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

[natweststaffmember]

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?

Not one bit since the offer would have been made prior to the OFT test case decision.

[flam147]

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

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.

That would be more clever than some Mp,s then:tinysmile_grin_t:

[dad]

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

If the banks win, I think it is the end of reclaiming bank charges.

Nattie,

With respect, I am not sure I agree with this. If you remember back to Smithy's original judgment he said that the bank's exercise of discretion when deciding to allow a payment or reject a payment must not be arbitrary or capricious.

This reflects well established law on discretionary decision making. So if it was held that a customer had indeed paid for the service of considering a request for an overdraft extention, then they would have a claim if the bank had not properly considered the request in light of the individual circumstances at the time that the request was considered as such a decision would be arbitrary and not a genuine exercise of discretion which the customer had paid for.

As we all know that the systems are automatic and not subject to genuine discretion, hence the importance of the question about manual intervention in the original request for information letters. A win for the banks may just be a leap from the frying pan into the fire!

HTH

Dad

[EXC]

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

From OFT this morning:

''We will be publishing a statement and updated Q&As on our website as soon as possible after the judgment is handed down.''

[Sapphire]

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

Sounds to me like they are preparing for an onslaught of enquiries then.

[stewie082]

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

From OFT this morning:

''We will be publishing a statement and updated Q&As on our website as soon as possible after the judgment is handed down.''

This was on the daily mail. Read the last line.



Wednesday's judgment is not the end of the battle. It will only dictate whether the Office of Fair Trading has the right to determine what is, and what is not, a fair bank charge.

If the OFT wins, as expected, it will announce its findings early next year.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0XgPkIbOf

[EXC]

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

This was on the daily mail. Read the last line.



Wednesday's judgment is not the end of the battle. It will only dictate whether the Office of Fair Trading has the right to determine what is, and what is not, a fair bank charge.

If the OFT wins, as expected, it will announce its findings early next year.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0XgPkIbOf

I think that the Mail is referring to the publication of the UTCCR investigation findings and it's final conclusions on fairness. What they said this morning refers to immediately after the judgment.

From: EXC
Sent: 23 November 2009 08:48
To: Kate Farrow
Subject: Judgment

Hi Kate

I hope you're well.

Obviously we're waiting with great anticipation for Wednesday's judgment and the OFT's response to it.

Can you let me know when you expect to be making any announcement and/or update to the test case Q&As?

Kind regards


----- Original Message -----
From: Kate Farrow
To: EXC
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: Judgment

Hi Nick

I'm well thanks, hope you are too.

We will be publishing a statement and updated Q&As on our website as soon as possible after the judgment is handed down. I'll email you copies as soon as they are published.

Kind regards,

Kate

[EXC]

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

Those kind folks over at the British Bankers Association have decided - 2 days before the judgment - to issue a 'Test Case Fact Sheet' to keep us all informed.

http://www.bba.org.uk/content/1/c6/0...Fact_Sheet.pdf

[natweststaffmember]

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

I think they published that on the announcement of the OFT test case decision, last week. It is surprisingly not too bad.

[EXC]

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

I think they published that on the announcement of the OFT test case decision, last week. It is surprisingly not too bad.

Like I said it was published today BBA Association - Home

Also the Mail got it wrong in saying ''If the OFT wins, as expected, it will announce its findings early next year''. The OFT has twice stated that it will be by the end of this year and that is also confirmed in the BBA Fact Sheet.

[Nickij01]

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

I am waiting for Wednesday with baited breath, so nervous and anxious about it, could potentially mean the end of the road for some and the beginning for others, its all so confusing. Wish it was more clear cut but then nothing in life is.

I just wanted to say, is that someone from LB real Dad....if it is, I think it is sooo cool! Sorry just had to say that.


NJ x

[charitynjw]

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

I know it's a game of 2 halves (is this the football thread? lol)
& there may be a way to go yet
But did I see somewhere that there might be a possibility of claiming back beyond the '6' years?
Or was it just a pleasant dream!!

[Amethyst]

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

July 01 is a given, beyond that is an argument

[Ruby]

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

From what I have read on various sites it may be possible to claim back charges from 1995, but that we will have to wait and see about. That would be a very pleasant start to 2010 if we could get back our charges from that period to present with compound interest. Oops, I've just woken up again!

[Jester]

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

I'm sorry. But I disagree with a lot of the posters on here who think that this is going to be a drawn out affair. Whilst I agree that a court needs to set the level of charges, I honestly don't think that Banks will want that to happen.

People seem to think that the Banks will fight this all the way. But in my eyes, if the Banks lose on Wednesday (and for all the speculation around the Net and Press it looks like they have lost) then I can see the Banks pre-empting everything and starting to pay out on a level that they think is fair.

It is no secret that the reason the Banks paid out before everything was put on hold while the Test Case happened was the simple reason that they did not want to have to reveal what the TRUE cost to them of these charges were. Why is the situation any different now ?

True, we all now know that the charges they inflicted bore no relation to what it actually cost them, but the situation is running parallel to that scenario. All that will change is that the OFT will be able to assess the charges for fairness. As soon as the Banks know this is going to happen, they will either negotiate directly with the OFT or pay out on a level they feel will be acceptable. On no account will they want a court to tell them what level that charge will sit at as it will then be set by law. Setting it by law will be better for us (the consumer) in the long run, but it won't suit the Banks. Far from it.

Plus, they are all coming under pressure from ministers who are desperate for us all to vote them back in next year.

A lot of you will pooh-pooh me for my assertion, but having done work for several banks AND dealt with a lot of board-level people at these Banks, this is what I believe the Banks will do. From now on it will be damage limitation for them.

That is my belief pure and simple. If I am proved wrong then so be it. But I believe the Banks to be too devious to allow a court to set what the level of fairness is. They will try everything in their power to avoid that scenario. The only people who will be able to force a court decision is the OFT ... and the Banks will negotiate for all they are worth with the OFT to avoid a court setting the level.

Everyone ignored my last post alluding to this, and you probably all will again. But I think we are about to see a big shift in things if everything goes the way of the OFT on Wednesday.