OFT Test Case Discussion

[strangewayofsavin]

So - a couple of questions to chew over

• How does this delay affect current claims re the Statute of Limitations? given that claims could be at least 1 year older when they get a decision?
• If the desicion goes in our favour, then we can invoke S.32 1 (c), of the Limitations act, and claim back as far as we like.
• If we are not allowed to pursue charges claims, why are the banks still allowed to impose charges?
• If the court rules in our favour, they would have to let us claim back charges, but they may cap the period, which means we will have to continue as we are now to claim back the rest, rather than sending 1 letter
• Can we now tell banks/dca's that they cannot pursue debts that contain an element of banks charges?
• Not sure, but they would have to adjust records with the CRA's, and CCJ's, However if its their charges that made you in arrears, I would believe there would be no debt.
• If the banks ultimately lose (even if it goes to appeal/house of lords) will they be forced to pay back all charges or only those requested, and will they pay them back on demand?
• I would imagine it would be similar to the mis sold endowment thingy, where the claiment sends in a letter, and a breakdown of charges, and the bank would check its correct and payout.
• If the above is yes, what will happen to all those court cases already in progress and stayed pending this decision? a lot of money wasted there, will court costs still be repaid even if cases don't need to be heard, and will interest still be paid for those cases?
• They would have to settle with costs, or i would imagine carry on to court, and get the preverbiale wet fish in the face from the Judge.
• Are there any other options for people on benefits, I take it the letter of appropriation will still stand?
• Not sure about other options, but the appropriation request is a right so will stand.
• What will happen to websites such as this, can we survive the test case and are members willing (or able) to support it in the meantime?
• Even though the Reclaiming of Bank charges section would shrink, it would mean we could devote more energy/effort into other consumer issues, and start loosing the Label of rip off Britain.

Please feel free to add your further comments/questions but it would be good to keep the debate to one thread, there's hundreds of postings asking the same questions on other sites - cheers

I for one am glad that the penalty charge issue maybe coming to a conclusion, because it had to stop, the banks are making a mockery out of the legal system, its about time the gready share holders were put in their place. The cosumer sites have been a god send to Joe public, and i look forward in doing the same with the mortgage companies, Bailiffs, and even the Utillity suppliers whom find it amusing to squeeze a bit more from the Bill payer, just so they can keep on earning millions of pounds a year, and I hope Gordon Brown is watching because the Government is on the list:slayer:.

[iancognito]

OK this is going in the 12:30 post, any comments before then would be greatly appreciated:

first direct,
40 Wakefield Road,
Leeds
LS98 1FD



Dear Sirs

Account No.
Sort Code:

Following the statement by the OFT in which they declared their belief that the charges being imposed by yourselves are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ('UTCCRs') I am writing to confirm my wish not to be party to any unlawful or alleged unlawful act and am therefore withdrawing my permission for you to remove any funds from my account in relation to unauthorised overdraft fees until such time as a court has made a decision in this matter.

I am aware that your terms and conditions include for payment of these charges should I breach my agreement with you, I am therefore willing for you to keep a log of any such charges that would be imposed on occasion of my breach and will be happy to abide by the courts decision in repayment of these charges once the courts have ruled on the issue.

The above also includes the £50 debited on the 26th July, the date I became aware of the OFT Statement. Please credit this money to my account with immediate effect.

I look forward to your positive reply in the near future.

Yours faithfully

I think we already know what the result will be but the FSA need something to do while the test case is ongoing so a retaliatory action complaint will keep them out of mischief.

[Amethyst]

Excellent.

[Turboman]

Can you tell me what is significance of

...pre-estimate of costs...

means as opposed to

...estimate of costs...

Turbo

[Paradox]

Human Right to a fair trial?

This has been brought up on another website.. It's questioning whether it is fair to suspend all claims until the outcome of the OFT's case is fair, or against our basic human rights.

Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial in civil and criminal proceedings. It sets standards for the way that proceedings are run. Although you may feel that you have not had a fair trial if you lose your case, there will only be a breach of Article 6 if these standards have not been met.

Any court proceedings which are not criminal cases are civil proceedings. Article 6 covers most but not all civil proceedings. Proceedings between private people or organisations to settle a dispute between them are covered by Article 6. Proceedings between a private person or organisation and the Government or a public authority may be covered by Article 6.

Certain standards apply in both criminal and civil proceedings. These rights include:

• The right to a trial within a reasonable time.
• The right to an independent and impartial judge or tribunal.
• The right to a public hearing (although there are circumstances when the public can be excluded)
• The right to a public judgment (although this may be restricted in certain types of cases, e.g. family cases.)

In civil proceedings Article 6 also protects the right to take court proceedings to settle a dispute, although this right may be restricted in some circumstances. It may also give the right to legal aid where the dispute is very complicated and you are at a disadvantage because you cannot afford a lawyer.

Discuss.

[CYNthesys]

For whats its worth I would say -
I refuse to be a party to any unlawful or alleged unlawful act

[CYNthesys]

Dont start me off on The Human Rights Act

I had a case lodged with Strasbourg, and was represented by a Human Rights Organisation, but it was deemed inadmissable. No reasons were given.
Very few cases lodged against countries that enjoy "cosy" relationships with Europe even get to be seen by the Court

[mia1]

oft v's banks??

I have read all comments made by you all, and like some, feel that this is a total conspiracy!!!! why on earth halt all refunds of charges and yet not charges from the customer! Am I being really stupid, I thought that these charges were unlawful, and the refunds aren't??? so to me that means that, in my opinion, its the charges that should be halted, and not the refunds! or is that just me being far too logical! I also get a feeling that this is what the banks have been cooking up for a while, to ensure the halt of refunding! again, I feel like its the big boys are getting their way again, and its us who will feel the brunt of it! I am annoyed! VERY!!

[grimbell]

I feel as mia does so it will be interesting to see what response iancognito gets from his letter.

It does seem totally wrong for refunds to be halted but not the charges themselves being imposed.

Perhaps a mass complaint to the FSA about the fairness would be in order.

This situation still means misery and struggle for many people and as the case could take years to settle how on earth can this be seen to be fair to the consumer.

[Celestine]

Ive been thinking....

we need to influence the decision of the Master of the Rolls, it would be a travesty if consumers were not allowed to litigate pending a test case that could take 2 years to resolve.

Emails to MPs, comments in media, as much as possible to try and stop them suspending all cases.

Suspending claims would be a serious breach of our human rights.

[enaid]

IMHO the OFT have been far from fair, their actions have been totally one sided, how can this be fair. They have in no way considered the consumer in their action at all. I thought they were impartial, infact in my view they are as bent as the banks.

[TUTTSI]

Totally agree, while the test case is ongoing no charges can be levied until the test case is decided. Of course, that means the bank can return items but simply not charge for doing so.(it would annoy them no end )

I agree Nattie, my sentiments entirely, if they cannot charge those fees whilst the test case is ongoing they will not want to delay the outcome. Otherwise it is just one sided as usual and they can drag it out as long as they want.
DS

[TUTTSI]

Waiting the decision of the TEST CASE

My hubby has just asked me to post this, he says until a decision arises from a test case and it becomes law there is absolutley no reason why our current bank claims at court should not be heard as normal in court or settled before the hearing date. He says there must be some provision in the CPR rules to apply to this court on this basis to object to a stay by the defendant bank.

Has anyone got any views on this please!!!
DS

[natweststaffmember]

Yes, I totally agree with you on this.

[Amethyst]

Yes we will be applying to set aside any stay applications made by the banks to the courts on indivudal cases.

If a blanket stay is granted by master of rolls then we will protest under ECHR.