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

[natweststaffmember]

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

It won't Glenn.

[Glenn UK]

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

It won't Glenn.

it wont what?

[natweststaffmember]

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

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?

Was that meant to be a question?

[Glenn UK]

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

LOL, it has a queisont mark at the end !!!

I presume from your one liner that you think the government will do nothing if the repayment of charges would lead to signficnat increased pressue on a bank or banks?

Glenn

[WendyB]

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

[quote=Bankstormer;108567]
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 didn't say the banks were correct in everything they do - far from it. I was actually pointing out that legally ther was nothing wrong in what they did re the appeal, and we can't change that. Obviously I didn't make myself clear, must try harder next time.

I am almost sure that if everyone had your attitude, nobody would have ever even attempted reclaiming! Well then, that must be why I successfully claimed all my bank charges and credit card charges back, and hang around on this site to help people then, mustn't it, cos i have completely the wrong attitude.[/quote]

Np offence or personal attacks meant, or should be taken from, my comments above. Just putting the record straight. And if the last bit seems a tad sarcastic, then you're all correct - it was meant to be.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Not entirely. Considering the toxic debt insured by one provider for £250 billion, then the amount of money needing to be paid out will be very insignificant in comparison.

[Glenn UK]

the difference with the charges element though is that it is 'real' cash and therefore could mean a bank or some banks having to actually transfer money out of their coffers to the consumer en masse.

As others have said the effect of determining that a term is unfair would in fact render the term void for any contracts which contained it. I presume that this would mean that a bank would have to return the money to anyone affected.

What about the interest owed, claims for compensation for bankruptcy etc?

It may be that rather than having to apply for the money by way of a claim, that banks would have to refund the money automatically.

Keeping the money under these circumstances and awaiting people to claim could open an argument for unjust enrichment maybe?

I am not sure but if this is the case then the banks may also have to pay back charges beyond the 6 year standard limitation period, others think that even if they argued Sec 32 could be invoked.

So the upshot of this is that whilst the sums may not be as large as the toxic debt. The toxic debt in many cases is not actually being realised, its a risk and this is part of the problem right now which has given rise to the loss of confidence and consequentially the attempts by all businesses to improve their liquidity.

The charges issue would however result in actual payments in 'cash'. The sum i mentioned is of course speculative others have bandied other figures around but the amount of cash is likely to be substantial in real terms.

You could of course be right that the banks will simply slip out those old fiver's from behind the sofa.

Glenn

[Bankstormer]

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

[quote=WendyB;108591]

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 didn't say the banks were correct in everything they do - far from it. I was actually pointing out that legally ther was nothing wrong in what they did re the appeal, and we can't change that. Obviously I didn't make myself clear, must try harder next time.


Yes Wendy, I would!

I am almost sure that if everyone had your attitude, nobody would have ever even attempted reclaiming! Well then, that must be why I successfully claimed all my bank charges and credit card charges back, and hang around on this site to help people then, mustn't it, cos i have completely the wrong attitude.[/quote]

No Wendy, you have far from the wrong attitude, this is evident by the way in which you choose to ignore the fact that the Banks are not sticking to the rules of the waiver and shouting about how they are within the law. Thats just the kind of attitude we should all have!

Np offence or personal attacks meant, or should be taken from, my comments above. Just putting the record straight. And if the last bit seems a tad sarcastic, then you're all correct - it was meant to be.

No offence meant, or should be taken from my my comments. Just putting the record straight. And if the last bit seems very sarcastic, then your correct again, it was meant to be.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Please quote the term of the waiver that they are not adhering to cos I know the waiver inside out and back to front.

Just so I am certain where you are coming from on this one.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Re...sp_monthly.pdf
The above is the waiver for reference. And make sure it is in relation to the OFT test case(cos that is what we are discussing still).

[Mochamoo]

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

Just a question....

If the government keeps going the way it is and bailing out banks and the tax payers will be funding more and more banks does that mean if we win then we will be paying back our charges with our own tax money?

Does that make sense?

(Well not my tax money as I'm unemployed so you will all be paying my charges back lol)

[natweststaffmember]

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

Just a question....

If the government keeps going the way it is and bailing out banks and the tax payers will be funding more and more banks does that mean if we win then we will be paying back our charges with our own tax money?

Does that make sense?

(Well not my tax money as I'm unemployed so you will all be paying my charges back lol)

The banks are still making money as well, mocha, so I doubt the government will want to bail them out anymore after all, they are making staff redundant(more burden to the state), they are still paying bonuses by stealth and public opinion could not stand another bailout of banks.

[Glenn UK]

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

Just a question....

If the government keeps going the way it is and bailing out banks and the tax payers will be funding more and more banks does that mean if we win then we will be paying back our charges with our own tax money?

Does that make sense?

(Well not my tax money as I'm unemployed so you will all be paying my charges back LOL)

basically the answer is yes the refund of charges will in part be met as a result of funding from the UK PLC (IE us) at least from those banks receiving such funds.

The purpose of the funds (apparently) was to increase liquidity and whilst they may be making money now (I'm not sure on this issue) they would have folded potentially if they had not received funding.

Nattie disagrees that the Gov will do anything, my view is that if a bank is in a precarious position over refunding several hundreds of millions of quid in cash they are likely to step in to prevent the collapse of a bank.

JMHO

Glenn

[ROBSTER]

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

Natty & Glenn

I think you are both right:

If LTSBHBOS have to refund £10Billion (I bet it will be more) in charges and interest it will be a drop in the ocean compared to the debt problems associated with "Toxic Loans."

1 nil Natty

The government are not going to let the bank fail for the sake of a poxy £10BN

Back of the net Glenn!

1-1

[natweststaffmember]

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

Natty & Glenn

I think you are both right:

If LTSBHBOS have to refund £10Billion (I bet it will be more) in charges and interest it will be a drop in the ocean compared to the debt problems associated with "Toxic Loans."

1 nil Natty

The government are not going to let the bank fail for the sake of a poxy £10BN

Back of the net Glenn!

1-1

But they will insure the debt for an injury time winner

[Glenn UK]

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

LOL however, i do think it is different to the toxic debt. Currently this is only a theoretical problem in the sense that until the debt is realised IE the banks have to shell out a Lord of money to cover for the bad debts then it is only a theoretical problem.

In part this is the problem with the current crisis, it is founded primarily on uncertainty and a lack of confidence rather than a tangible loss.

Hang, no i don't fear them paying it out at all!!!

I look forward to them getting a nice kicking (metaphorically) speaking that is.

JMHO

Glenn