own agreement.<O:p</O:p

3. That this should not be a carve up with the banks - the OFT are 'joining' this campaign not leading it.<O:p</O:p
Sadly, backpedaling from the OFT as evidenced in the recent BBC news article ( referred to in Smasher's post above ) and the ongoing restructuring of the Banks terms ( fee for a service etc etc ) and the ongoing modification of charging structures tends to support your statement regarding a carve up. Somehow we need to demonstrate that WE the innocent Customers who were quite happily pursuing our own claims in this matter and who have now been relegated to BYSTANDERS will not tolerate the issues being brushed under the carpet. "Demonstrate" is maybe the wrong word, maybe "Demonstration" is perhaps more suitable. How about a Demonstration, 14th January 2008, you know where?
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

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. Totally agree! It will be interesting to see what develops over the next few days now we have reached the deadline for the FSA review of the 'waiver' and the deadline for the Banks submission of defence and counterclaim. I suspect we will see "buck passing" as we have never seen before.

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 didn’t push it. This is very disappointing; many of the questions raised in this thread were sensible, honest questions that deserve a response. Yesterday, I personally emailed the OFT with several questions of my own and also requested a meeting with representatives of the OFT directly involved with the test case to make them aware of my own individual circumstances. My own claim was stayed in my local County Court on Wednesday, despite my arguing against a stay on every single possible contention point. The main reason that the Judge would not allow my claim to proceed under normal Court procedures was that the first available final hearing date would be very early in January and so close to the Test case hearing that he felt it would be "prudent" to await the "initial Judgment" in the test case before reviewing matters. I felt that I argued fairly well against the stay request, mainly on legal points, however a few others actually argued against a stay on hardship grounds, some of them very severe hardship, but the Judge was totally unsympathetic, again stating that the earliest possible final hearing date was so close to the test case hearing that he just didn’t see the point. Probably 50 odd claims were stayed in this manner. Many Claimants present just didn’t bother arguing against the stay requests.

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. True, but the sad thing is that whereas the Customer's don’t have a choice the OFT do, they could have consulted representatives of the various action groups before commencing proceedings but chose not to do so. They could still consult the various action groups NOW, or certainly before the test case but appear to be rejecting the opportunity. Surely if we are supposed to be working on the same side they would want to ensure that they had at least heard what the actual people suffering from these ridiculous charging regimes had to say for themselves.

on outflow, there wasn't that much too new, regards the penalties issue - the OFT says that it doesn't believe that’s 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 judgments on it. Again, 25th July agreement between the OFT and the Banks clearly states that the banks will be seeking ( via their defence and counterclaim ) that their terms and charges are not capable of amounting to a penalty at common law. The very real danger is that the OFT will somehow manage to !!!! things up, lose the test case and we all end up not being able to recommence our stayed claims under common law principals either.<O:p</O:p

Best Regards Budgie<O:p</O:p

Nathan_Spleen

Thank you Martin for giving us a better insight into the meeting.

With regard to BigBudgie's post, we have to remember a couple of things:

The OFT had no influence whatsoever over the FSA's granting of the waiver. I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act in which the OFT stated that not only were they not consulted about the waiver, they were not given any reasons why the FSA introduced it. The OFT have no juristiction over the waiver.

There were legal reasons why we were not consulted during the discussions leading up to the agreement of the test case. The main one being the risk of information getting into the public domain that could influence share prices. This is why the test case was announced minutes after the stock market closed.

The OFT and the FSA ''don’t have the powers under the unfair contract terms to instigate a past business review'' meaning that there is no mechanism to automaticaly refund past charges.

Norfolk_Shot

Going back to the piece about the Test Case being about Current Charges, if that's the case why the hell are our claims being stayed when we are trying to get charges back from up to 6 years ago?

Either the Banks are misleading the Courts, the Courts don't fully understand the Test Case or the Banks and Judiciary in the country have done a cosy little deal.

MSE_Martin

Hi folks,

I think it is important to remember that with regards

1. The waiver
2. The requested Court stay

This is the FSA not the OFT (and hence why I didnt push it). The OFT meeting actually went better than I expected and opened up a channel of communication. To clarify when I say it was a press meeting - it was a one-on-one briefing - but as a member of the press not as a campaigner; so while I ensured the agenda crossed over; its important to remember how far I go.

Past campaigners in there have actually been escorted from the building so I'm told (thats not a negative for them; in many ways I applaud on the back of the stories I've heard) yet for me opening up a helpful constructive dialogue was actually the right way to go for a first meeting.

Martin

PS I agree with most of the points above.

lindilou39

Martin...did you broach the fact that the OFT have said..if the banks reduce the charges to a reasonable and agreed amount there may be no test case :rolleyes: ...and also that the FOS has agreed not to press further about the unlawfulness of charges and the fact that they have allowed the banks to take details of every complaint made to the FOS and pay these complainants in full??

techspec

I have asked the OFT, FSA & FOS for proof that credit cards are not included, so that i can send it to my court. I even asked for them to put something on their website. They have so far declined to respond. I spoke to the FOS, and they said it is not their jobs to correct the courts.

So i have to wait at least 5 months for my Barclaycard claim to proceed, despite being just weeks away from the point where they normally pay out, and despite NEITHER side asking for the stay.

Thats good old Bristish Justice at its best.

lindilou39

no tech...you are asking the wrong body..you need to address the court with this not the FSA FOS or OFT...you need to put it in writing to the court that you are not claiming bank penalty charges but credit card charges...The other bodies are right in saying they have no jurisdiction under court law..

Nathan_Spleen

techspec wrote: »

I have asked the OFT, FSA & FOS for proof that credit cards are not included, so that i can send it to my court. I even asked for them to put something on their website. They have so far declined to respond. I spoke to the FOS, and they said it is not their jobs to correct the courts.

hats good old Bristish Justice at its best.

The OFT are actively considering making a clarification that the test case
only applies to bank charges and not credit card charges.