Left with overdraft after submitting claim

Smasher

Well yes, it could go round & round in circles.

What I would like to have seen examined is how these new fees & servcies differ in terms of cause & action to the old system whereby the bank claimed that the charges were to cover their admin costs. No different whatsoever I would venture to guess.
There should have been the question, yes or no, do banks profit from these services?
If they do, and the causes & actions are found to be no different than that of the old system, then it would follow that these written defences currently in the system that still claim charges are to cover costs are untruthful.

If these claims are stayed due to the test case, then they are relevant, yet they are being swept under the carpet.

borgbaiter

hi

if the OFT was serious about sorting this out it should have addressed it on all fronts common law UTCCR and supply of goods and services act.

it comes down to it has to be reasonable i.e. a profit element allowed or penalty and its purely cost.

case may have been many months longer but the result would be more meaningfull

cant see even at the end of this that the cases wont need to be seen in court. ok one element may be gone or not but the others remain


Borgbaiter

Tozer

borgbaiter wrote: »

hi

if there fees for services they are subject to the supply of goods and services act and are therefore subject to being reasonable. this would also be subject to the OFT ruling on reasonable so whats the difference. maybe the players all change sides and we play this game in court again next year?


Borgbaiter

Sorry thats not quite right. What the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 says is:

"Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge. "

If the price of services is agreed previously, then the price cannot later be challenged. The principle is an extension of the legal principle of quantum meruit which means that a supplier is paid for the value of the work performed.

Tozer

Smasher wrote: »

Sure there are no certainties in litigation, but the odds currently stand at around 500,000-1 in favour of the claimant, possibly higher. You only need to look at all the hundreds of claim management companies springing up all over the place offering "no win no fee" reclaim your bank charges services (not that I would ever recommend using one) to see how good your chances are if you claim. These people are many things, but they ain't stupid. If the odds weren't so overwhelmingly stacked in favour of the claimant, these companies would not be sprouting in such a prolific fashion

Interested to know where you got this from? I don't think there is any such odds or else an application for summary judgment would have been made by the OFT or the trial Judge would have struck out the defence as not having reasonable prospects of success.

I wouldn't hold much weight in the fact of no-win, no-fee providers. They are simply jumping on the bandwagon and it is the way that litigation in the UK is going. Its exactly the same in other forms of litigation (such as personal injury) and employment cases.

Smasher

Well you can get to that ballpark from people who use this site, CAG & Penaltycharges alone. Thats without counting the thousands of others who did it with help from other websites, email groups & friends. I suspect the figure is actually far higher.
Yes I know that the vast majority never actually got to a hearing, but the point I make is they got what they claimed for. The are 2 possible reasons for that: a) banks had no choice but to pay because they knew they would lose a court case or b) they really did believe it made better commercial sense to pay getting on for £1bn in settlements than to fork out to defend a case. :laugh:
I think most people who come to these sites know who that 1 person is who lost his case and that was only because he didn't have a clue what he was doing. The defendant bank didn't even turn up.

Yes, those "no win no fee" merchants are indeed jumping on the bandwagon. I would never recommend to use them, but the point I make about them is that they wouldn't jump on a bandwagon in such vast numbers & at such a rate if it weren't for the fact that almost everyone who made a claim, got what they were after..

Twon

Smasher wrote: »

...... but the odds currently stand at around 500,000-1 in favour of the claimant, possibly higher.

So a true MSE'er would use the Introductary Gambling bonus forum and then lay the odds with £2.

Heads I win my case and get my charges back and I get just short of £1m
Tails they lose and I get £1million which should help ease the pain.



Twon.

Tozer

Smasher wrote: »

Well you can get to that ballpark from people who use this site, CAG & Penaltycharges alone. Thats without counting the thousands of others who did it with help from other websites, email groups & friends. I suspect the figure is actually far higher.
Yes I know that the vast majority never actually got to a hearing, but the point I make is they got what they claimed for. The are 2 possible reasons for that: a) banks had no choice but to pay because they knew they would lose a court case or b) they really did believe it made better commercial sense to pay getting on for £1bn in settlements than to fork out to defend a case. :laugh:
I think most people who come to these sites know who that 1 person is who lost his case and that was only because he didn't have a clue what he was doing. The defendant bank didn't even turn up.

Yes, those "no win no fee" merchants are indeed jumping on the bandwagon. I would never recommend to use them, but the point I make about them is that they wouldn't jump on a bandwagon in such vast numbers & at such a rate if it weren't for the fact that almost everyone who made a claim, got what they were after..

Sorry, but I still don't get how you manage to work out odds of 500,000 - 1 that a High Court Judge will rule the way you want him to. Its pie in the sky.

At present it seems to be 50-50 - either the OFT win or the banks will win.

Tozer

Twon wrote: »

So a true MSE'er would use the Introductary Gambling bonus forum and then lay the odds with £2.

Heads I win my case and get my charges back and I get just short of £1m
Tails they lose and I get £1million which should help ease the pain.



Twon.

Inspired! :rotfl:

Twon

Tozer wrote: »

At present it seems to be 50-50 - either the OFT win or the banks will win.

This is mis-understanding Odds..

But I understand where you are coming from.

500,000-1 is a rediculous number. Otherwise the banks would suddenly be betting against themselves with insurance policies.

Which way will the case go?

My bet is that it will go in the banks favour for nothing other reason than I doubt the government (legal system) will allow the banks to be 'wrong'.

The only other option is that they get a 'slap on the wrist' but are advised that no charges can be reclaimed.

It could aways be a win for the little guy but how often does that happen? :rolleyes:

The judge could well be in a foul mood or the defence for the bank my be a lady with a lot of cleavage on show.

The Law is an !!!. Just remember that and everyone will do just fine!

Twon

Smasher

Oh come on guys, I will spell it out once more. This is plain English. Hell its not even joined up writing!

I never said these were the odds of the OFT winning the case against the banks, I am saying that these are roughly the odds of getting your money if you make a claim, possibly even better than that. So far, at least this amount of people have started the reclaiming procedure and have got their money.

Go & have a browse around these sites & see how many people claimed & got their money & then go & see how many claimed & failed to get their money. I think you'll find these odds are not not far off the mark.