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

[Bankstormer]

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

Am I the only person who sees this as a good thing.

It has been sooooo frustrating over the past two and a half years having to sit on our hands and hope that the people fighting our corner won.

We are now free to do what we were all doing so well before the OFT got involved.

Game on!

[Amethyst]

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

It is a good thing for those people who are brave enough, can risk costs, and have the knowledge to go for it. I know that sounds patronising but it doesnt help the general consumer or the vulnerable. Its going to be an actual FIGHT now to get charges back and will rely much more on individuals circumstances and if they can show the imbalances adversley affected them as individuals.

We have to be the forerunners in this and take the costs risk to sort out the arguments for everyone else and hopefully create precedents in the arguments now being progressed.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

So if im crap in court no chance? lol !! Won't the courts just say naaaaa

[Bankstormer]

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

It is a good thing for those people who are brave enough, can risk costs, and have the knowledge to go for it. I know that sounds patronising but it doesnt help the general consumer or the vulnerable. Its going to be an actual FIGHT now to get charges back and will rely much more on individuals circumstances and if they can show the imbalances adversley affected them as individuals.

We have to be the forerunners in this and take the costs risk to sort out the arguments for everyone else and hopefully create precedents in the arguments now being progressed.

I hear what your saying, but isn't the burdon of proof with the banks? It's for them to justify their charges - and the fact still remains that they will not want to have to show a breakdown of their costs to a court - any more than they did before July 07.

I feel that with a good enough particulars on your claim that includes all relevent arguments - the banks will start offering settlements again. They aren't stupid and they know that carrying on with the way they were going before the test case is a lot more cost effective than having to automatically pay back all charges right across the board - and also risk all the extra claims like damages and stress etc....

I dont feel that general consumers or the vulnerable will be at a dissadvantage either, because sooner or later they too will come across somebody who will help them claim back what belongs to them.

Its not the perfect situation - I Know - but its as good as its gonna get for now and as long as we can still fight to get whats owing - I'll take it.

[natweststaffmember]

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

So if im crap in court no chance? lol !! Won't the courts just say naaaaa

Then we'll kick your ass to improve your chances. Are you aware that you can visit your local court to get a feel of things(not the clerk of the court on the feel though )?
We'll get you there so don't worry

[Amethyst]

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

lol no its not being crap in court, its having the time and inclination to sit down with your transaction historys and finding evidence that demonstrates clearly the imbalance of the contract.

I dont think it is enough under cca 140 to say they had the right to do this and probably did, if not to me, to others, you have to show that its not just a theory, but that the unfair relationship was taken advantage of by the banks to your detriment.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Ok I hear you, at least you and Natty are being very positive towards the situation which im thankful for. Is it too early to ask you what to do now, Are we yet send letters again.

Sorry if im getting carried away. Quite fancy myself in court demanding money ;p

[MrsSkint]

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

quite fancy myself with an oozy quite frankly

[Not_Watson]

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

Do you mean:

"I need your clothes, your boots, your motorcycle and my charges back" !!!

"I'll be back (for my charges)..."

and any other Arnie/Terminator quotes you care to alter...

[shooter]

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

Just a though and you guys may already be thinking about it...............

But.............
what about singling out one bank at a time Such as LLoyds ( as they seem to be about the worst one) and working on getting them into court and showing the unequal parts of their contracts etc etc... then if we win useing that case against the rest.....

Hopefully you'll all undrerstand what I mean brain not working fully at the mo with so much to do for christmas still...

On the bright side we may feel let down at the moment but I for one think this has not finished yet.
Other countries seem to have knocked their banking into touch so Im sure with the fantastic Team here at LB we will do the same.

Those of you that know that I went back to education may be pleased to know that I have achieved 3 distinctions 1st person to ever do so on the course I'm on at my College in the first term SO I for one am not going to let all this get me down.

:12:MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL THE BEAGLES:12:

hopefully 2010 will be a good year for us all

Shooter xxxxx
:fireside:

[natweststaffmember]

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

The likelihood is a settlement case out of court as a lot of banks do if they are not 100% certain to win in court.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Bank charges: why the OFT think it's not over - Channel 4 News

please click on their player which is an interview with John Fingleton from the OFT.

[ROBSTER]

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

Am I the only person who sees this as a good thing.

It has been sooooo frustrating over the past two and a half years having to sit on our hands and hope that the people fighting our corner won.

We are now free to do what we were all doing so well before the OFT got involved.

Game on!

Well said.
the end of the day what if the banks did not capitulate at the doors of the court and a claimant went on to win on a point "not tested" in the test case?

It would open the flood gates.Again!

Based on a "few" cases no bank's solicitor is going to advise them to take it all the way as for the sake of 1-20k per case they could be "Puking in the trough" for the whole Banking Empire. Out of court settlements are back.

The banks have successfully stemmed the flow of claims (or so they think) which they were struggling with in 2007, so despite al this could be the best outcome for most.

Claimants are going to have to up their game though if they want an out of court settlement under the new climate. hey ho.

I feel sorry for the local courts who were cited as being overwhelmed in the first place looks like they are going to need "a bigger boat".

HO HO HO MERRY CHRISTMAS ALLmasbeagle

[PocketTheDifference]

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

The likelihood is a settlement case out of court as a lot of banks do if they are not 100% certain to win in court.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Bank charges: why the OFT think it's not over - Channel 4 News

please click on their player which is an interview with John Fingleton from the OFT.

any chance of a post Natty, blocked by work!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Out of court claim is that the same old proccess, Letter to bank, 2nd letter asking for money - Hope they suggest a settlement?!

[natweststaffmember]

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

any chance of a post Natty, blocked by work!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Out of court claim is that the same old proccess, Letter to bank, 2nd letter asking for money - Hope they suggest a settlement?!

Bank charges: why the OFT think it's not over

Updated on 23 December 2009
By Channel 4 News
The Office of Fair Trading insists the fight against unauthorised overdraft charges is not over. Chief exec John Fingleton tells Faisal Islam why the case had "limited prospects of success".

The legal battle is over - but the Office of Fair Trading insists it hasn't given up the fight against unauthorised overdraft charges imposed by the banks.
After the Supreme Court ruled against it last month the OFT said the personal account market still wasn't working in consumers' interests.
Banks currently earn more than £2.5bn from the charges - so will they agree to voluntary measures to make them fairer?
Chief Executive John Fingleton spoke to economics correspondent Faisal Islam about the case and why consumers needed more control over their accounts.
"We're not proceeding with the case we had with in Supreme Court or any aspect of that because any such case would be very narrow in its scope and we would have had limited prospects of success - it wouldn't necessarily apply to the majority of consumers of the majority of issues under consideration," he said.
"We remained concerned about the charging in the market going forward and we intend to work to change that.
"We'd like to see customers having more control over their bank accounts more predictability and clarity and a more responsible approach to lending by the banks.
"We're not terribly pleased with the outcome of the Supreme Court case but we have to live with it unfortunately. The task now, I think, is to try and make sure that we don't build up more problems for the future.
"So we have to be very forward looking about this and try to make sure that this market really works much better for consumers than it has in the past.
"What we would like to see is customers have the option if turning off the overdraft facility if they want. Secondly much greater clarity and predictability about when the charges are imposed so people know if they're going to go overdrawn what the consequences will be rather than only finding out afterwards because that will hep their behaviour.
"We will certainly look at whether further legislation is needed in this area. I don’t think it would be a good idea to rush into legislation right now it's always good to have a look at the law to distil what this means for other cases going forward.
"We have cases in other areas…which may provide a more fruitful ground for testing whether this law is fit for purpose. So I think one case is not enough to say, we should go and write a whole new law.
"Our job is to make sure these markets work well going forward and there is no sense in which we have lost interest in getting this market working. We're just not going to be able to do it via the route we thought.
"But we've already achieved voluntary changes from the banks on transparency and on switching and the banks have been prepared to talk to us about that.
"I hope we can achieve the same with the banks on the issues that were the subject of the court case and of course we couldn't do that while the court case was pending but now we can have those discussions."



Full article above but it is better, if you can, to watch what he says to be honest.

[davidl]

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

Just a quick question for someone in the know this has just been playing on my mind the banks seem to be very reluctent to tell everone the actuall cost to them of there charges why. Lets just use a bounced d'd for example if it actually cost them nothing (what with the example of a d'd bouncing i belive is right) can they actually charge you for somthing that costs them nothing.