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

[Bankstormer]

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

I quoted the FSA waiver because you asked me to?

Expeditiously - meaning quickly or without delay.

When the banks took 28 days to enter an application for appeal which could have been entered 27 days earlier, they were not acting expaditiously (in anyones book)!

The fact that the banks are not complying with the direction refered to above, according to the Variation Direction issued by the FSA - it would give leave for the FSA to revoke the waiver due to non compliance by the banks.

[natweststaffmember]

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

I quoted the FSA waiver because you asked me to?

Expeditiously - meaning quickly or without delay.

When the banks took 28 days to enter an application for appeal which could have been entered 27 days earlier, they were not acting expaditiously (in anyones book)!


The fact that the banks are not complying with the direction refered to above, according to the Variation Direction issued by the FSA - it would give leave for the FSA to revoke the waiver due to non compliance by the banks.

Ok, I am trying to keep up so I don't know why it is that I am still not with you on this one. You have read EXC's post above and used that as an argument. This is a legal case not a tea party. Remember 1 petition went in which mean that the legal teams of all the banks had to talk to each other and decide on how to go further forward on this case.
You have stated that "(c) the firm is not complying with the conditions set out in this direction; "

I am all ears on the example that you are going to tell me about. I haven't seen it yet.
Hang on, you mean you are relying on expeditiously to revoke the waiver? We have done this argument and are still going round in circles.
Bottom line is the Banks' have petitioned the HoL for permission to appeal. We will know the answer to that soon.
The FSA Waiver would have remained in place had they appealed or not appealed so the expeditious argument is a non starter as we would have moved onto stage 2 litigation had they not petitioned the HoL.

[EXC]

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

Bankstormer

I hope you don't mind me saying but I think you're confusing morality, rules and the law. Although the waiver and litigation agreement state that the parties should proceed expeditiously the fact is that under the law both parties have a month in which to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords and no agreement with the FSA changes that.

Yes it's frustrating, yes we think it's unfair but we have no option to accept it.

Playing devil's advocate it was the OFT who were criticised by justice Smith for being slow in giving the banks their preliminary view on fairness and potentially holding up the test case litigation process.

[Bankstormer]

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

Don't bother trying to keep up any more, if you don't get it by now you never will.

I have never used EXC's post as an argument.?!

The bottom line as far as i am concerned is that they are dragging things out that don't need to be dragged out. You know it, i know you do, but your dancing around it for some reason. If you don't agree then fine (your wrong). You cant seem to see the woods for the trees.

The expeditious argument would not be a non-starter. I agree that we would probably have moved on to stage 2 if they hadn't appealed to HOL. But you can't deny that by dragging their feet in submitting the application for appeal the banks were breaking the rules of the waiver and therefore the FSA (if it wanted to) could have held them to account for it and potentially removed the waiver. That, i admit would have been harsh, but they should have at least given them a warning.

I feel that we have both made it clear on where we stand with regards to this issue, so i refuse to spell it out any longer, i'm 100% sure that most people following this thread could see exactly where i was coming from ages ago.

I'm going out now because it's my birthday.

[Amethyst]

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

Happy Birthday Bankstormer :kiss:

[Bankstormer]

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

Bankstormer

I hope you don't mind me saying but I think you're confusing morality, rules and the law. Although the waiver and litigation agreement state that the parties should proceed expeditiously the fact is that under the law both parties have a month in which to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords and no agreement with the FSA changes that.

Yes it's frustrating, yes we think it's unfair but we have no option to accept it.

Playing devil's advocate it was the OFT who were criticised by justice Smith for being slow in giving the banks their preliminary view on fairness and potentially holding up the test case litigation process.

I agree, and point taken, however, the banks have no choice but to stick to the timeframes allowed by the courts.

They always will do that. But that leavs no scope for the expeditious argument. Surely it means that things are to move as swiftly as possible and not take x amount of time just because you can when i could be done much quicker.

I am trying to see things as simply as possible.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Open your eyes and stop clinging to something that you cannot sustain. The banks' had 28 days to petition the HoL to appeal and they did. They haven't breached the waiver, they haven't breached the legal protocols and the fact remains, that we both don't think they will win this one. We do actually agree on that last point.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Happy Birthday Bankstormer :kiss:

And HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Get down the pub mate cos you deserve a few pints.

[Bankstormer]

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

Open your eyes and stop clinging to something that you cannot sustain. The banks' had 28 days to petition the HoL to appeal and they did. They haven't breached the waiver, they haven't breached the legal protocols and the fact remains, that we both don't think they will win this one. We do actually agree on that last point.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------


And HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Get down the pub mate cos you deserve a few pints.

Cheers love! Bye

[righty]

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.

Make no mistake if the charges issue gets to push or shove re rebates this government will, despite their present comments, 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

Amazing comment Exe you REALLY do think debtors are feckless if you actually think the waiver stops them from spending. Also was that not the banks very, & often, repeated excuse for introducing them in the 1st place when in fact it was to enhance profits

I ask you what would be the point of trying to incur spending you NO will not succeed cos the bank will reject your attempt at payment.

You do realize that you ARE arguing FOR penalty charges & not against don't you

[Amethyst]

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

Think me and thee had this conversation before Righty and agreed to disagree...

I have never been a fan of a ''moratorium'' on charges while this has been going on.

I do however feel the FSA should have done more to stop the banks charging on charges on charges and then whacking court claims in during the waiver...I did ask the FSA for the figures on complaints to them about breaches of the waiver, but they reckon its in a billion different files spread up and down the county (slight exageration)....so working on getting that info still.

A halt of charges may have had the effect of having payments which would take you over refused so as not to build up a debt ...I think thats what some people have said anyway ?-

I was suprised to read in the South Africa competition commission report and cost analysis it showed that it actually cost the banks more to return a DD than to pay it when it took you over your limit. (something like 35p as opposed to 26p from memory) so not really sure now how the banks would have dealt withaccounts with a halt on charges in place.

Actually we have a few members now who have had charges halted on their accounts through claiming hardship, how are the banks dealing with payments etc that would take you into unauthorised debit situations ?


Also I have to say this, I was talking about this the other day with a non feckless member of the site, and he conceeded that he really was less careful than he would have been had there been no test case with regards to incurring charges, because he can claim them all back at the end.

[shooter]

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

Just My two penneth worth,

I had all charges stopped as LLoyds had accepted my case as fulfilling the waivers hardship rules.

It has made me more aware of when money is going in and coming out of my account as I now know for certain that NO money in account means NO payment of bills etc as the bank return anything that would take me over my overdraft limit.

This has help me keep a little more control of my finances knowing that I am not going to be hit by huge charges each month, But it has in NO way helped me out of hardship.

I know worry as to what will happen if my daughter doesn't go back into the education system in september (she's had almost 2 years out due to illness, Missed all of years 10 and 11) as if she can't or doesn't I will lose 100% of my income as it is all relient on her being in Education.

So yes LLoyds have fulfilled their part but in reality it hasn't helped me.

I would love to see the banks having to pay us all back what we are owed very soon but I want to know that when they do that it has ALL been sorted out legally and if that means I have to wait several more years then so be it, All this argument and speculation helps no one.

It all has to progress as the law dictates and nothing we say or do will make it happen any quicker.

My understanding is that as and when the HOL make their decision there will still have to be many more court hearings before this is truly decided, so I will wait paitiently because when we (the OFT) win, and I have no doubt that we will, I know that what LLoyds owe me will go a long way to digging me out of the financial hole I am in now.

Shooter

[natweststaffmember]

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

Amethyst have you read the FSA Waiver re Annex 1. The FSA should not have spun you that line. Surely they use something called spreedsheets.

"Annex 1 - Management information
Relevant charges complaints
1. The number of complaints from personal current account customers:
a.
received in the previous month that relate to unauthorised overdraft charges, not including complaints resolved by close of business on the business day following its receipt; and
b.
assessed in the previous month as falling into the category of a relevant charges complaint.
2. The number of relevant charges complaints:
a.
about which the firm has sent the complainant a final response (regardless of when the complaint was received) in the previous month; and
b.
put on hold in the previous month.
3.
The total number of relevant charges complaints at the end of the previous complete month:
a.
about which the firm has sent the complainant a final response since 27 July 2007; and
b.
put on hold since 27 July 2007.
Financial difficulty cases
4.
The number of relevant charges complaints where, in the previous month:
a.
a complainant has claimed to be in financial difficulty;
b.
the firm:
i.
accepted a claim that the complainant was in financial difficulty;
ii.
rejected a claim that the complainant was in financial difficulty; and
iii.
the firm has not yet made a decision accepting or rejecting a claim of being in financial difficulty.
c.
the firm has been notified by the Ombudsman that a claimant’s claim to be in financial difficulty is to be assessed by the Ombudsman.
Court stays on claims regarding unauthorised overdraft charges
5.
The total number of stays of relevant proceedings in the courts of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in place for the firm at the end of the previous month.
6.
The number of court proceedings involving the firm relating to unauthorised overdraft charges formally commenced, by way of service on the firm: :
a.
that have been stayed in the previous month;
b.
in which a stay was refused in the previous month; and
c.
in which a stay has been lifted in the previous month.
7.
The number of court proceedings involving the firm relating to unauthorised overdraft charges resolved in the previous month (whether or not previously stayed).
Complaints handling
8.
The average number of business days taken by the firm:
a.
from the date of receipt by the firm, to acknowledge a relevant charges complaint in respect of those relevant charges complaints acknowledged in the previous month;
b.
from the date of receipt by the firm, to give notice to the customer that their case is on hold in respect of those relevant charges complaints put on hold in the previous month; and
c.
from the point that a claimant claims to be in financial difficulty to the time that the firm makes a decision to accept that the complainant is in financial difficulty in respect of those relevant charges complaints where the firm has made such a decision in the previous month.
Further information
9.
Any remarks the firm considers necessary to clarify or explain the information supplied."


I am not sure I subscribe to their excuses that they gave you.

[EXC]

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

You do realize that you ARE arguing FOR penalty charges & not against don't you

Of course not. What I'm saying is if a temporary moratorium on charges was imposed and then withdrawn should the banks win the test case a lot of people would be faced with years worth of charges in one hit.

[Amethyst]

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

Amethyst have you read the FSA Waiver re Annex 1. The FSA should not have spun you that line. Surely they use something called spreedsheets.

Yes they are supplying all that info nicely broken down

Its the complaints TO the FSA about Banks breaching waiver terms (like chasing overdraft accounts when under dispute for charges etc) that am having more trouble with getting.

[enaid]

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

Yes they are supplying all that info nicely broken down

Its the complaints TO the FSA about Banks breaching waiver terms (like chasing overdraft accounts when under dispute for charges etc) that am having more trouble with getting.

Do you want to start with mine? lol