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

[Yoda]

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

Yes, unfortunately.......

In that case, I shall leave it to the more knowledgeable peeps on here. ( you will know before me anyway)

Good luck to you all and thanks for the help.

I'll just potter around when I have a tea break

[natweststaffmember]

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

In that case, I shall leave it to the more knowledgeable peeps on here. ( you will know before me anyway)

Good luck to you all and thanks for the help.

I'll just potter around when I have a tea break

Apologies, but that thread has sometimes gone so far off topic that when it comes back on topic it kinda produces some things that have been discussed on other forums weeks ago. Did not want to sound as though I was ungrateful to your post so I hope it didn't,

[EXC]

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

For their November board meeting the FSA apparently felt that their plush and well appointed city headquarters didn't quite cut it as a suitable venue. Instead they chose to bowl down to expensive and opulent Grove Resort for a 2 day beano where they somehow managed to squeeze in the meeting.

Romantic Breaks near London | Luxury Weekend Breaks Hertfordshire

Perhaps this was in a genuine effort to balance the books, as it was established during the meeting that ''the organisation was running slightly under budget to date''.

Either way it was a very agreeable environment in which to consider, amongst other things, the FSA's ''management information relating to value for money, including economy and efficiency''.

But from our perspective it was all worthwhile as the board did actually ''note'' that the FSA ''had in place a waiver relating to rules on complaints handling on this issue whilst the OFT test case was in place'' - some 18 months after the board themselves had decided to issue it.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/board-minutes/nov09.pdf

[stewie082]

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

I stay about half a mile away from this resort, a round of Golf is over £100 per person excluding caddy and cart.

I dont even think you can apply to be a member, you have to be invited.

I wonder who is on the board of The Grove and the BBA? Would be interesting to see the members list.

I hope they had a great time, they make great cheese burgers!!

Stew

[Yoda]

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

Apologies, but that thread has sometimes gone so far off topic that when it comes back on topic it kinda produces some things that have been discussed on other forums weeks ago. Did not want to sound as though I was ungrateful to your post so I hope it didn't,

Not at all. I am just glad there are people like yourself who have the knowledge to help the rest.

Keep up the good work!!
( sorry if my post seemed that way, it was certainly never intentional, just my warped sense of humour I suppose )

[Amethyst]

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

HANSARD house of Commons yesterday

21 Jan 2010 : Column 458
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): The Leader of the House will be aware of increasing public concern at excessive bank charges and the Office of Fair Trading's decision to throw in the towel. Can we have a debate, in Government time, about the Government's failure to extract a voluntary agreement? They promised that they would extract one from the banks, but they have so far failed.


Ms Harman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need strong regulation and regulatory bodies to protect consumers. We have no doubt about that; it is his party, generally speaking, that regards such measures as the nanny state, as a burden on business and as a surfeit of regulation. However, if he wants to support our stance of leaving no stone unturned to protect consumers and ensure the right regulations, he can work with us to achieve it.

also worth keeping an eye on

Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): May we have an early debate about debt, debt collection and, in particular, the activities of bailiffs? I have received an increasing number of complaints from constituents, many of them young single mums, about the intimidating and bullying behaviour of debt collectors. Although people should pay back their debt, they should not be subject to such behaviour. One of the big issues is that people do not understand their rights in terms of access to their homes, so can we have a debate as soon as possible about that issue? Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, about which a number of hon. Members might be concerned, so in the first instance he might seek a debate on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall.

[Dexter]

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

It's a shame that they haven't thought of the one way Parliament can look at customer complaints.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is a public body set up by Parliament. We carry out statutory functions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Consumer Credit Act 2006, on a non-commercial, not-for-profit basis.

As copied from the FOS website set up by the government for the consumer.

[EXC]

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

Ms Harman: ''I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need strong regulation....''


So she's presumably unaware that 2 days earlier her Treasury secretary Ian Pearson rejected the proposed strengthening of UTCCR in the hope of voluntary compliance?

[wubberchicken]

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

Sorry to say it, as I wish to remain apolitical....but typical no substance Labour sound-bites.

I doubt very much if we should place any faith in the political system to make a difference here, especially that run by Labour!!

[EXC]

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

The Financial Ombudsman has responded to an amended complaint using the new arguments and has not upheld it.

Financial Ombudsman rejecting complaints on Bank Charges - Legal Beagles

[davidl]

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

EXC i think the writing is on the wall for us all to see now unless you are clever enougth to take your bank to court and have good counter arguements for the bull s..it they are going to talk in court then it looks like its game over.

[Not_Watson]

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

I am afraid I agree with Davidl - it feels as if the whole (non hardship) idea is dead in the water now.

I have a claim at county court and have heard nothing from the court yet, but I have received the standard 'response' from NatWest basically closing my case (even though it has gone to court and was, I think, when the OFT stepped in, about 14 days from settlement).

This news regarding the FOS is yet another blow and seems, I have to admit, like the writing really is on the wall now.

I have said this before - I am not suffering financial hardship any longer - and I think that for everyone with a 'case' who is in a similar position (in other words, don't 'need' the money but could really use it) it feels as if we have been driven down a blind alley and now have nowhere to turn at all. It is, I think, game over.

When I was incurring charges from NatWest, they treated me appallingly and it felt really good to take them to county court - especially as I had previously won in county court against Lloyds - it felt as if I was joining a growing consumer revolution.

I can't help feeling very skeptical about the outcome of the test case - if it had not taken place, we would have all carried on getting our charges returned and eventually, the banks would have reduced their charges (as many now have) in order to put an end to the consumer revolution. I for one, would have received back what was (let's be honest) dishonestly and unfairly (we all know this is the case) taken from me. The OFT took us all down the blind alley and unwittingly (I sincerely hope it wasn't intentional) left us there.

So, now I am faced with dropping my county court claim, keeping my fingers crossed all the time that the bank don't ask for any costs. I am *so* cross this has happened - it is just NOT FAIR - but when did that change anything ?!

Just how many 'good will' gestures were made before the OFT stepped in is mind boggling - the whole test case feels like a complete farce now.

On the other hand, the truly spectacular minds and voices on this forum have held our hands, guided us and 'been there' when we all needed them - I (and I imagine all of us) thank you for your freely given time, help and advice. You all deserve a medal.

I am very pleased that many consumers (myself included) are a lot more clued up now and I think that the sweeping changes to the systems of charging used by the banks is a very good outcome but I cannot help thinking that these changes would have occurred without the test case anyway - due to the natural friction of so many 'good will' gestures - something had to give - and unfortunately it has turned out to be the good people who hadn't quite finished their claims and seen their cases to the point where they actually received that 'good will'.

I hope I am wrong, but feel quite fed up today and can't see a way out of this - other than to throw in the towel. I am just waiting for the letter from the court and NatWest's solicitors now.

I shall continue to read this forum with interest but think that my part in this war may now be over.

Good luck to everyone that continues the fight.

[Smasher]

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

I'm wondering whether to try out the FOS now with my own claim..
The claim I have in the system needed amending as there were about another £500 or so that needed to be added after I issued the claim, I was just going to amend the POC and add those charges to the existing claim.

Having been pretty much chained to my work for the last 2 years, I never got around to it, so maybe it might have worked out for the better. I could now just treat those charges as a separate complaint & go to the FOS with it.

I'm pretty sure at least half of the charges that needed to be added were imposed under historic T&Cs, so with the correspondence I have in my possession from HSBC, I think I'll have a pretty strong case to put to them.

The claim they rejected, although still full of holes, was against Lloyds, who always said their charges were payment for services. HSBC didn't, so the FOS would have to look at the copies of:
* T&Cs which stated that charges were to cover management & administration costs
* Overdraft renewal letters which stated that charges were to cover management & administration costs and
* A letter from HSBC that confirmed that they were default charges which have now been re-branded

For the above, the FOS would have to make a black & white desicion. Nowhere in any HSBC's literature, letters or T&Cs does it say that I would be required to subsidise 'Free Banking' for their other customers if I slipped beyond my limit, nor did it make any mention of 'consideration services'.

Even if they do just tell me I'll have to take it to court, it might be worth doing just to see how they answer to all the correspondence that clearly and completely explain them to be default charges - to cover management & administration costs. At this time, the FOS has still not had to make a decision or a ruling on that..

[Yoda]

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

The FSA are CURRENTLY investigating themselves for internal fraud, the investigation is in its 11th week but it shows the FSA were fiddling compliance audit data - THE INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED BY LORD TURNER'S OFFICE FOLLOWING A TIP OFF.

In short this is negligence and guilty knowledge all wrapped up in one. What the auditors are warning of is that any half wit criminal can potentially access a vast amount of highly vulnerable, sensitive material about UK PLC and all he or she needs is a temping job in the FSA and a security pass.



And we are supposed to trust these plonkers?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Executive summary - http://www.publications.parliament.u...44/144w272.htm Feb 09
: Banks create money out of nothing. The chief cause of the banking crisis is allowing commercial banks to create the non cash element (about 97%) of the money in our economy out of nothing
by issuing loans of money that didn’t exist until they lent it. It costs the banks virtually nothing but they stand to gain hugely from the repayments of capital and interest that borrowers have to go out and earn by the sweat of their brow. It is a bonanza for the banks. They enjoy an unfair advantage over the rest of us; as if we let them print bank notes freely in their back offices. If you or I did this we’d be locked up. They have no moral reason to be allowed this special privilege. They are just businessmen acting in their own interest.

This sort of money creation activity by commercial banks gets little attention in the media. I think it is so breathtakingly audacious that speaking of it is embarrassing to men of stature in banking, journalism or politics. There is a tacit conspiracy of silence over it. I believe such activity does exist, however, since this construction makes sense of observable facts, whereas denying the possibility of such activity leaves us with a set of observations which baffle most people.

House of Commons Treasury Committee
Banking Crisis

[natweststaffmember]

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

The FSA are CURRENTLY investigating themselves for internal fraud, the investigation is in its 11th week but it shows the FSA were fiddling compliance audit data - THE INVESTIGATION WAS INITIATED BY LORD TURNER'S OFFICE FOLLOWING A TIP OFF.

In short this is negligence and guilty knowledge all wrapped up in one. What the auditors are warning of is that any half wit criminal can potentially access a vast amount of highly vulnerable, sensitive material about UK PLC and all he or she needs is a temping job in the FSA and a security pass.



And we are supposed to trust these plonkers?

you got a source for the information please cos I can't find the story anywhere at the minute?