OFT Test Case on Bank Charges ......from House of Lords to Supreme Court

[natweststaffmember]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I have to agree with WendyB and the more you read the conservative thing the more you see that they are not in agreement with a negotiated settlement but the key words are "once the legal issues have been resolved I agree with you that bank customers must be compensated quickly and fairly for any unfair charges that they have had to pay."
To my mind that is nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision but is about secondary litigation.
With respect to Martin, it does not mean that the charges are unfair until they are tested in a court of law which is stage 2.

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Well that MSE thing did more for the Tories than it did for MSE imo.

this bit

What they don't want to see is, for a solution to be agreed or negotiated, which banks and many consumers follow, only for others who are more militant to challenge the agreement through the courts. There are two obvious groups that might launch such a challenge: the first are campaign sites like this one, and the other are claims handling companies which promise to get people more money back – though, of course, the 25% cut they get would probably defeats any gain for individuals.

Ensuring any settlement is legally watertight won't be easy; the FSA can provide a regulatory solution but it cannot rule the courts. That may need legislation.



Well in that case let it go to court, OFT, its legal solution. And stop trying to muddy the waters with half-assed crap. No point in trying to do a final settlement negotiation before a final settlement has been reached, is there?? And IMO any negotiation has to have a proviso that it can be changed later if the OFT etc find more in our favour than the settlement does. Which makes it all a bit redundant really doesn't it?(But if could just have my charges back first, I'd be eternally grateful lol)

If there was any negotiation at any point the very last person we need to fight our corner would be the author of this:

''In that case we have to accept a small amount is fair - for me £2.50 is actually less than the consensus we had during the bank charges consumer charter. That was a public statement made by the bank charges campaigning groups (I suspect you are a 'legal beagal' in which case I know that group wasn't a part to it) at a time when the climate was less favourable - to retrench from that now wouldn't be right.''

Isn't that kind of back to front? The carrot he originally went with was a fiver at a time when ''the climate was less favourable''. Now that the climate is infinately more favourable he argues we should slash that by half.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Could that be because RBS Group HAVE slashed one of their fees to a fiver?

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I should have mentioned that I asked listings if the Law Lords do any work on judgments during the summer recess and the answer was no. And as there's ''at least a dozen'' other judgments pending coupled with the additional distraction of them moving into a new building I now wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait until November.

[Budgie]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I should have mentioned that I asked listings if the Law Lords do any work on judgments during the summer recess and the answer was no. And as there's ''at least a dozen'' other judgments pending coupled with the additional distraction of them moving into a new building I now wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait until November.

Maybe we should get Martin Lewis to have a word with some of the Law Lords and speed them along a bit !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ROBSTER]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Well in that case let it go to court, OFT, its legal solution. And stop trying to muddy the waters with half-assed crap. No point in trying to do a final settlement negotiation before a final settlement has been reached, is there?? And IMO any negotiation has to have a proviso that it can be changed later if the OFT etc find more in our favour than the settlement does. Which makes it all a bit redundant really doesn't it?(But if could just have my charges back first, I'd be eternally grateful lol)[/quote]


IMHO there is absolutely no room for compromise here:

Banks took the money mistakenly(?) or not. So if they were not entitled to do so they give it back PLUS any consequential interest (taken as a direct result of that charge), otherwise in many cases the Bank will be laughing "all the way to the Bank" as the interest (and further charges as a result of this interest) by far eclipse the original charge.

PUT THINGS BACK AS IF THE CHARGE HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED IN THE FIRST PLACE MR POLITICIAN, JUST AS YOU WOULD REFUND ALL OF THE "MISTAKEN" CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON YOUR FLAT IN LONDON WHICH YOU ACCIDENTLY RENTED AND THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX YOU "MISTAKENLY" FORGOT TO PAY.

FLIPPIN HEC!

[kev2b3]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Just wondering would the banks and the OFT be given the judgements before its made public.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Just wondering would the banks and the OFT be given the judgements before its made public.

Without a doubt.

[Budgie]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

See page 6 of the linked document which details how the HoL used to work as far as judgments are concerned.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/u...BpJudicial.pdf

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Just returning to the subject of restitution, the litigation agreement between the OFT & banks makes reference to it - and also limitations - that these issues will be ''determined concurrently with the said substantive issues''. In other words during the court hearing of whether the charges are fair.

This can be found on page 2 section G of litigation agreement http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/per...-Banks-FSA.pdf

There are plenty of examples of the legal definition of 'restitution' on the internet - here is one of them:

The general term restitution describes the act of restoration. The term is used in different areas of the law but carries the same meaning throughout.
The basic purpose of restitution is to achieve fairness and prevent the Unjust Enrichment of a party. Restitution is used in contractual situations where one party has conferred a benefit on another party but cannot collect payment because the contract is defective or no contract exists.

For instance, assume that a person builds a barn on the property of another person. Assume further that the structure is not erected pursuant to a contract or agreement and that the owner of the property on which the barn sits refuses to pay the builder for the barn. Despite the absence of a contract, a court can order the owner to pay the builder the cost of the labor and materials under the doctrine of restitution.

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

interesting documents from the fsa regarding redress after the test case FSA-Firms planning for refunds after test case - Legal Beagles

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Excellent work Ame.

[Budgie]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

I echo that, well found Ame xx

Is the next step an FOI request to see how the banks responded ?
Deadline was 19th September at the latest.

Sort of makes a mockery of the MSE news headlines from last week doesn't it.

Budgie

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Is the next step an FOI request to see how the banks responded ?
Deadline was 19th September at the latest.

They wouldn't release that kind of firm-specific info Bud.

[Tools]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

We will see

A follow up request has just left my email.