Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

[StoneLaughter]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

If the house of lords refuse refuse permission for the banks to appeal, can the banks then go and petition the european court to allow an appeal in the european courts missing out the HoL ?

I don't believe so, no. IMHO If the HoL refuse leave to appeal, that is the end of the road - especially as the Court of Appeal has already considered European Law in their Judgement. If the Banks then continue their assertion that "they firmly believe the charges to be exempt from the test of fairness" they may well even be in Contempt. If the Courts then rule in favour of the OFT on Fairness, then the issue is resolved - there is no further option for the Banks but to accept the ruling.

[Bankstormer]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

You're clearly missing something.

Yes, all that was achieved yesterday is that the OFT was clearly marked out as the authority and CAN assess the charges for fairness.

However your assertion that the banks will now appeal this is flawed; the banks plan to APPLY FOR THE RIGHT to appeal to the House of Lords; in my view it is very likely that to preserve the Authority of the Appeals Court, that application will be denied. The banks have one month to make that application; so for one month we wait... and then the House have 8 weeks in which to reply. I doubt very much whether The House will make us wait that long - I believe the application if it ever goes in will be denied fairly quickly.

The OFT's assessment of whether the charges are fair should I believe be complete by now; but they are not likely to release their findings until the issue of whether they are the authority is finally decided. I believe their conclusions will be released as soon as the appeal questions are resolved - and the Courts will then be free to decide on the "Fairness" issue having examined the OFT's and the Banks' arguments.

The fact remains that they intend to make an application for appeal, even if it's only 4 weeks until it is denied (which is not a certainty), that's another 4 weeks we have been stalled for.

Once the OFT release their findings on fairness, the chnces of the banks accepting the findings are slim to none. This means further court hearings and probably further appeals - possibly another 12 months?

The courts have said that cases should remain on hold so as not to clog up the system, but the blockage can only get bigger as more claims are made and nothing is done!

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I doubt it as that would open the door to bypassing the UK judicial system.

BTY a Times article puts a figure £16m on legal fees for the test case. Not much when you consider some 'OAPs' could pay the lot from out their pension.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5811940.ece

[Amethyst]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

£16m is peanuts

The GUARDIAN today have said if the appeal if refused and the banks have to repay peeps they will be repaying some £20 billion.

Not sure where they get that figure from though - doesnt scan with the OFT PCA report figures for past 6 years charges, which we worked out at the time refunding everyone 6 years charges plus 8% stat interest would just about match ONE YEARS worth of bonuses to bank staff.

[Curlyben]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

That's ONE pension pot

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

We had a major victory yesterday and for some reason i'm more depressed than ever !!!

Seems that no matter what goes in our favour, the end of all this is never in sight. The goalposts are always being moved and thousands of us are expected to just sit back and take it! What the hell is going on.

It's taken us 19 months to have the point cleared up that bank account charges can be assesed for fairness. Even this point looks like it is going to be appealed, but as the BBA statement suggests - we have yet to establish wether they are fair or not. Are we back at square one or am i missing something.

I am soooo angry i think my head is going to explode.

How long is it going to be before we see any money!

Well this is my understanding of yesterday's judgment and 'note'. Though I stand to be corrected.

The test case has essentially split into 2 sections now.

Firstly, the court stays on historical terms will be lifted once the OFT have given their decision that the charges are unfair which they say will be ''later on this year''. Of course they cannot do this until either the House of Lords has rejected the banks application to appeal on whether the OFT have the right to make the unfairness call, or if the HoLs grants the banks leave to appeal and lose. But I'd imagine that either scenario would conclude this year.

The reason for stays being lifted is that regardless of the issue of fairness itself being legally challenged by the banks in the courts, there would be enough legal clarity to progress the stayed cases.

I would imagine this would only apply to COURT cases and not automatically to claims only with the banks. Having said that the waiver is conditional to the court stays holding.

Secondly, when current (and future) charges are deemed unfair by the OFT the banks will challenge that decision in the courts.

I learnt a bit more yesterday on why the OFT are taking so long in declaring the charges as unfair and this is because it's not a just a simple process of saying ''right they're all unfair'' but they legally have to give detailed reasons of why each and every Term for all of the banks past and present are unfair and HOW unfair each of them are. It is the TERMS as well as the charges that are the subject of the test of fairness..

[ROBSTER]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Yes they did make £2.6 bn in 2006 making 15.6Bn over a six year period but they also made £4.6 bilion in interest on PCAs how much of that will have to be returned as a result of (wrongful?) application of these charges. Given that you would not be getting the charges unless your account was "exceeding its limit", it is safe to assume that a lot of these charges have also attracted interest at the banks marginal (unarranged overdraft) rate.

Chuck in a bit of statutory interest (and don’t forget court costs returned to claimants, I dont even want to think what the legal fees are for the banks!!!) I would be struggling to keep the figure as low as £32Bn in terms of what it is worth to the banks.

So in delaying by 1 day banks are "saving" refunds for this day 6 years ago (because come tomorrow they will not send you details of the charges for 27/02/2003) which is?

£32,000,000,000/2192(days in six years)=£14.6 Million a day (every day)

so a one day delay will pay the legal bill for the whole gig.

Don't kid your selves the Banks are "laughing all the way to the bank" on this one.

We (on sites such as this) all know better but there are people out there who have not "staked their claim" and the banks are opening another £14.6m door on their advent callender (which finishes on 26February 2012) every day if banks are to be truly held to account for their wrong doings its those people we need to get motivated.:beagle:

[Budgie]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

So in delaying by 1 day banks are "saving" refunds for this day 6 years ago (because come tomorrow they will not send you details of the charges for 27/02/2003) which is?

£32,000,000,000/2192(days in six years)=£14.6 Million a day (every day)

so a one day delay will pay the legal bill for the whole gig.

Don't kid your selves the Banks are "laughing all the way to the bank" on this one.

We (on sites such as this) all know better but there are people out there who have not "staked their claim" and the banks are opening another £14.6m door on their advent callender (which finishes on 26February 2012) every day if banks are to be truly held to account for their wrong doings its those people we need to get motivated.:beagle:

There are two scenarios to take into account here.

1) As stated in the waiver, time has effectively stopped as far as the reclaiming process is concerned whilst the test case is underway. So if it eventually turns out that we are only able to claim back 6 years of charges then that six year period does not include the time that has passed whilst the test case has been going on.

2) The Limitation Act S32 is applicable in which case there is no time barring to bank charges claims. As I suggested in an earlier post when sending off your SAR make sure that you specify that you wish to receive ALL DATA relating to your account ( from the date it was opened ) and if they only send you the last six years worth then keep on at them until they either send you the complete data or provide you with a written statement that older records have been destroyed. IMO All claimers should claim back every single default charge that has ever been applied to their accounts, whether they are 1 day, 1 month, 1 year, 6 years, 10 years or 20 years ago. I also strongly recommend the claiming of compensatory interest on those charges right from the outset, at the preliminary and LBA letter stage.

[ROBSTER]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

There are two scenarios to take into account here.

1) As stated in the waiver, time has effectively stopped as far as the reclaiming process is concerned whilst the test case is underway. So if it eventually turns out that we are only able to claim back 6 years of charges then that six year period does not include the time that has passed whilst the test case has been going on.

Exactly but what I fear has been missed is the Data protection issue and the Bank's will "routinely destroy the data "in order to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act". (I can probably write the template letter issued by the FSA who offer such guidance to our good friends in the banks).

2) The Limitation Act S32 is applicable in which case there is no time barring to bank charges claims. As I suggested in an earlier post when sending off your SAR make sure that you specify that you wish to receive ALL DATA* relating to your account (from the date it was opened) and if they only send you the last six years worth then keep on at them until they either send you the complete data or provide you with a written statement that older records have been destroyed. IMO All claimers should claim back every single default charge that has ever been applied to their accounts, whether they are 1 day, 1 month, 1 year, 6 years, 10 years or 20 years ago. I also strongly recommend the claiming of compensatory interest on those charges right from the outset, at the preliminary and LBA letter stage.

*Where it exists, if I were a bank the shredder would be going day & night.

You are right of course, where the data does exist they have to supply it on request (and I have suspicions that they still have transaction records archived to the year dot) May be a banker could confirm this?

:tinysmile_twink_t2:

On the other hand should we trust the banks to do the right thing and be honest with their customers?

[righty]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Nattie I stand by my comment. In fact not only do I think they have no shame they also have no sense. It's only through their greed & intransigence that they find themselves in this position & the longer this goes on the more chance there is that consumers will find many other additional ways to defeat them.

A sensible General who is losing the war knows when to make a tactical retreat with some dignity & lives to fight another day. In other words by admitting defeat restores some faith in the eyes of the consumer for those running them............ and just as important consumers will stop looking for other ways to get their money back
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
To add to my post & comment that the banks are stoopid. If they could see beyond their fat salaries (& pensions) they would have considered the foolishness of their taking this matter before the courts.

If the Judgment is upheld or they are refused leave to appeal, as appears likely, they will have set a dangerous precedent not just for them but every other firm, in that charges, no matter how incurred, will be subject to the scrutiny of the OFT. In other words we could find, as the case of cards, the level of charge set by the OFT enshrined in law

[Glenn UK]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

If this is the case, which I know it is, can someone explain why this argument was part of the test case when a precedent had already been set in the HoL?

Or have I missed the point, so to speak?

jax

The problem for the banks is that if they accept the OFT's position or lose the litigation then they open the door for the OFT to question ALL of their charges something I doubt they want at all
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


I agree s32 will play a much larger part in future litigation

I think the point is that the oft vs Abbey etal was about specific terms in specific contracts rather than a general point of law.

Case law could not determine alone if the terms were unfair in a given case but only the particular case before the courts.

So in this case the actual terms in questions could not be judged unfair until they had been examined specifically.

[Amethyst]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Wondering where the 971,052 cases on hold figure comes from as published in the Independent today. Will email them.

[Budgie]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Yes, Martin Lewis said something about 1 million claims on GMTV this morning.

There is a big difference between 65000 and 971052 !!!!!!!!!!

[Amethyst]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

971k is the figure from the FSA Press Office, and includes those 70k in court.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Well done. At say a grand a claim that's £1b.

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/i...s-1633392.html