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

[natweststaffmember]

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

I think Glenn that the issue of if they lost and the point in which they lose, throws open a massive gaping hole. You have CCJ's issued, DCA activities, Defaults, repossessions, charges going back prior to Statute of Limitations. It is a massive timebomb and that could then lead onto charges from Credit cards being properly dealt with, companies imposing charges for returned payments and the like. The decision of the House Of Lords may be absulutely crucial as to cause a revolution in banking.

[Glenn UK]

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

Nattie

i don't disagree with your sentiments, its is precisely because of the implications of this issue that i think the banks will try to weasel their way out something so 'final' as a determination in the HoL as to the validity of their charing regimes.

i know others don't agree as to whether the OFT would or could strike a deal over the terms and how they would be implemented going forwards.

What is clear though is that the implications of having the charges deemed unfair opens an enormous can of worms which could impact on the industry/country and not a fair few bankers to say the least.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Nattie

i don't disagree with your sentiments, its is precisely because of the implications of this issue that i think the banks will try to weasel their way out something so 'final' as a determination in the HoL as to the validity of their charing regimes.

i know others don't agree as to whether the OFT would or could strike a deal over the terms and how they would be implemented going forwards.

What is clear though is that the implications of having the charges deemed unfair opens an enormous can of worms which could impact on the industry/country and not a fair few bankers to say the least.

GlennUK for the reasons you think they will try to weasel out of are the reasons I think they can't. They went willingly into a Test Case where the decision could go disasterously wrong for them. There is no deal because if there was then it opens us back up to the sue your bank for charges thingy. There has to be a legal settlement even if it takes another 10 years. It has to happen.

[EXC]

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

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.

In my view this is a bit of a red herring.

It's important to make the distinction between the tax payer providing ''funds'' to the banks and the tax payer investing in shares - which were purchased at a very preferential rate - and as sure as night follows day will be sold at a profit when bank stocks rise again.

I believe that the total refund figure for all the banks with interest will probably be in the region of Ł25b spread over 10 banks or so - less than RBS alone lost last year - and is hardly likely to ''impact on the country''.

[Glenn UK]

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

LOL

I am sure you wont be surprised to know i don't think your assessment of the test case and the banks position is correct.

My view is that underlying everything the banks does is the thought that they are trying to reduce their exposure in a financial sense and nothing else.

They had to go the test route case because they were forced to in the face of mounting pressure from the OFT I am not sure i would call that willingly.

i do think they thought they stood a chance of winning the initial case though, and until the appeal is heard (i believe the HoL will allow it) then there is no certainty about what will take place.

As i have said repeatedly, if the banks had complied with an 'informal' assessment of their terms by the OFT then there would have been no test case.

You say that if there is no deal then that opens up the door for us to sue the banks, which is true.

However, if you look at the CC charges there is exactly the same potential for them and what has happened?

Nothing!

Well at least in terms of court cases to determine if the charges are fair or not. And it wont because there is no vast body of people willing to push the cc companies as far as that when offered the difference between their charges and the Ł12.00

If like me and I'm sure others, when offered the difference we pointed out what the OFT actually said and offered to go to court and they paid out, thwarting any potentially damaging determinations in court by settling ultimately.

If the banks offered to revise their T&C to omit such terms and offered to repay the difference between what a fair charge is and what they charged, how many people would take them for the whole lot?

Proportionally, a few percent of people would be bothered, which would reduce their exposure financially by an enormous amount.

It is i admit conjecture on my part, and only the next few months or years will reveal the answer.


Be interesting to see though.

Glenn
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

In my view this is a bit of a red herring.

It's important to make the distinction between the tax payer providing ''funds'' to the banks and the tax payer investing in shares - which were purchased at a very preferential rate - and as sure as night follows day will be sold at a profit when bank stocks rise again.

I believe that the total refund figure for all the banks with interest will probably be in the region of Ł25b spread over 10 banks or so - less than RBS alone lost last year - and is hardly likely to ''impact on the country''.

Its an interesting point about how much the banks lost or made.

one of the things we need to be mindful of is that profit is not cash.

the Ł25bn or whatever the figure ends up being will need to be in cash, unless of course the banks offer shares instead!!

The vast values wiped off the stock exchange are in the most part theoretical values.

the value of something is only realised when it is sold and until such time it is in a sense only theoretical.

I believe (although i confess to not having studied the losses made by RBS) that a large proportion of it is theoretical since it relates to the quoted values of bonds, stocks shares, property, funds etc which are in a large part the theoretical.

i am not saying that because the values quoted or the profits or losses are not in fact 'real' that they are unimportant.

however the distinction needs to be made between paying something out as cash and the loss of something which is only realised when you actually sell something and exchange it for cash.

if you retain an asset and the value fluctuates then it impacts on your balance sheet and P&L but does not have the same impact on cash flow.

Glenn

[righty]

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

They have the right to petition the HoL and they have taken that right. If you are sued and are in the same petition, are you saying you would give up?

I think what many are annoyed about IS the waiver & it's favouring of the banks. Had the waiver included an agreed moratorium on penalty charges I don't think anyone would object about the delay

Such action would be seen as producing a level playing field but then what can you expect from an industry that is regulated by an organization such as the FSA. Such a ruling from the FSA would have been like turkeys voting for xmas

[EXC]

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

I'm not sure that most refunds will involve cash. Most will probably be credited back to accounts and much of that will be used to pay off authorised overdrafts, loans, credit card debts and the like. So one way or another the banks will get a lot of that money back.

[natweststaffmember]

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

I think what many are annoyed about IS the waiver & it's favouring of the banks.
How many so called consumer groups lobbied the FSA when it was renewed and renewed again? How many consumer forums asks for its lobbying? I see one consumer group wants to get rid of the Waiver......just wish they would read the damn thing before they advise their users as they seem to not know its contents.
Had the waiver included an agreed moratorium on penalty charges I don't think anyone would object about the delay
It didn't so deal with it, 2 years later is a bit late to say that.
Such action would be seen as producing a level playing field but then what can you expect from an industry that is regulated by an organization such as the FSA. Such a ruling from the FSA would have been like turkeys voting for xmas

That is gutter journalism and slightly late Surely you must have something for the Easter Bunny to throw at the FSA

[EXC]

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

It's worth considering what would have happened if the waiver had included a temporary ban on charges. A lot of people would have run riot with their accounts and if the banks won the test case a lot of people would be faced with a massive bill.

I'm not for one minute saying it was right but there is at least some logic to the FSA's claim that it was in consumer's interest.

[Glenn UK]

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

EXC

you could well be right, I am not sure about the proportion credited to accounts versus what is paid in cash, i wasn't factoring that in.

I was thinking primarily about my own circumstances whereby i had the cash paid back to me and of course not everyone is the same.

Glenn

[righty]

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

Make no mistake if the charges issue gets to push or shove re rebates this government will, despite their present falsely expressed anger, come to the rescue of the banks in much the same way they did after Wilson v County by revoking sec 127 of the CCA 1974

[Bankstormer]

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).

Firstly: in the original Waiver Direction, under the heding:

Conditions:

Paragraph: 12, under the heading:

Cooperation:

Sub paragraph: (7):

“if the firm is a party to the test case, then the firm must cooperate with the OFT and other parties to the test case and use reasonable endeavours to ensure that final resolution of the test case is achieved expeditiously;”

Secondly: in the Variation Direction (dated 26th January 2009), under the heading:

Duration:

Paragraph 6:

“In particular, the FSA would expect to revoke this direction, at any time, if:

(a) there are no longer stays of relevant proceedings in the courts of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in materially all cases;

(b) the Ombudsman has concluded that he will no longer delay consideration of the merits of the relevant charges complaints referred to him in a material number of cases;

(c) the firm is not complying with the conditions set out in this direction;

(d) without good reason, no material progress is made in the test case;

(e) the duration of the test case is likely to cause undue risk to consumers;

(f) a decision is made by the court on an element of the test case and is not subject to specific appeal by any of the relevant parties, where it would be appropriate for complaints of a certain description to proceed in accordance with the normal rules (in this case, the FSA would envisage replacing this direction with an equivalent direction excluding the element subject to the court decision); or

(g) the FSA is no longer satisfied that the test case covers all relevant issues necessary to enable the fair, consistent and prompt handling of relevant charges complaints after resolution of the test case.”

[natweststaffmember]

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

For example.......(cos I can't guess what you mean).

[Bankstormer]

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

Thats why your not getting it? You cant even see it when its put infront of you and highlighted in red.

How you can claim to know the thing inside out is beyond me. Just because you can regurgitate something word for word, does not mean you understand it!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Originally Posted by righty
I think what many are annoyed about IS the waiver & it's favouring of the banks.
How many so called consumer groups lobbied the FSA when it was renewed and renewed again? How many consumer forums asks for its lobbying? I see one consumer group wants to get rid of the Waiver......just wish they would read the damn thing before they advise their users as they seem to not know its contents.
Had the waiver included an agreed moratorium on penalty charges I don't think anyone would object about the delay
It didn't so deal with it, 2 years later is a bit late to say that.
If you had said it 2 years ago (and i am presuming that you probably did), would the FSA have taken your thoughts into account???? Ignore him!
Such action would be seen as producing a level playing field but then what can you expect from an industry that is regulated by an organization such as the FSA. Such a ruling from the FSA would have been like turkeys voting for xmas

[natweststaffmember]

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

You have quoted the FSA Waiver Bankstormer.. You quote the expeditiously yet do not say what exactly you mean?
You state that if banks do not comply with the waiver, give me an example?