Left with overdraft after submitting claim

Tozer

Smasher wrote: »

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.

You said "in the extremely unlikely event that the OFT lose the case". I do not think it is extremely unlikely.

If the banks win, then it is UTTERLY different situation for all stayed cases and any future claims as there would be good law in place which the lower courts are bound to follow - that is why there is a test case. Unless the banks take a commercial view and settle (which would have nothing to do with the law) then claims will be rejected and struck out at Court. That is why caution until AFTER the test case is urged.

Smasher

Tozer wrote: »

You said "in the extremely unlikely event that the OFT lose the case". I do not think it is extremely unlikely.

Well thats just my opinion Vs your opinion. I base my opinion on the fact that banks have had such little confidence in their position that they've paid out hundreds of millions to hundreds of thousands of people so far to avoid a court hearing, and now they have finally been dragged there, they have feverishly tried to cook their T&Cs in an attempt to find a way to circumnavigate the law. On what do you base your opinion?

Tozer wrote: »

If the banks win, then it is UTTERLY different situation for all stayed cases

Thats a bif "if". Again, I based what I said on what has actually happened, not what I think might happen.:rolleyes:

Tozer

Smasher wrote: »

Well thats just my opinion Vs your opinion. I base my opinion on the fact that banks have had such little confidence in their position that they've paid out hundreds of millions to hundreds of thousands of people so far to avoid a court hearing, and now they have finally been dragged there, they have feverishly tried to cook their T&Cs in an attempt to find a way to circumnavigate the law. On what do you base your opinion?


Thats a bif "if". Again, I based what I said on what has actually happened, not what I think might happen.:rolleyes:

OK but frankly our opposing opinions don't mean a jot as it is down to a pretty eminent High Court Judge. Will you accept that if the banks win then the whole reclaiming saga is over?

Smasher

Of course I will, although I doubt campaigners will stop.

I just fail to see how it is possible that they could win without the either the OFT making a complete hash of their case or there being some other underhand reason for it.

For example, my bank introduced new services last october for "formal & informal overdraft requests". This new service is what the bank I use call part of their core terms. So a win for them will set a precedent that a company can introduce a new service at any time, send their customers a leaflet about it, start charging them for it and make them a part of their core terms. If this is allowed, I for one, will have no confidence in buying anything from a service provider again.

Secondly, as I said before. If I can simply reword my T&Cs to create a situation whereby my customers are never in breach of T&Cs, instead I "provide the service" of allowing them to operate their account outside the original agreed limits & charged them whopping fees for it, do you agree that this effectively legalises penalty charges on a technicality if this principle is accepted? All you gotta do is give em another name..

And if the banks win this one, what next? Which other existing laws can be circumnavigated with creative T&Cs to rip people off? Watch out for those floodgates!

Tozer

Bottom line is - if the case goes the bank's way, there has been a fair hearing and sadly thats the end of the stories.

Campaigners can pursue whatever means they wish. But the law would then be against them,

Smasher

Yes yes mate, and if the OFT win, the situation will be reversed. Thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious.
Care to answer my question?

Smasher wrote: »

If I can simply reword my T&Cs to create a situation whereby my customers are never in breach of T&Cs, instead I "provide the service" of allowing them to operate their account outside the original agreed limits & charged them whopping fees for it, do you agree that this effectively legalises penalty charges on a technicality if this principle is accepted?

Tozer

Smasher wrote: »

Yes yes mate, and if the OFT win, the situation will be reversed. Thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious.
Care to answer my question?

No I don't think you are right. Market forces won't allow it and I see no risk whatsoever.