OFT Test Case Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

[jax007]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

I'd certainly be happy with that anyway as even though we all know it doesn't cost the banks, say £12 (hopefully being decided!) i'ts in my mind a much fairer figure than the £35 fees they have been charging.

Well as far as I'm concerned £34 is 'fairer' than £35, but that still doesn't make it right or fair and it still doesn't reflect the true cost of the action. I don't think we're looking for 'fairer' here but 'fair and just' - to my mind there's a world of difference.

jax

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

I can see similar to the Barclays reserve system coming into play - with an £8 figure. Much fairer if people OPT OUT the darn thing.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

NO!!! NO!!!! NO!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is all I am saying.

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

lol you not happy tanz?

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

lol you not happy tanz?

I think Smithy has got this wrong. The penalty charges arguement was in my opinion strong and the OFT should appeal this most definately.

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Yes I think so too. i can, having read his judgement, see where he is coming from, completely and in many places I do agree with him. He is looking at the big picture not taking the literal meaning of the words. Which I do think is good and fair.

[Ladidi]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

I can see similar to the Barclays reserve system coming into play - with an £8 figure. Much fairer if people OPT OUT the darn thing.

Wish I could opt out of the damn thing, we hav e been hit nby over £100 in charges int eh this last month alone. It is all doing my head in with these charges. You call them to argue and they say, that is right we are entitled to charge you for clearing a payment which was done via your debit card. Isaid yes a payment that was already taken out of my available balance meaning it has already gone so what are you guaranteeing, she said payment to who you authrosied. Be cheaper to deal in cash and forget debits transactions!!!

[righty]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

[quote=Ladidi;84219]Wish I could opt out of the damn thing, we hav e been hit nby over £100 in charges int eh this last month alone. It is all doing my head in with these charges. You call them to argue and they say, that is right we are entitled to charge you for clearing a payment which was done via your debit card. Isaid yes a payment that was already taken out of my available balance meaning it has already gone so what are you guaranteeing, she said payment to who you authrosied. Be cheaper to deal in cash and forget debits transactions!!![/quot

Don't despair.

It may seem the banks have the upper hand at the moment but looking at what they have done by changing the T's&C's in order to disguise their charges they may have shot themselves in the foot & gone from the frying pan to the fire

The court has ruled that the UCCTR does apply & unless it's reversed on appeal (which I doubt) I think that by charging even more & in such a way as you describe they could find themselves refunding even more than had they let matters rest & continued to refund charges of those who claimed but I suppose their greed got the better of them .....again & they didn't like losing even relatively small sums

There is little doubt that many consumers will sooner rather than later challenge their new exorbitant system of creating revenue out of thin air

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Ladidi - you can call them and ask to opt out now. Then your transactions will be bounced and charged at £8. Unless they are guaranteed cheques (actually not sure what they charge for those going through though I believe it is still £8) Plus you will have a £15 buffer over your agreed standard overdraft.

[Ladidi]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Ladidi - you can call them and ask to opt out now. Then your transactions will be bounced and charged at £8. Unless they are guaranteed cheques (actually not sure what they charge for those going through though I believe it is still £8) Plus you will have a £15 buffer over your agreed standard overdraft.

Hiya Ame,

We already rang an asked about this opt out, apparently it all part of their new terms and conditions. Alsoo the so called buffer is none existence for us as we continually overdrawn. They told us quote" stop going over drawn and using your overdraft adn we will reconsider you once you are able to maintain this for 6 months"!!

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Have you asked them for a copy of the terms and conditions which state that you HAVE TO opt in to the personal reserve?

[Glenn UK]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

FWIW

If the courts rules that the charges fall within the UTCCR for historic and new then I do not see the difference between where we were with CC charges when this began.

We would write to our chosen lender asking for the money back, they said the OFT says £12 is fair and you can have the difference.

If, like me you dug your heels and and pointed out that the courts were the only ones who could define a fair price they paid in full.

I have not had a chance to read the judgement, but is there something thats been said that changes this?

It would seem perverse if the current charges were subject to UTCCR and the historic charges (which in abbeys case actually stated they were penalties) were not.

The only other issue that would need to be resolved would be whether the UTCCR was retrospective, i have charges listed in my claim back to 1997 or was it 1994? Not sure now but as penalties they would be reclaimable, not so sure about UTCCR though its a long time since IE looked.

Glenn

PS hello to one and all.

[EXC]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Hi Glenn

Justice Smith has indicated that historicals ARE subject to UTCCR but the declaration is yet to be handed down. Therefore, IMHO, there is a legal basis for the OFT to work on unlike the credit card fiasco. In theory UTCCR invalidates the terms (and as a result the charges) in their entirety. I assume that it would be subject to the six year limitation.

[Glenn UK]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Hmm, why would it be subject to the six year limitation?

Thats for claims founded in contract and if the claims is being bought under the UTCCR its not being bought under the contract in the same way as a penalty claim would be (I think?)

Oh and if you are claiming you made the payments under amistake then sec 32 1.c applies i think.

JMHO

glenn

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Yep I agree Glenn. Aslo that its taken a High Court Test Case to iron out the complexities so how could a Litigant in Person have been expected to know they had a right of action prior to this.