OFT Test Case on Bank Charges ......from House of Lords to Supreme Court

[righty]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Aren't the banks playing with fire by suggesting the Competition Commission be involved. They do realize do they not that being part of a cartel, as I suggest they clearly are, is not only unlawful it's illegal & can if found guilty result in terms of imprisonment for those involved .......... second thoughts lets encourage them:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[tomterm8]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Maybe it is time for us to complain... to the competition commission

Does anyone know how to do it?

[enaid]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Google does lol

Competition Commission - Complaints Procedure

[natweststaffmember]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I think you will find that only designated consumer groups can make super complaints to the OFT who are the body that can refer it to the competition commission

EDIT below
"Our inquiries are always initiated following a concern referred to us by another authority: usually the Office of Fair Trading. We also investigate issues referred to us by the sector regulators for communications, gas and electricity, water, rail, airports, postal services, or by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Click here for further detail on sources of our investigations; we cannot investigate companies or markets without a referral from one of these bodies."
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
What the Competition Commission investigates
Sources and whatsamythingymebob....that one!!

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

MR SUMPTION
18 The basic problem which the OFT's argument presents
19 for the banks, and the reason why this is such an
20 important case, is that if the charging structure is
21 assessable for fairness, then the risk to which the
22 banks are exposed is that one of two things may happen:
23 either charges comprising a large proportion of the
24 revenue stream generated by personal current accounts
25 will be held to have been unenforceable against the
18
1 consumer, ever since the directive came into force in
2 the United Kingdom, or else it will be held that, since
3 the unenforceability of these terms would unbalance the
4 whole interlocking contractual scheme of mutual rights
5 and obligations involved in a personal current account
6 contract, it follows that the proviso to article 6 of
7 the directive applies and all personal current account
8 contracts issued by High Street banks will be held to
9 have been unenforceable in toto since the directive came
10 into force in the United Kingdom.
11 In either case, the financial consequences of that,
12 operating retrospectively back to the limitation period,
13 are appalling. One must expect an avalanche of
14 restitution claims, the prospect of lengthy and
15 contentious litigation and, indeed, obviously a review
16 of the pricing model in which it is possible, but, on
17 the whole, rather unlikely, that "free-if-in-credit"
18 banking will survive.

[showergirl]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

According to the listings guy we'll know on Wednesday if judgment will be handed down before the summer recess which starts 30 July.

What time will we know if judment will be handed down

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Ah ha. For Judge Mental.

Those charges will necessarily exceed by a large margin the costs to the bank of dealing with the particular transactions that occasion them, because they are actually a revenue stream essential to the funding of the whole current account operation and not just the particular transactions on current accounts which give
rise to their charging.

[righty]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Ah ha. For Judge Mental.

At last an unequivocal admission that penalty charges are indeed an income stream intended to fund free banking for the better off & have absolutely no relation to their actual cost

As expected the banks are again using the Armageddon scenario in an attempt to frighten the Court

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

What time will we know if judment will be handed down

Just spoken to them - should know after 3pm.

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

The FSA have renewed the waiver for another 6 months

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/...2009/100.shtml




FSA grants new waiver to firms on complaints handling




FSA/PN/100/2009
22 July 2009
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has offered firms a new waiver from its complaints handling rules regarding unauthorised overdraft charges for up to six months.
The new waiver has been granted to those firms who signed up to the January 2009 waiver. These firms represent approximately 98% of the market.
The new waiver has been offered to firms because, although considerable progress had been made in the test case, it is not yet clear how firms should be responding to complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges so that customers are treated consistently and fairly.
Whilst the waiver is in place, signatories will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges within the time limits set out in the FSA's Dispute Resolution manual.
Dan Waters, director of retail policy and conduct risk at the FSA, said:"Although the test case is progressing well, we still do not have certainty on this complex issue. The FSA has reviewed the prevailing circumstances and decided to offer firms a new waiver for up to six months. Our objective continues to be facilitating a fair and consistent resolution of consumer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges."
The FSA will continue monitoring firms' compliance with the conditions of the waiver. In particular, monitoring will seek to ensure that firms have appropriate systems and procedures in place to identify customers who are in financial difficulty, and that those customers are treated sympathetically and positively.
The waiver could be revoked at any time if the FSA considers it no longer appropriate, for example, if it does not provide adequate consumer protection, or material progress is not being made in the test case, or a firm fails to comply with the conditions set out in the waiver.
NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The waivers are available on the FSA website.
2. The waivers contain some updates to previous versions including changes to acknowledge that the Banking Code is due to be replaced in November 2009, and a change to broaden the scope of the requirement that firms must apply to the FSA before making any changes to the level or structure of their unauthorised overdraft charges.
3. The FSA first granted a waiver for 12 months from its complaints handling rules regarding unauthorised overdraft charges in July 2007. This was followed by a new waiver with a duration of six months in July 2008 and a 6 month extension of this in January 2009.
4. The waiver means that while it is in operation, any bank or building society granted the waiver will not be required to handle this type of complaint within the time limits set out in the FSA rules. The county courts have 'stayed' cases referred to them and the Financial Ombudsman Service has adopted a similar approach.
5. The latest on the test case litigation can be found on Moneymadeclear.
6. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime.
7. The FSA aims to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets, help retail consumers achieve a fair deal and improve its business capability and effectiveness.

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

a nice shiny NEW waiver....lovely

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Nice adding of EXPECT and banking code 14 ref Hardship

(19) from the date of this direction, the firm must ensure a fair, consistent and intelligent filtering of new complaints in order to identify relevant charges complaints from complainants who claim to be in financial difficulty and then assess whether that claim is justified. For the purposes of this direction, a complainant is considered to be in financial difficulty when his income is insufficient to cover reasonable living expenses and meet financial commitments as they become due;
(20) the firm must ensure that the standards in section 14 of the Banking Code guidance for subscribers, March 2008 version (‘the Code’), for dealing with customers in financial difficulty are complied with in respect of relevant charges complaints, in so far as they are relevant, even if the firm is not a subscriber of the Code or the Code is subsequently revoked, replaced or otherwise is no longer applicable. As a minimum, the FSA expects the firm to take the steps described in Annex 2 of this direction in dealing with a customer who claims to be in financial difficulty, including making an assessment of financial difficulty;

'MUST meet' rather than 'may consider'



ooo and Nattie will like this

5.
If it becomes clear to the firm that the complainant needs specialist assistance, the complainant will be referred promptly to a specialist team that deals with customers in financial difficulties, if one exists. The firm will give a phone number on all communications that will put the customer in contact with a named person or a team dedicated to dealing with cases of financial difficulty.



shame para 15 is a MIGHT and MIGHT NOT would have liked to see that a MUST but can't have it all.

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

The number of complaints received by firms concerning the level, fairness or lawfulness of these charges under personal current account agreements (a “relevant charges complaint”) is large, as is the number of complaints and claims regarding these charges taken to the Ombudsman and to the courts.

currently 1,125,853 overdraft charge complaints on hold in the banks complaints systems entered since July 2007 .

of which

65,000 plus in the courts system.

37,000 have gone to the FOS since the first waiver was introduced.



As Nats asked - this is http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/handbook...07/2007_38.pdf as mentioned

[natweststaffmember]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

The financial hardship part of the waiver has not changed a single bit as you are now aware since I was comparing and mentioning to amethyst on MSN with regards to it.
And "MUST" was in the last waiver .

For any person demanding the FSA Waiver is ended with the House of Lords result then they will be sadly disappointed as it was affirmed what has been in the waiver already.

"(3) This variation direction ends on the earlier of:
(a)
26 July 2009; or
(b)
resolution of the test case. For this purpose, resolution occurs when judgment has been entered in relation to all issues in dispute in the test case (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any issues which the Court agrees should in future be introduced into the case by way of amendment or otherwise) and the resulting orders either cannot be the subject of appeal or have not been the subject of appeal in circumstances where the time for doing so has expired, or when proceedings are otherwise discontinued.
However, provisions of this direction that are expressed to continue beyond its termination continue in force in accordance with their terms."

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Swine Flu victims have nicked all the large mammal tranqs and I'm happy today so anythings good lol.

Good news in all respects in my view - this combined with the FOI stuff I got last week I feel much better about the FSA.