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

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Sorry Im just catching up busy at work and all that, you where talking about an injunction...for what exactly??

[natweststaffmember]

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

Here is a free hit for anyone(ouch).

Can anyone sue a bank in another EU country for charges incurred if they live within that specific country, ie live in Germany and bank account is in England for example?

[Amethyst]

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

conspiracy theory warning !!!!!

has just dawned on me what's going on with the banks new charging structures.

Every bank now has a different charging structure.

RBS have kept the original structure but lowered the prices (to £5 and £15)

From all the current structures it seems RBS is the fairest, simplest and best for customers but thats because the level of charge is low.

Others, like the barclays reserve account, abbeys tiered pricing, halifax's daily fees, have cause a palava and are considered unfair structurally - well thats the impression i have gleaned from reading here, MSE, CAg etc

So, we go into court off the back off the judgment which rules out arguments of price fairness, but brings in arguments of structure fairness - the arguments get to the high court - they will look at each banks structures, consider them all unfair except RBS on structure, and order they all go back to the RBS structure - we can't argue on price because thats been chucked out by the Supreme Court, so all banks bring back in theoriginal structures and charge what the feck they like.

yep I thought I sounded irrational when i started, but am writing the PCA report outlining the changes to each banks terms and how it has effected people and the conclusion you cant help but come to is with the additional limits the OFT will impose, the original structure (charge per transaction, max 3 daily) is the fairest.


Laugh all you like lol.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Isn't that some sort of argument to go to court with, not the complete structure but the fact that if all banks are charging different prices then surely the lowest one would obviously cover the costs. And if RBS (Who im with) can now charge only £5 surely thats just a show of how they could of priced for the past 6 years?

[Bankstormer]

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

Have any of the banks tried to have any cases currently stayed in court struck out yet?

Just wondering why they havn't - if they haven't. Surely they would want the cases struck out before people get onto a better argument and ammend their particulars.

I know that the banks have been writing to to customers with complaints and telling them that they are not being upheld.

anyone?

[EXC]

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

Have any of the banks tried to have any cases currently stayed in court struck out yet?

Yes although there hasn't been many so far.

[Bankstormer]

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

Also I have noticed that the big CMC's are still taking on customers and say that they are still able to claim your money back.

Do they know something we don't or are they just waiting for the new POC's too!

[Amethyst]

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

CMC's are just lying scumbags preying on peoples desperation and un informededness (sorry but they are)

We have confirmed hearings for strike outs for HSBC claims and Yorkshire bank claims in the Bank claims in COURT forum

[EXC]

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

We have confirmed hearings for strike outs for HSBC claims and Yorkshire bank claims in the Bank claims in COURT forum

Here: Bank Charge Claims in Courts System - next steps - Legal Beagles

[Bankstormer]

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

CMC's are just lying scumbags preying on peoples desperation and un informededness (sorry but they are)

No need to say sorry, I agree with you. I just dont think that they would put the effort into taking on new customers if they thought that they would lose.

[orc]

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

CMC's are just lying scumbags preying on peoples desperation and un informededness (sorry but they are)

Totally agree. That case on MSE is shocking- lies and broken promises to those that can least afford it. They don't make clear that they are making a hefty profit by "only" taking the interest and leaving the client with all of the reclaimed charges. (I know they all have different pricing structures)

They will be waiting for new templates and then using those, like the way they started.

[Amethyst]

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

We really have got to stop agreeing with one another all the time Orc - it's quite unnerving

CMC's are of course happy to take cases on now - especially upfront fee paying ones, and Yep I expect you are right that they are waiting for some magic template like many consumers are. I really can;t see how CMCs will be able to tailor claims to peoples individual circumstances properly and can see some getting chucked out as fishing trips much as the CCA jobbies.

I agree on the interest bit too, many people are completely unaware how much that 8% can actually add up to over 6/8 years !

[EXC]

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

I have written to which to ask them what law they want changing so will let you know that part.

I asked one of their lawyers I got to know during the test case:

Hi Nick - happy new year to you. Basically we'd like to see the UTCCRs amended so that only the 'main price' is excluded from a fairness assessment. In other words, we'd like to see the UTCCRs reflect the approach taken by the Court of Appeal.

In the first instance, this change would just be for financial services (this was the easiest and quickest approach because we could suggest the amendment as part of the Financial Services Bill currently going through Parliament) but ultimately I think we'd want this approach for all consumer contracts.

What are you doing now on bank charges?

Hope this helps.

Regards

[Amethyst]

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

see its who you know !! lol, no one replied to me

If the main price only is excluded from assessment ummm that includes charges under the Judgment doesn't it. They have stated they are part of the main price and not ancillary charges ?

[EXC]

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

The Court of Appeal did rule the charges did not to relate to the main subject matter but I'm not really clear on what he means by the 'main' price as the SC judgment seems to suggest that their is no main price. Will ask.