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

[Amethyst]

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

Lugger - when the FSA first introduced the waiver they gave 'template' letters to the banks, In the one for circumstances where an offer had already been made pre July 2007 they 'template' the banks to say this...

However, the goodwill offer the bank made to you still stands and you can accept or reject this offer. If you decide to take up this offer, you must contact us within 2 months from the date of this letter. You should be aware that if you accept this offer, this will be in “full and final” settlement of your complaint. This means that it is unlikely you would be awarded a further sum even if the test case indicated that you could be entitled to a potentially larger amount. Though this does not preclude you asking for repayment of any future charges if the court finds they are unlawful.

You can find the letters in the annex here - http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/doing/re...ction_disp.pdf

[tomterm8]

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

These differences in reported figures are bugging me



so 2.6 billion a year - if they refund everything taken assuming limitations act to 8 years (waiver implementation plus 6 years) that would be 20.8 billion (okay ignoring figures would change between the years) thats spread over 12.6 million accounts that have incurred at least one charge (so how much is that per account ? )

Figures in the guardian say they'll have to refund £10bn and the independent and times say £1bn - bit of a difference.

UTCCR only relates to consumers, so maybe the difference is that the rest of the money is for businesses?

[EXC]

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

Today (Sat 28 Feb) BBC Moneybox on Radio 4 at 12.04

''We are joined by Ian Pollock, one of the BBC's personal finance reporters who was in the court, Angela Knight, chief executive of the BBA and Marc Gander from the Consumer Action Group''

Sorry, forgot to post the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ox/7914898.stm

[Amethyst]

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

New bank charges twist




BBC Radio 4's Money Box
Saturday, 28 February 2009
at 1204 BST
On Radio 4 and Online
The High Street banks say they will try to appeal against a ruling by the courts this week that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can judge whether overdraft charges are fair.
The banks had gone to the court to prevent the OFT considering whether its charges breach strict legal rules on fairness.
But three Court of Appeal judges confirmed an earlier High Court ruling that banks' charges do come under the fairness rules.
This is the latest step in a complicated legal battle.
Meanwhile tens of thousands of claims by customers for the repayment of their overdraft charges are on hold in the courts.
But If the OFT ultimately wins the case, several billion pounds could potentially be refunded to millions of bank customers.
We are joined by Ian Pollock, one of the BBC's personal finance reporters who was in the court, Angela Knight, chief executive of the BBA and Marc Gander from the Consumer Action Group.

[Amethyst]

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

Actually did ANYONE see that man ? with the sandwich board ?

[EXC]

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

The OFT won't release the letter but there's a chance we can get it from the court.

[Tools]

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

1 "While Barclays is a signatory to the litigation agreement, it had introduced new terms during the investigation. So as not to delay our investigation unduly, we have concentrated on the terms of the remaining seven banks. We believe that the principles established in this investigation will read across to the terms and conditions of other accounts."

Is this an indication that the OFT now regards the current charging structure by Barclays to be acceptable? If you remember this was discussed at length over lunch.

[EXC]

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

I would have thought the last sentance ''We believe that the principles established in this investigation will read across to the terms and conditions of other accounts'' would have captured it.

Though it does seem to contradict a previous Q&A which said:

7. Barclays has recently changed its terms and conditions, what does this
mean for the test case and investigation?

We are giving the changes made by Barclays due consideration.


Incidently I didn't realise Rob Williamson is leading the UTCCR investigation and test case - just noticed in an old newsletter below.

[Oldjools]

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

Listened to Money Box on R4, Angela Knight for some reason usually makes me see red... she didn't disappoint this time either She claims the judgement was reached not without hesitation & that means the Banks should appeal to the House of Lords. She also claimed hardship cases were being taken very seriously, not sure if everyone would agree there. It was put to her that if the Banks are so sure their charges are fair then what's the problem with the OFT assessing them ... no straight answer given to that one.

If anyone wants to listen to the program on the BBC website the test case discussion is at the start of the program.

[EXC]

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

You can hear it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ox_28_02_2009/

[Smasher]

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

I just jot home from Spain today. A bit late but I just wanted to pop in & say WooHoooo!!!!!

[TUTTSI]

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

I just jot home from Spain today. A bit late but I just wanted to pop in & say WooHoooo!!!!!

Welcome home....

[EXC]

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

The 'not without hesitation' quote that Angela Knight referred to is contained in paragraph 93 of the judgment:


The OFT wishes to assess the fairness of each of the Relevant Charges. As expressed in regulation 6(2)(b), the critical question is whether that assessment relates “to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the … services supplied in exchange”. The above analysis shows, in our opinion, that that involves asking the question whether each of the Relevant Charges is part of the essential bargain or, put another way, is a core provision because, if it is not, the assessment falls outside the paragraph. Although, as we see it, strictly the question should be posed by reference to each of the Relevant Charges separately, nobody suggested that this question should be answered differently in the case of different Relevant Charges. In what follows we therefore consider them together. Not without hesitation, we have reached the conclusion that the Relevant Charges are not part of the essential bargain in the sense discussed above. Our reasons may be summarised as set out below. We express them in terms of article 4(2) of the Directive because regulation 6(2)(b) must be construed in the same way.

[Amethyst]

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

Well thats very nice, they have given you pretty much step by step instructions how to obtain them (well the generic version grr) through the courts.

Excellent.

Alternatively, you may wish to apply to the courts for a copy of the letter of the generic version of the 12 August letters to the banks. As you may already be aware, the Civil Procedure Rules ("CPRs") provide a regime for access to court documents. In summary, this section provides that some documents (statements of case) are more freely available and as such are available on our website, but other documents (such as skeleton arguments) are not and can only be accessed from the court in accordance with the CPRs. The relevant rule in the CPRs is rule 5.4C, and 5.4C (2) in particular. It appears to the OFT that, to access documents you have requested, a person would need to make an application to the court under Part 23 of the CPRs.

[Budgie]

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

New bank charges twist




BBC Radio 4's Money Box
Saturday, 28 February 2009
at 1204 BST
On Radio 4 and Online
The High Street banks say they will try to appeal against a ruling by the courts this week that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can judge whether overdraft charges are fair.
The banks had gone to the court to prevent the OFT considering whether its charges breach strict legal rules on fairness.
But three Court of Appeal judges confirmed an earlier High Court ruling that banks' charges do come under the fairness rules.
This is the latest step in a complicated legal battle.
Meanwhile tens of thousands of claims by customers for the repayment of their overdraft charges are on hold in the courts.
But If the OFT ultimately wins the case, several billion pounds could potentially be refunded to millions of bank customers.
We are joined by Ian Pollock, one of the BBC's personal finance reporters who was in the court, Angela Knight, chief executive of the BBA and Marc Gander from the Consumer Action Group.

Angela Knight actually said on Radio 4 that the banks will CONSIDER applying for permission to appeal to the HoL which to my point of view doesn't actually mean that they will appeal and is different to what was stated earlier in the week on the BBA website where they said they WILL appeal. Watch closely folks !!!

Am also surprised that no one else has picked up on how much of a waste of space Marc Gander actually is !!!!