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

[Sapphire]

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

[quote=scoobydoo;108498]

The other alternative I think we all wish all claimants had, would be just to close accounts and use credit unions or a suitable alternative banking instiitutions.Then you could still reclaim on a closed account and vote with your feet.

We've already done that in our house and moved our household bills a/c to a Nationwide Flex A/c with an E-Savings facility that runs alongside it, the only bank a/c we now have is a Lloyds one for the business, whereas we previously had over 7 a/c's with Lloyds and all our financial matters were with them.
We also both hold an Abbey Savings A/c each which we try to stick a few bob into every so often.
Like you I believe people should vote with their feet and claim on closed a/c's but unfortunately there's a lot of people out their like us who have closed the a/c's who owe them money because we had overdrafts/loans/credit cards with them, so the only thing we can do is put our claims in and hope that when the case is over the banks refund the money and it goes towards clearing our debt to them.

[EXC]

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

It will now take roughly 8 weeks for the HOL to come to a conclusion on the banks appeal. Am i right in saying that a few members of the HOL will be looking into the paperwork of the two court cases and will then allow the banks to appeal or not appeal. At this point no lawyer are involved.
If the HOL agree that the banks can appeal ,will it be just like a court room situation with the bank lawyers and the OFT battling out once more but instead of doing it in front of judges it will be done in front of the HOL.

Appeals in the House of Lords are heard by career judges - appointed to the HoLs - and not the likes of Jeffrey Archer and Peter Mandleson.

The appeal application will be decided by 3 judges.

Have a read of this:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/u...BpJudicial.pdf

[ROBSTER]

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

Also due to the fact that it is bringing in a massive amount of profit to the banks, it is clear to me that the banks are using attrition tactics also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare

Yes and they are very good at it !
PS I like that quote somuch Ive made it my signiture..watch this

[EXC]

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

Based on the OFT's figure of insufficient funds charges of £2.6b in 2006 the banks coin in £7m a day. I did read somewhere that the banks have clocked up £16m in legal fees so far for the test case - which sounds about right to me.

Assuming they'll end up spending twice this by the time the case is finally concluded I'd say the test case would be costing them roughly 4 to 5 days in charges.

[Amethyst]

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

I think someone asked for 'gut feelings' on whether this petition for leave to appeal would be granted or not. I have to say that I think that the banks will be granted leave to appeal.

Theres around 200 petitions entered each year and around 80 appeals actually heard. Petitions are considered by three lords.

Appeals are granted if a case involves a point of law of general public importance that ought to be considered by the House, and I think it is fair to say in this instance it does.

The term that is being considered is very different to the term considered in the First National Bank case (which was reference to interest charged after county court judgment) and I think there is too much of a difference (in how the term affects the contract and where is it etc) for the Lords to ignore that difference and apply exactly the same principles.

The Penalty Judgment with regards to Natwests 2001 term I think also brings doubt into whether the terms are relevant under the UTCCR, as that part of the judgment does not seem to fit with the 'core terms' type argument.

Quite happy to be wrong though.

xxx

[EXC]

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

Appeals are granted if a case involves a point of law of general public importance that ought to be considered by the House, and I think it is fair to say in this instance it does.

Indeed, it's not necessarily based on the strength of the case but the importance of it:

A party (the petitioner) seeks leave to appeal by petition (all judicial business is conducted by petition to the House). Petitions are referred to an Appeal Committee of three Law Lords (see below). The Committee’s decision to allow or refuse a petition is made depending on whether the case involves a point of law of general public importance that ought to be considered by the House.

[ROBSTER]

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

Based on the OFT's figure of insufficient funds charges of £2.6b in 2006 the banks coin in £7m a day. I did read somewhere that the banks have clocked up £16m in legal fees so far for the test case - which sounds about right to me.

Assuming they'll end up spending twice this by the time the case is finally concluded I'd say the test case would be costing them roughly 4 to 5 days in charges.

Ok Here’s my reasoning:

I'm looking at the wider issue of credit card charges (which will have to be reassessed as a result of this case, unless they end up by pulling £12 out of the sky as the fair "value") and other loan based default charges (including mortgage arrears) which are likely to be directly affected by the substantive issues. Not forgetting the interest being gained as a result of these type of charges especially on Credit Cards.

Anyway I don’t think I would have trouble equating that to about £6Bn. /year
260 court days in a year (right?) =£24 million/day. Ok if it’s more than £12 Million so far I'm a tad out.

I'll take the Twice bit out for now and I hope somebody can prove me wrong on the £12million/day based on my list of Banking products and "services" (& interest) above which will have to be changed if & when the OFT win.

Try this:

[Amethyst]

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

robster- am having a wee discussion with Tools re your signature

The charges coming in to the banking industry every day will more than pay the banks total legal bill for the whole test case so why wouldn’t the Banks want to "ensure Justice at the highest level"

From your figures and EXCs that the banks get 12 mill in each day, and the banks legal bill thus far is 16 mill - its not right ?

(Tools says you mean collectively every day over all the days etc and I think you mean ONE days charges = fund whole test case)

[Bankstormer]

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

Well, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what sits well in your stomach or anyone else's for that matter. The fact remains that the banks have acted within the letter of the law, they had up to 28 days to appeal, they took it. End of. What their reasons or morals are, are neither here nor there. We can speculate on what those reasons/morals are, and the rights and wrongs of them, until we are blue in the face, it won't make a blind bit of difference. What they should (in my/your/our opinion) have done, and what they have/will do/or have done, are possibly/probably/maybe two completely different things. So all this speculation and confrontation amongst ourselves will get us precisely........ Nowhere.

So we might as well just keep the backbiting and bitching for another time, another place.

IMHO

I think you'll find that it doe's or should matter what sits well in my stomach. The OFT are representing me (and you and all of us for that matter) the consumer. The FSA put a waiver in place supposedly in the interests of both parties, and that waiver came with rules, rules that the banks are not following. I'm not talking about the law and what it allows, i'm talking about the waiver and what it allows. You are right that backbiting and bitching will not get us anywhere, my point is that the FSA should be at the very least thretening to lift the waiver if the banks continue to use delaying tactics, and being forced to do so by the OFT who are fighting our corner.

If what is said on this site has no relevence on the test case (and i know it doesn't) then should we all stop having our say? No. The whole point of sites like these, after giving sound advice to would be claimants, is also a place to have your opinion heard and have real people listen to your views.

If I wanted to be told that the banks are correct in everything they do, and that i am so wrong and that theres nothing i can do about it - I could simply visit my local branch and spend 5 minutes with a member of staff.

I am almost sure that if everyone had your attitude, nobody would have ever even attempted reclaiming!

[ROBSTER]

robster- am having a wee discussion with Tools re your signature



From your figures and EXCs that the banks get 12 mill in each day, and the banks legal bill thus far is 16 mill - its not right ?

(Tools says you mean collectively every day over all the days etc and I think you mean ONE days charges = fund whole test case)

I got about £24 million/day by chucking in all the charges which are likely to be changed when the OFT win including credit & store cards.
Tools:
collectively since the beginning even using OFT figures (which dont include credit cards etc) we are looking at enough cash to rebuild the House of Lords and hold the hearing on the moon!

[Amethyst]

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

It matters what everyone thinks of the banks and yes they are damaging their reputation....it is also very good to discuss the case and the whys and wherefores of it....I don't like people being personally attacked for having different views though, as you and wendy have said biting/bitching gets no one anywhere. Yes the banks should be taken to task for not acting 'expeditiously', however they have entered their petition within the timeframe given by the courts so apart from a 'come on there no need to take the maximum amount of time to do everything' slap on the wrist theres not a lot anyone can do about it. There are out of time appeals so they could quite easily have made up some excuse to file the petition even later and gotten away with it.

We have to keep up the pressure on the FSA for the waiver to be enforced and strengthened and on the banks to deal with cases of FH.

The issues have to be finally concluded legally and the banks do have the right to take it as far as they can - however much we don't like it - we would expect the same rights to be afforded to us if it had gone the other way, wouldn't we.

If the OFT had lost on UTCCR AND Penalties we'd be pushing them to take it as far as possible.

No one is saying the banks are right, and I dont think anyone really thinks they are right in keeping going after the appeal judges said no to further appeals - but people understand their right to do so.

I think you'll find that it doe's or should matter what sits well in my stomach. The OFT are representing me (and you and all of us for that matter) the consumer. The FSA put a waiver in place supposedly in the interests of both parties, and that waiver came with rules, rules that the banks are not following. I'm not talking about the law and what it allows, i'm talking about the waiver and what it allows. You are right that backbiting and bitching will not get us anywhere, my point is that the FSA should be at the very least thretening to lift the waiver if the banks continue to use delaying tactics, and being forced to do so by the OFT who are fighting our corner.

If what is said on this site has no relevence on the test case (and i know it doesn't) then should we all stop having our say? No. The whole point of sites like these, after giving sound advice to would be claimants, is also a place to have your opinion heard and have real people listen to your views.

If I wanted to be told that the banks are correct in everything they do, and that i am so wrong and that theres nothing i can do about it - I could simply visit my local branch and spend 5 minutes with a member of staff.

I am almost sure that if everyone had your attitude, nobody would have ever even attempted reclaiming!

[ROBSTER]

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

The charges coming in to the banking industry each and every day will more than pay the banks total legal bill for the whole test case.

So why wouldn't the Banks want to "ensure justice at the highest level"

[Amethyst]

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

Thanking you muchly

I got about £24 million/day by chucking in all the charges which are likely to be changed when the OFT win including credit & store cards.
Tools:
collectively since the beginning even using OFT figures (which dont include credit cards etc) we are looking at enough cash to rebuild the House of Lords and hold the hearing on the moon!

Just so I don't get ticked off for letting that one go, think he meant that generally the gain on the charges over time (like when they collect in the charges reinvest and whatnot it and gain interest and earnings on it) will more than pay for the test case over the entire thing.

I can be pedantic about these things, its just statements like 'one days charges will pay for the entire legal bill of the test case' can get taken and slung about out of context sometimes. So just checking where you were coming from.


Oh and

The charges coming in to the banking industry every day will more than pay the banks total legal bill for the whole test case so why wouldn’t the Banks want to "ensure Justice at the highest level"

much better

[Bankstormer]

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

It matters what everyone thinks of the banks and yes they are damaging their reputation....it is also very good to discuss the case and the whys and wherefores of it....I don't like people being personally attacked for having different views though, as you and wendy have said biting/bitching gets no one anywhere. Yes the banks should be taken to task for not acting 'expeditiously', however they have entered their petition within the timeframe given by the courts so apart from a 'come on there no need to take the maximum amount of time to do everything' slap on the wrist theres not a lot anyone can do about it. There are out of time appeals so they could quite easily have made up some excuse to file the petition even later and gotten away with it.

We have to keep up the pressure on the FSA for the waiver to be enforced and strengthened and on the banks to deal with cases of FH.

The issues have to be finally concluded legally and the banks do have the right to take it as far as they can - however much we don't like it - we would expect the same rights to be afforded to us if it had gone the other way, wouldn't we.

If the OFT had lost on UTCCR AND Penalties we'd be pushing them to take it as far as possible.

No one is saying the banks are right, and I dont think anyone really thinks they are right in keeping going after the appeal judges said no to further appeals - but people understand their right to do so.

Thank you, thats all I needed, an acknowlegement that the banks should be playing by the rules of the waiver. I do take on board all the points everybody has made and in the main agree.

If your voice is as soothing as your words, i'll bet its angelic! :kiss:

[Glenn UK]

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

So why wouldn't the Banks want to "ensure justice at the highest level"

They are not interested in the law per se.

They are interested in profits and losses.

The sums of money involved are enormous, i think an article in one of the broadsheets put the profits from charges for the big 4 high st banks at £450m for a year.

So some simple sums can give rise to big numbers and the potential exposure of the banks, probably figures that will put some of them further in the dodo that they already are.

Say after the final reckoning they end up having to give back 50% of that value, over 6 years for arguments sake, thats a billion pounds for four banks!

I have wondered for a while what the government will do given the current climate if this were to put the banks under further significant pressure?