OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

[Smasher]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I got one from 2006 hsbc, I'll scan it & email it. It states clearly that charges are "to cover management and administration costs".

Edit: Actually, I just discovered another letter I almost forgot about. I wrote to them and asked what the material difference is between the new and old charging terminology. Their reply confirmed that the old charges were default charges..

[Budgie]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Exc for his dedication and service to the campaign.

Few of you will actually know or realise just how much this man does behind the scenes to assist not just those of us on Legal Beagles but the campaign in general. It's a pleasure to be associated with such a kind, generous, knowledgable and honourable man.

Budgie

[Centium5000]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

If I was to rewrite the banks' position on overdraft assessments:

"We have the right to provide a service we feel may be of use to you, even if it is not strictly necessary, and you have the obligation to pay us whatever fee we determine for these services. You have no right to decline these services."

Even if the service was currently free, that would send a shiver down my spine.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
I've not known EXC long but I'd like to second Bud's thanks. Always relevant, insightful and vigilant.

Nice one mate.

[Budgie]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

If I was to rewrite the banks' position on overdraft assessments:

"We have the right to provide a service we feel may be of use to you, even if it is not strictly necessary, and you have the obligation to pay us whatever fee we determine for these services. You have no right to decline these services."

Even if the service was currently free, that would send a shiver down my spine.

That just about sums it up perfectly Centium and effectively provides the fundamental reason as to why the OFT MUST continue with it's UTCCR's investigation.

[Yoda]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I'm bumping this from another thread in the forum made by Budgie yesterday.

Dear All,

I urgently need copies of either charge notification letters from Banks, dated between 2001 and the present day.

Ideally the target is to build up a collection of such letters for each bank, for each account type and for each year ( covering the various changes in versions of the relevant terms and conditions for each bank ).

Additionally copies of any responses from Banks in relation to preliminary reclaim letters or LBA's would also be extremely useful.

What I am specifically looking for are written statements within those letters detailing exactly what the charges were in respect of, confirming a breach of contract, failure to fulfill obligations or other key information.

Please post copies up on this thread but make sure you remove any personal identification information first.

Thanks Budgie

Charge Notification Letters Required - Legal Beagles

We'd be very grateful if anyone could respond to it today - we have to get it to the OFT by the morning.

During yesterday's meeting it emerged that the OFT would be very interested in seeing evidence that links the charges exclusively to a failure of obligation on the part of the account holder to keep their account in credit, after Budgie had read out extracts of his own letters from Halifax.

While I'm at it I'd like to thank Budgie on his performance yesterday. His preparation for the meeting was superb and he is a credit to the campaign and Legal Beagles.

As I recall, all decline letters from Abbey all stated they were for a breach of contract

[natweststaffmember]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Colin Passmore acts for Barclays in Supreme Court challenge | The Law Gazette

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Consider the following statement made by Gordon Pell, Deputy Chief Executive RBS Group, to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs select committee

''This left the banking industry in an almost impossible position because the box had been opened and yet the main regulator was then not really in a position to close it. In discussion with the OFT and all the regulators and the Treasury, it was agreed that the only way we could really resolve this issue was to get it taken to court and get legal certainty.''

Then consider the Freedom of Information response - below - to my request based on Gordon Pell's statement above.

Now, using your skill and judgment, who's not telling the truth?

[Centium5000]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

All we need now is a response to:

"On what date did HM Treasury become party to your discussions with... What was the nature of their involvement... etc."

..from the OFT (and FSA?).

Maybe one of them will be willing to point out the deliberate mistake!

Speaking of the Treasury, Banks and the FOI, check ths out - it's great fun:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fractional_reserve_lending

[Jester]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I've been watching this thread without too much to say (partly because I was struggling with a lot of it) but would like to just say this.

A BIG thankyou to Exc for all the hard work he has put into this, but also an equally big thankyou to every one else who has contributed to this campaign on our behalf. Without you all, we would all be in the dark about how to have even started all this, let alone known what happened blow-by-blow, and certainly not currently be aware of what avenues we may still have open to us.

We all know the big brains and players on this site who are fighting this with gusto, leadership and no little knowledge (and I dare say a lot of learning along the way), but even those of us less involved have all contributed in one way or another in coming up with things that others may have overlooked.

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Colin Passmore acts for Barclays in Supreme Court challenge | The Law Gazette

Interestingly it was Barclays (and not RBS as in the case of Lawrence Rabinowitz) that instructed the lead bank's QC Jonathon Sumption in the House of Lords appeal.

Brick Court Chambers | 25/11/2009 - Supreme Court rules on bank charges

[natweststaffmember]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

OFT blows £950k on banks case - City AM

This is how much it cost the OFT to litigate in the courts. Quite cheap imho.

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

OFT blows £950k on banks case - City AM

This is how much it cost the OFT to litigate in the courts. Quite cheap imho.

I think so too.


''Experts claim the cases were over factual aspects of law, not involving costly or lengthy appearances that could command such fees.''

The fact is it did involve costly and lengthy appearances.

''The OFT has to answer why so much money was spent on a case the courts saw as “fatally flawed”

He's forgetting that ''fatally flawed'' was not the view of the High Court and Court of Appeal. And in total 9 judges presided over the case and the banks won 5 to 4.

[Centium5000]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Mr Passmore has a great sense of humour:

The case is important because of the clarity it has brought to some key consumer legislation, in particular the legitimacy of overdraft charging structures

Amazing the banks did so well considering they didn't understand the outcome! :P

[PocketTheDifference]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Just thought this might make you laugh, cry suicidal

Team's £3 debt nets £800 charges


A Derbyshire junior football team was landed with £800 worth of bank charges for going £2.57 overdrawn, a BBC Watchdog investigation has revealed. The Riverside under 15s HSBC bank account went overdrawn after a £3 cheque was cashed.
Several charges were then applied to the Long Eaton team's account which brought the deficit to £813.29.
HSBC said it had written off the debt after looking into the case and will apologise to the team.

[charitynjw]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Just thought this might make you laugh, cry suicidal

Team's £3 debt nets £800 charges


A Derbyshire junior football team was landed with £800 worth of bank charges for going £2.57 overdrawn, a BBC Watchdog investigation has revealed. The Riverside under 15s HSBC bank account went overdrawn after a £3 cheque was cashed.
Several charges were then applied to the Long Eaton team's account which brought the deficit to £813.29.
HSBC said it had written off the debt after looking into the case and will apologise to the team.

BBC - Watchdog - HSBC bank charges on Watchdog