Tweet
Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs
£500 of charges can only be indicative - it could happen under any number of circumstances. Yes if a consumer gets charges of more than £500 in a year then they should be looked at in terms of managing finances or whether there are other underlying problems, or hardship, but stand alone I do not believe solely £500 of charges can definatively say someone is in hardship.
In the PCA report over 1.4 million consumers had had over £500 of charges in the preceeding year - all of these people are not in hardship.
It can be a good INDICATOR yes I agree but standalone it is not and shouldnt be. So I think it is correct how the banks are looking at it (some banks that is as some are being complete ******s).
If you got income/expenditure and asset sheets of everyone of those people complaining their bank has turned them down for hardship - then I would fully expect them to be above the CFS trigger figures.
Oh and yes, banks did take the charges unfairly and they should be repaid, but while the case continues and the final legalities are sorted out and we are all subject to the waiver then I would stick up for people in genuine hardship to get claims through rather than everyone with over £500 charges, remember of everyone who obtained charges in 2006, the average amount was £205.
The waiver is a pain in the bum I know, and the banks should be restricted much more than they are as its very one sided, but innocent till proven guilty and all that annoyingly counts in this area too. Stronger and tighter regulation of the waiver terms especially regarding enforcement of debt incurred solely due to unfair charges.
£500 of charges can only be indicative - it could happen under any number of circumstances. Yes if a consumer gets charges of more than £500 in a year then they should be looked at in terms of managing finances or whether there are other underlying problems, or hardship, but stand alone I do not believe solely £500 of charges can definatively say someone is in hardship.
In the PCA report over 1.4 million consumers had had over £500 of charges in the preceeding year - all of these people are not in hardship.
It can be a good INDICATOR yes I agree but standalone it is not and shouldnt be. So I think it is correct how the banks are looking at it (some banks that is as some are being complete ******s).
If you got income/expenditure and asset sheets of everyone of those people complaining their bank has turned them down for hardship - then I would fully expect them to be above the CFS trigger figures.
Oh and yes, banks did take the charges unfairly and they should be repaid, but while the case continues and the final legalities are sorted out and we are all subject to the waiver then I would stick up for people in genuine hardship to get claims through rather than everyone with over £500 charges, remember of everyone who obtained charges in 2006, the average amount was £205.
The waiver is a pain in the bum I know, and the banks should be restricted much more than they are as its very one sided, but innocent till proven guilty and all that annoyingly counts in this area too. Stronger and tighter regulation of the waiver terms especially regarding enforcement of debt incurred solely due to unfair charges.
Comment