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

[righty]

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

Interesting comment Righty, the objecitve of the anks historically has appeared to keep their charges out of courts lest they have to reveal their actual costs.

given that the way that the charges levle worked with the CC claims i do wonder if the banks wont still feel the same?

I.E do they really want the public to find out that it costs the banks as close to nothing to administer their account and then charegs then several quid for the privelige?

I cant see that the banks will want this to happen unless they are prepared to accept a level of charges very low e.g. of the order of a few tens opf pence.

If on the other hand they accept an accepotable level below which the oft wont investigate then chances are they will get a better deal imho.

Ultimatley as we know this is about money, the banks are now in a position where they need to work to get the best deal they can for themselves.

it may be that they will get a better deal structured like the CC deal was rather than go to court and face the potential issue of having to take several hundred thousand claims to court to sargue over the actual lelve of charges they can charge.

its early days yet and the BBA are getting thier wind back having taken a metaphorical kicking. I wouldnt be surpirsed if they simply offer everyone money back based on the £12.00 CC idea.

We shall see

Glenn

The problem for the banks is that if they accept the OFT's position or lose the litigation then they open the door for the OFT to question ALL of their charges something I doubt they want at all
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I agree. Its easy to say to people that they need to get their claims in, but if the amount they are claiming is a lot shtne the court fees could be better used in their pockets than tied up in the court system.

However your arguement is that it has taken a high court test case to iron out the complexities of points of law, therefore how would it have been possible for you to have brought a case to court prior to this. Also throughout the test case the banks still attempted to conceal the true nature of the charges by dragging it out, cloaking the charges/dressing them up as fees for service/changing Terms & Conditions just before court.

I think s32 would be a go'er IMO.

I agree s32 will play a much larger part in future litigation

[Fendyweather]

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

Wow, think I need to swallow some kind of legal jargon law book. !!! But makes v. interesting if not difficult reading. Thanks to all though. Fendy x

[EXC]

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

Apologiies if this has already been posted.

This is the 'Note' that accompanied today's judgment which deals with the issue of stays in the County Courts.

[pinknico]

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

Yes a big thank you from me for keeping me up to date and in the picture, its so much better reading the verdict and all the comments here than reading it in a newspaper or news website.
Thanks x

[Budgie]

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

Just a few notes........

S32 Limitations Act is a definite goer irrespective of whether the cause of action for a claim had been under the penalty charge aspect ( now failed as a potential cause of action ) or under the UTCCR1999 cause of action.

When you send off a SAR to your Bank you should insist on them sending all data and not just accept the last six years worth ( if that is what they send you ) and you should claim back all the charges, not just the last six years.

Another important aspect which will no doubt receive much attention is the compensatory interest aspect.
It is highly likely that the Banks will now start to damage limit their potential future payouts.
Claimant's should not just settle for the return of their charges.
The Banks have had the use of Claimant's monies, in some cases for a very long period of time. Claimants are entitled to claim compensatory interest for the "time value" loss of the use of their money.

[tomterm8]

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

I think people should also consider the data protection aspects of their claim, if a default was caused by late payment fees, part of the court action should be an injunction to remove the default from the credit file.

[EXC]

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

''Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (CAG) said the bank's decision to appeal further was "amazing".

"They know no shame," he said.
"You'd have thought they would chose to come come quietly and join the rest of society - it is astonishingly arrogant of these people," he added.''

Not wishing to be accused of going off topic here but this quote struck me as being typical of the kind of post one reads on MSE these days and forgets in a thrice.

Surely, as a major spokesperson representing the movement, he can come up with something more mature than this?

[tomterm8]

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

To be honest, I disagree. I think the issue should have been fast tracked to the house of lords anyway. it's a very important case, with widespread repercusions (much wider than have been discussed so far). For legitimacy, it SHOULD be decided in the highest court in the land.

[borgbaiter]

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

would seem one way or another way its got to end up at the top of the legal system so all the rest is just pointless and wasting time.

seems the OFT needs to win all the levels and the banks just need to get lucky once and its all over.


Borgbaiter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

''Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (CAG) said the bank's decision to appeal further was "amazing".

"They know no shame," he said.
"You'd have thought they would chose to come come quietly and join the rest of society - it is astonishingly arrogant of these people," he added.''

Not wishing to be accused of going off topic here but this quote struck me as being typical of the kind of post one reads on MSE these days and forgets in a thrice.

Surely, as a major spokesperson representing the movement, he can come up with something more mature than this?

as for MSE not much goes on there at all anymore


Borgbaiter

[natweststaffmember]

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

''Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group (CAG) said the bank's decision to appeal further was "amazing".

"They know no shame," he said.
"You'd have thought they would chose to come come quietly and join the rest of society - it is astonishingly arrogant of these people," he added.''

Not wishing to be accused of going off topic here but this quote struck me as being typical of the kind of post one reads on MSE these days and forgets in a thrice.

Surely, as a major spokesperson representing the movement, he can come up with something more mature than this?

The banks' have to appeal or try to appeal even if they will be unsuccessful. The comments by Marc are unfortunate because if he had the money to appeal a decision against him, surely he would want to appeal as far as he could take it.

I have to say that todays judgement could open an absolute minefield of of things because effectively the RCoJ said all fees levied were eligible for the test of fairness and having already told the banks that the OFT believe them to be unfair, then the minefield can only lead to a righting of the wrong that the banks' have committed for a long time.
I think the fan is ready for the horse manure that will be hitting it.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO RECLAIM THEIR BANK CHARGES.

[borgbaiter]

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

Just a few notes........

S32 Limitations Act is a definite goer irrespective of whether the cause of action for a claim had been under the penalty charge aspect ( now failed as a potential cause of action ) or under the UTCCR1999 cause of action.

When you send off a SAR to your Bank you should insist on them sending all data and not just accept the last six years worth ( if that is what they send you ) and you should claim back all the charges, not just the last six years.

Another important aspect which will no doubt receive much attention is the compensatory interest aspect.
It is highly likely that the Banks will now start to damage limit their potential future payouts.
Claimant's should not just settle for the return of their charges.
The Banks have had the use of Claimant's monies, in some cases for a very long period of time. Claimants are entitled to claim compensatory interest for the "time value" loss of the use of their money.

hi

currently im claiming stat 8% interest however i also have a credit card with the same bank. could i therefore change my claim to the rate of the credit card rather than 8%? also if i get a proper sars whats the chances the bank will say they dont have the data anymore?

claims £2000.00 at present but as it looks likley to go on for years yet maybe it could be used as leverage?


Borgbaiter

[TANZARELLI]

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

hi

currently im claiming stat 8% interest however i also have a credit card with the same bank. could i therefore change my claim to the rate of the credit card rather than 8%? also if i get a proper sars whats the chances the bank will say they dont have the data anymore?

claims £2000.00 at present but as it looks likley to go on for years yet maybe it could be used as leverage?


Borgbaiter

In a word no. Seperate claims. You could claim the credit card rate on a creditcard claim though.

[scoobydoo]

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

Thanks for all the reporting.


"6. Although the Court of Appeal found that the charges can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCRs, the Court did not consider whether the charges were actually unfair. That is a question that can only ultimately be decided by the Courts.


7. A further hearing or hearings will be required in order for the Court to determine the issue of fairness. The Banks believe their charges are fair and that the charges will therefore be upheld by the Court at the next phase.



can someone explain to me - if the banks do not appeal ,or lose the next appeal does this mean that the banks will not recognise the powers of the OFT or just have no respect for the OFT?

[EXC]

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

To be honest, I disagree. I think the issue should have been fast tracked to the house of lords anyway. it's a very important case, with widespread repercusions (much wider than have been discussed so far). For legitimacy, it SHOULD be decided in the highest court in the land.

I would agree with you Tom but as Ame posted somewhere the main reason the Master of the Rolls gave for refusing leave to appeal is that the point of law in dispute has already been ruled on by the HoLs in the First National Bank case.

As the other Tom was explaining today, in consideration of the appeal application the HoL's look at the entire case in great detail (which is why they have 2 months to decide) and effectively the case is played out again.

I'd be interested to know how many direct applications to appeal to the HoLs are successful.

[natweststaffmember]

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

http://www.publications.parliament.u...025/fair-1.htm

For reference.