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

[Tools]

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

When I spoke to Santander's press office this morning I asked whether this had been implemented as a result of either the recent PCA recommendations or indeed the Test Case Judgment they would already have, they were adamant it was not.

I strongly suspect that this type of account by Santander has been on standby for some time for exactly the reasons I suggested above. A contingency plan so to speak.

This type of account deinitely falls into the scope of the PCA recommendations on clear, no nonsense, PIL charging structures. It will also provide yet another bank to the list that has made huge changes to their accounts since the PCA findings were announced.

I have to say, this is a good move by Santander and one which will be embraced by many consumers. Let us hope that the rest of the banks follow suit in some way.

[omcornwall]

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

Providing the OFT win and banks have to refund....

Does anyone know what the situation will be with claims already with banks and calculating interest? I put in a claim 2 years ago and another claim in 2 months ago. Obviously at the time of my claim interest accumulated stopped however it's going to much more now. What are peoples intentions if we get refunds? Are they going to recalculate everything?

[natweststaffmember]

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

Providing the OFT win and banks have to refund....

Does anyone know what the situation will be with claims already with banks and calculating interest? I put in a claim 2 years ago and another claim in 2 months ago. Obviously at the time of my claim interest accumulated stopped however it's going to much more now. What are peoples intentions if we get refunds? Are they going to recalculate everything?

If the Banks appeal fails the answer is they don't have to refund since the case is about whether the regulations apply for an assessment of fairness.(with regards to next weeks decision specifically).

[EXC]

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

I'm not sure what you mean by ''at the time of my claim interest accumulated stopped''?

Interest would accrue - uninterrupted - from the point each charge was paid, although the rate of interest you'll receive is yet to be decided and will be a matter for either the FSA or more likely the courts.

[omcornwall]

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

Yes both comments full understood.

What I was training to point out is that I had sent banks letters asking for a set amount to be refunded which included interest at 8%. That was some time ago and the amount will be more now due to interest.

[Nickij01]

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

So when would they refund or am I really missing something here, is it a case of better off just waiting to hear the outcome on Wednesday and then realise what the next phase is because I have to say I really don't understand a lot of what is going on? Probably just me.

Thanks

[natweststaffmember]

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

So when would they refund or am I really missing something here, is it a case of better off just waiting to hear the outcome on Wednesday and then realise what the next phase is because I have to say I really don't understand a lot of what is going on? Probably just me.

Thanks

I have just posted and questions and answers with regards to your questions from the Citywire. It is in the press section and does kinda answer your question in a way.

LINK: Bank Charges QA: When will I get my charges back? - Legal Beagles

[ROBSTER]

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

Yes both comments full understood.

What I was training to point out is that I had sent banks letters asking for a set amount to be refunded which included interest at 8%. That was some time ago and the amount will be more now due to interest.

Your interest claim will increase day by day, should you have to issue to court you would usually claim interest to date plus x per day here after.

wait to see if the banks agree to compounded interest (watch this space !)before letting them off with 8% simple interest.

:beagle:

[Angry&Informed]

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

Hi Guys,

Obviously we must wait for Wednesday, if we win this and the 2nd stage i sincerely hope we won't have to go to county court to get our money back. I'm leaving the country in 6 weeks, would i need to be attend any county court hearing in person or is it possible to do that by proxy??

[gaz2006]

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

Hi Guys,

Obviously we must wait for Wednesday, if we win this and the 2nd stage i sincerely hope we won't have to go to county court to get our money back. I'm leaving the country in 6 weeks, would i need to be attend any county court hearing in person or is it possible to do that by proxy??

You cant appoint a "proxy " you have to be there yourself but i dont think it will be sorted in 6 weeks or even some time after that if bank win or lose there are still avenues to go down and twists and turns to be seen yet ....regards Gaz

[natweststaffmember]

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

You cant appoint a "proxy " you have to be there yourself but i dont think it will be sorted in 6 weeks or even some time after that if bank win or lose there are still avenues to go down and twists and turns to be seen yet ....regards Gaz

If the banks win, I think it is the end of reclaiming bank charges. If they are unsuccessful then we have the substantive issues which I would agree with you would have twists and turns perhaps.

[bankrupt]

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

Test Case
The future does not exist; the past does not exist; so we only have the present which by definition can contain no element of time. Therefore time does not exist which makes the whole test case irrelevant.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Test Case
The future does not exist; the past does not exist; so we only have the present which by definition can contain no element of time. Therefore time does not exist which makes the whole test case irrelevant.

I like it

[EXC]

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

Test Case
The future does not exist; the past does not exist; so we only have the present which by definition can contain no element of time.

The present is only defined by the element of time. The present cannot ever exist without past & future.

If you or anyone is concerned about the BBC report this morning quoting a 'government source' as saying ''the case might therefore continue until 2015 or so'', don't be.

Not only is the quote unattributed and unsubstantiated, it comes from an organisation who's understanding of and influence over the test case is on a par equal to that of the Tweenies.

[Ruby]

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

Can anyone tell me - I have just had confirmation from RBS that they agree that I am in financial hardship and a letter of offer will be sent to me this week. The person I spoke to could not tell me the figure as the matter was being dealt with by someone else who was unavailable at the time of my call. Can Wednesday's hearing in anyway adversely affect me?