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

Yeh, the 'fee for a service' route, but as most of us are challenging under the 'to cover our costs' terms, 6.2 won't even come into it.

What law do you mean most of us are challenging under Smasher?

[Amethyst]

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

Good idea This is the previous Bank Charges CHarter - Petition to: follow the Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter, which aims to end both the current suspension of reclaiming the financial misery caused by unfair penalty charges. | Number10.gov.uk - how many of those suggestion are implemented now? I know Some other groups have talked about a second version of sorts but havent decided on wording as yet - and yep facebook is a good medium for it alongside the govt petitions. However this is part of the PCA report response update we're working on Voluntary code for bank charges - what do you want ? - Legal Beagles which is the same kind of thing but will hopefully help the implementation groups with the recommendations of some form of voluntary code that the Banks are working with the OFT on this month. Not sure if the new petitions being discussed will be on trying to get the government to introduce legaslative change (further implementing the UTCCR) to force the banks to repay historics...can't see it happening or any change to be retrospective tbh, and many politicians are already behind the campaign.


and PMSL at your post on there

plan B) Current system,
Cost: free banking (yeah right;-)
Conditions/Penalties/benefits... : but transgressors will be castrated/decapitated or some other equally foul and/or insidious form of brutality and punishment.

Just a thought Ame, and maybe its not such an original thought but here goes.. As evryone probably heard, just before Christmas there was this daft campaign waged against Simon Cowell and X Factor song getting to Number one spot (again). Seemingly, a couple of blokes started it on facebook and offered 'Rage Against The Machine's, Killing in the name of..' as an alternative to the 'Cowell Machine'. For a campaign started by 2 blokes on facebook, they succeeded and RATM got the Christmas number one slot for 2009!! (Apparently, Mr Cowell has since invited the guys to join his employ... lol) My point being, if we could get some kind of 'charter' drafted up in succinct, brief, layman's terms; ie a list of what we as consumers agree are a reasonable set of demands/wish list, whatever, give it a name (Not Dick Turpin Treaty- LB's Banking Draft', (Scaatchi and Scaatchi feel free to input at this juncture...lol) but you get the idea; then post it on the FB petitions (which is free of charge to do) and start spreading the word...?? We know there's power in numbers, and its a click of a button for people to add their name to the petition and post it on... (simples:bump2: like I said, probably not an original idea but if 2 blokes on FB can succeed against the mighty Cowell on something as inane as a blooming X-Factor song, why can't we on an important issue that has affected millions severely and affects many more millions who need that apathy shaking up a tad;-) .... just a thought.. CatXXX

[catinahat]

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

I'll be darned.... :drum: who knew, lol
so wot was Mr Cowell so upset about then? Surely not his protege losing the top spot??? Win win for him then... God indeed must have his favourites;-) X
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Ame, I never cease to be in awe of your dedication and you always word things brilliantly! You truly do have a gift for articulating things at all levels, to all people. maximum respect girl! CatXXX
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
[QUOTE=Amethyst;146044]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.

Ame, this is a really random thought that just came to me... (I hear pitter patter of footsteps running for cover...lol) no seriously, aren't most banks plc?
Am I right in thinking that all PLC's accounts, financials etc are supposed to be accessible to the public? If that is the case, wouldn't there be recourse for legal challenge to the LACK of transparency with these issues or am I wrong in thinking that only the M.O.D. are covered by 'The Official Secrets Act?' lol CatX
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

I'd certainly add my name.

Off topic slightly - Rage Against the Machine's record label is owned by Simon Cowell ..... just as with banks - there is no escape !

I hope everyone's enjoying the snow.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
I'd certainly add my name.

Off topic slightly - Rage Against the Machine's record label is owned by Simon Cowell ..... just as with banks - there is no escape !
I think that is known as a "win-win" !


I hope everyone's enjoying the snow.

Not-Watson my dear, there's an oxymoron(?) contradiction in terms... Enjoy? Snow? Brrr, if you like the colour purple... (on your hands and feet) and Outer Siberia!!! Copious amounts of washing... Puddles of melted snow all over my house...? Snowman in the garden wearing MY BEST TRAINERS (the only pair without a hole!!)and MY SCARF... Yeah, kids are loving it! Give me Death Valley any day! lol CatX

[Amethyst]

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

Ame, this is a really random thought that just came to me... (I hear pitter patter of footsteps running for cover...lol) no seriously, aren't most banks plc?
Am I right in thinking that all PLC's accounts, financials etc are supposed to be accessible to the public? If that is the case, wouldn't there be recourse for legal challenge to the LACK of transparency with these issues or am I wrong in thinking that only the M.O.D. are covered by 'The Official Secrets Act?' lol CatX

Have a look Northern Rock and Bradford Bingley bank charges. - WhatDoTheyKnow (easiest way to say No to the bits u are thinking of I think)

PLC's do publish their accounts but not in any way we can work things out from and they have no obligation to break things down far enough to make use of.

[Smasher]

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

What law do you mean most of us are challenging under Smasher?

I was talking about the terms that we are challenging under. Just trying to get my head around why we can't challenge them about costs if we're claiming on historics.

[Amethyst]

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

I agree with Smasher actually that the judgment swept under the carpet the issues as regards to historical terms.

However I think what the decision is is basically that materially the charges were the same and so the ruling does cover those too. IE. the system of charging peeps for unauth OD is unassessable under price/adequacy throughout time.

[Smasher]

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

But surely we can argue that the judgement is not even relevant as we are claiming for something else entirely? As I see it, the judgement only rules that the OFT can't assess or determine the adequacy of price vs cost of service, but historics were never presented as services, therefore this judgement is not even relevant to those claims.

[Amethyst]

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

Thing is the banks argument is the terms historic or current all give rise to the same thing.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

If I leave the RBS Natwest, asuming we are all allowed to put claims in, in an ideal world, would I still be able to having left,

[Amethyst]

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

Yes

[EXC]

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

But surely we can argue that the judgement is not even relevant as we are claiming for something else entirely? As I see it, the judgement only rules that the OFT can't assess or determine the adequacy of price vs cost of service, but historics were never presented as services, therefore this judgement is not even relevant to those claims.

In the context of the price it doesn't matter how the charges were presented but how they are defined in law.

[Smasher]

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

Thing is the banks argument is the terms historic or current all give rise to the same thing.

Am I looking at this too black & white or is that a good thing? If I put it like this, and it will be ridiculously plain English, but on principle, why can't I argue like this?:

My contract stated that unauth OD charges were to cover management & admin costs. My OD renewal agreement also states that. The letter from my bank confirms they are default charges.

I have 12 default charges until Sept 2007, all of which were imposed under the above terms.
I disagree that the charges could possibly equal to the costs given the PCA report that 1/3 of the bank's income is generated by these charges.
Therefore, I believe that the terms were misrep and the charges possibly a penalty unless the Defendant can prove that what they stated in tose terms was the truth.
Surely now there is a valid and strong enough reason for the court to order an examination. Competition regs shouldn't be a wall to hide behind in a situation like this. This is the very reason for all the settlements prior to the test case.

I have a further 3 charges since Sept 2007 under new terms which now present them as 'consideration fees' for instant/unarranged overdraft.
Now, if it is the bank's own opinion that they all give rise to the same thing, then apart from the fairness arguments, it is time to argue cloaking too no?

[Amethyst]

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

Thats the misrep argument I think Smasher. Cloaking was chucked out basically when Smith ruled they werent penalties (which he did on historics and current).

So rather than us saying the banks are saying they are service and they arent they are penalties - we say the bank misled us into thinking they were penal when they were part of the bank account price so we were misled .....


so its cloaking backwards.

[Smasher]

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

In the context of the price it doesn't matter how the charges were presented but how they are defined in law.

Right, but for historics, there was no 'price' because there was no service. It was explined as straight reimbursement for costs.

[Amethyst]

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

Explained as, but has been proven now not to have been. So they were misrepresenting the charges historically, rather than misrepresenting them now.