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

[EXC]

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

Also, MSE have NOT said templates will be released third week of Jan.

They have said

''Following the 22 Dec 09 announcement by the OFT that it doesn't intend to continue the fight, we're looking at publishing direct guidance of consumers' options by the second or third week of January.''

Mike Dailly - 15 December:


''No amended template documents have been produced at this stage, because it has become apparent that the best solution in the public interest, is for the OFT to raise fresh proceedings against the banks and take further enforcement action. Why?

There are various reasons, including (a) an estimated 12 million UK consumers have paid bank charges in the past and it is unrealistic, unreasonable and impractical to expect all of them to be able to take personal action to reclaim these charges, (b) if the OFT does not take action, there will be widespread scope for claims management companies and 'claims farmers' who operate in a parasitical, viral way, to make a lot of money (e.g. a 40% take of your award, with upfront costs on top)by exploiting vulnerable members of the public.

And finally,(c)the skill and arguments necessary to present claims in adversarial court proceedings is likely to be beyond most party litigants (we saw this in the Hull strike-out cases, where GLC as part of the UK unfair bank charges legal team had to undertake a huge amount of amendment work, with Mr Raymond Cox QC appearing on our clients behalf, in order to stop 44 cases being struck out - we won, but it was a massive amount of work).

If the OFT did decide to take up the new legal challenge(s), and subsequently won, then consumers would be able to seek a refund without the need to pay anyone at all. Furthermore, if the OFT continued its legal challenge this should prevent one million current claims being rejected. If the OFT ultimately, decide not to take this issue forward then we will need to carefully consider our strategy. The OFT are expected to make a decision in the next few days - so watch this space.''


Blogger: Govan Law Centre - Email Post to a Friend

[Amethyst]

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

when are his scots hearings ? do we know ?

[EXC]

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

I'm not sure that any hearings have been scheduled yet - at least this was the position on 23 December:

"In Scotland, Govan Law Centre has already started to amend claims to take on board the Supreme Court's decision, and new Consumer Credit Act remedies, and is currently awaiting court dates.''

Govan Law Centre

[Amethyst]

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

Ahh good, I was thinking of this bit

''Meantime, in Scotland, GLC has enrolled applications to recall sists (stays) in bank charges cases with a view to obtaining compensation for some of our clients in the South West of Glasgow.''

So i assume they are now awaiting the dates for those recalls to be heard.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Who do you think is most likely to get a refund now, above you've quoted
"obtaining compensation for some of our clients "
Who would fall into that SOME OF?
Thanks

[Amethyst]

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

oh, think its a few scots hardship peeps he's been helping.

[Amethyst]

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

Bruce comments on OFT decision to drop bank charges case

12.00.00am GMT Wed 23rd Dec 2009
Gordon MP Malcolm Bruce told of his frustration on learning of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT)'s decision that they would be dropping their investigation into the fairness of bank charges.
Commenting, he said -
"Bank customers will share my dismay at this announcement by the OFT which comes after a long legal battle. The feeling is that there is still plenty of mileage in this battle and this has been borne out by the Supreme Court's judgment which gave scope for further challenges to the banking practices under section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. People will be wondering why the OFT has come so far only to give up now.
"The Government and the OFT seem content to allow the banks to come up with a voluntary code of practice but with the UK's banks looking to claw back business after the scare of the credit crunch this seems highly improbable and public scepticism prevails.
"If the banks fail to adequately sort this mess themselves we will need the Government to introduce effective regulations if necessary through new legislation- if only to stop millions of people being ripped of by banks which they have had to very recently to bail out."
ENDS

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Why CAN'T we boycote the Banks? In total demonstration to this and after months of that, losting buisness and money surely they would eventually have to come to some sort of agreement!? I know its not the best idea in the world and far from it but is that not a little road we can take while we are waiting anyway?

[Smasher]

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

A lot of people have suggested that in the past. It would put a lot of people to a lot of trouble and it is hard to see enough people doing it all at once to have any effect..

[borgbaiter]

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

Why CAN'T we boycote the Banks? In total demonstration to this and after months of that, losting buisness and money surely they would eventually have to come to some sort of agreement!? I know its not the best idea in the world and far from it but is that not a little road we can take while we are waiting anyway?

how about we pick an bank and all move there?

be a kick in the guts and money box if we then moved?


borgbaiter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

A lot of people have suggested that in the past. It would put a lot of people to a lot of trouble and it is hard to see enough people doing it all at once to have any effect..

trouble for the banks or the people ? switching is now supposed to be easy. if it doesnt work surely theres a case for compensation above and beyond expenses


Borgbaiter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
id add just coz its hard isnt a reason not to try it

[Amethyst]

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

Apathy is rife, that's the problem.

Iraq, Animal Rights, G20, Climate Change ..... yep, Bank Charges well the 12.6 million who have been charged only 10% care enough to be bothered to send a complaint to the bank, only took 5% of those took court action - at the height of the campaign only 50 people showed up to a protest in London , possibly 5% of court claimants would, if very well publicised, actually be incensed enough to take any direct action at all, so what 325 people who might possibly do something direct such as a protest, moving their accounts in protest etc. Even a basic signing a petition request 'turnout' is exceedingly low and it takes 2 minutes (the massively publicised Banking Charter Petition got 70,000 signatures so about the same as the people who took the banks to court and what effect did that have? not putting it down btw it was a valiant effort)

Maybe I am rubbish at maths but I cant see it having any affect whatsoever tbh. Maybe that is defeatist - but I see much more happening from getting those 325 people to positivly input into the future of banking and changing things for the better and contributing to the PCA report lol (not that I'd like some help please), writing to MP's to push the government for legislative change and that kind of thing. The campaign is so fragmented, despite huge efforts to get everyone working together, and really not enough people care about historicals to make any difference.

Once we have worked hard on POCs and getting some claims through the courts, and getting a good outcome, then things will pick up again and media interest will return.

For now though - everyone's input into this Voluntary code for bank charges - what do you want ? - Legal Beagles would be a wonderful start.

[EXC]

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

For now though - everyone's input into this Voluntary code for bank charges - what do you want ? - Legal Beagles would be a wonderful start.

A great post.

The problem is that consumers do not act as a unit and the nearest thing are sites like this.

I think that Beagle's consultation response to the OFT Market Study is the single most influential thing this site has had on bank charges. This resulted in ensuring a lot of the changes that will be implemented this year (see file attached)

We all look around for ways to vent our anger, put pressure on the banks etc but in fact the opportunity to really make a difference is given to us on a plate when the OFT invite us for our views and suggestions like the link Ame has provided ( Voluntary code for bank charges - what do you want ? - Legal Beagles but in the main we're too apathetic to take it. It might sound less interesting than a protest but the reality is it's easier and far more effective.

As a result of our PCA Consultation response there is a chance, albeit small, that Beagles will have a seat on the Implementation Group responsible for ensuring banks adhere to addressing the failings in the current account market identified by the Market Study.

And as the Team Leader for the Market Study put it recently:

''Thank you for your continued interest here. By demonstrating that interest you are ensuring that the banks are aware of the importance of these issues, and of keeping consumers at the top of the implementation group agenda''.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Can sombody clear up a small question why dont the banks have to tell us where costs are?? and how much it costs. How can the country actually say no its ok, you don't have to tell your customers why your charging that amount?

[Amethyst]

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

Individual Banks costs of supplying PCA services is considered commercially sensitive information. It has been looked into in various merger reports, competition commission investigations and by the OFT in this investigation but any released information is redacted. The annual reports give some clues but pinning it down to exact figures is difficult, if you read the SME competition report it shows just how complex working out the supply of individual services within each bank costs the bank and have read a number of Economics reports on the issue and got not very far. Plus now the courts have ruled the relevant charges don't need to be associated with the service/cost of the breach(as there isnt one in law grr) its irrelevant.

For credit cards, as its a proven penalty for breach of contract, the banks did disclose their costs etc to the OFT (we have the redacted info on here) and CitiCards have given defences in court consisting of a very vague breakfown of figures (remarkably making the COST to be just over the OFT's £12 threshold for intervention (£13.46) )

[EXC]

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

As Ame says now that the Supreme Court has ruled that fairness rules cannot be applied to 'price' it's irrelevant what the banks charge costs are now.

We all know the cost is minimal but whether it's a couple of pence or a couple of quid it simply doesn't matter.