Tweet
Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news
Good Points Bungie, you are more than qualified to comment on restitutionary interest calculations.
Why dont the banks settle today ?
If I can draw every ones attention to my signiture below
V V V
Originally posted by Budgie
View Post
Of course everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But for reasons referred to in many earlier posts on this thread it is considered extremely unlikely that there will be a negotitiated settlement and nor should there be. Some people appear to be happy that £5 would be a fair charge, Martin Lewis thinks £2.50, I personally think that £1 is more like the correct figure. However, it doesn't actually matter what any of us think as only a court can actually decide what a fair charge should be as far as future charges are concerned.
Didnt South Africa "service charges" get investigated BECAUSE they were around £5 and are now fixed at 40 pence..a price at which the banks are still making a trading profit?
Anything more than the actual cost of administration is obllocks IMO
PEOPLE WHO ARE HAPPY TO TAKE CHARGES -£5 NOW
And yes there are a lot of desperate people out there who the "Shylocks" in the banks will "feed on" if clients and encourage them to accept a lot less then the full charges PLUS the interest (calculated to put the bank back in the same position as if the money had not been taken).
That is the only acceptable resolution IMHO I am sorry you are desperate but you need to get your "poker face on" when (and if) it comes down to the final negotiation and not be "led by desperation"
Historic charges are another matter all together, if the charges and the terms that describe them are ruled by the Court as unfair in the 2nd stage of the test case ( still to come ) then under UTCCR 1999 the historic charges will be ruled as unenforcable and the court will order them refunded by the banks in their entirety. Some people might agree with you and Martin Lewis and would be happy to allow the banks to keep some of their ill-gotton gains from historic charges but I for one do not want this. I want the banks punished for their past actions and the untold misery they have caused to hundreds of thousands of people via their actions. I want them to repay every single charge they have applied under these regulations and I want them to disgorge the unjust profits they have made by being able to turn that unlawfully acquired charge money to account. I appreciate that there are many people who are desperate for the return of their charges and like you would bite off the hand of the banks if they were to offer a partial refund of historic charges now rather than wait until the legal issues have been resolved. Well, the opportunity already exists for those who are presently in genuine hardship to try and secure an interim partial refund of historic charges by making a claim under financial hardship. This website, probably more than any other site provides assistance to any person who wishes to make a claim under financial hardship. Those of us who don't qualify under hardship guidelines, even though we might have been through severe hardship in the past as a result of these charges, will unfortunately just have to wait until all of the legal issues have been resolved.
Incidentally, why would the banks even wish to consider repaying historic charges now rather than later? The banks do not believe their charges are unfair, the banks believe they are untouchable. They believe they will eventually win. Even if they lose the forthcoming Supreme Court judgement they will carry on fighting as they believe they will win the unfairness action in the second stage of the test case. They do not believe they should pay back a penny of what they have taken. Even the huge legal costs they are running up are nothing compared to the amount of money they might eventually have to refund. Rest assured they will fight to the very end without surrender and so should we.
Budgie
Didnt South Africa "service charges" get investigated BECAUSE they were around £5 and are now fixed at 40 pence..a price at which the banks are still making a trading profit?
Anything more than the actual cost of administration is obllocks IMO
PEOPLE WHO ARE HAPPY TO TAKE CHARGES -£5 NOW
And yes there are a lot of desperate people out there who the "Shylocks" in the banks will "feed on" if clients and encourage them to accept a lot less then the full charges PLUS the interest (calculated to put the bank back in the same position as if the money had not been taken).
That is the only acceptable resolution IMHO I am sorry you are desperate but you need to get your "poker face on" when (and if) it comes down to the final negotiation and not be "led by desperation"
Historic charges are another matter all together, if the charges and the terms that describe them are ruled by the Court as unfair in the 2nd stage of the test case ( still to come ) then under UTCCR 1999 the historic charges will be ruled as unenforcable and the court will order them refunded by the banks in their entirety. Some people might agree with you and Martin Lewis and would be happy to allow the banks to keep some of their ill-gotton gains from historic charges but I for one do not want this. I want the banks punished for their past actions and the untold misery they have caused to hundreds of thousands of people via their actions. I want them to repay every single charge they have applied under these regulations and I want them to disgorge the unjust profits they have made by being able to turn that unlawfully acquired charge money to account. I appreciate that there are many people who are desperate for the return of their charges and like you would bite off the hand of the banks if they were to offer a partial refund of historic charges now rather than wait until the legal issues have been resolved. Well, the opportunity already exists for those who are presently in genuine hardship to try and secure an interim partial refund of historic charges by making a claim under financial hardship. This website, probably more than any other site provides assistance to any person who wishes to make a claim under financial hardship. Those of us who don't qualify under hardship guidelines, even though we might have been through severe hardship in the past as a result of these charges, will unfortunately just have to wait until all of the legal issues have been resolved.
Incidentally, why would the banks even wish to consider repaying historic charges now rather than later? The banks do not believe their charges are unfair, the banks believe they are untouchable. They believe they will eventually win. Even if they lose the forthcoming Supreme Court judgement they will carry on fighting as they believe they will win the unfairness action in the second stage of the test case. They do not believe they should pay back a penny of what they have taken. Even the huge legal costs they are running up are nothing compared to the amount of money they might eventually have to refund. Rest assured they will fight to the very end without surrender and so should we.
Budgie
Why dont the banks settle today ?
If I can draw every ones attention to my signiture below
V V V
Comment