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

[davidl]

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

"Proposed" what about action?

[Amethyst]

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

Voluntary compliance is the route the government is preferring at the moment with legislation if voluntary compliance fails.

Ian Pearson: I might put it slightly differently. I certainly understand the concerns of consumers who have been affected by the Supreme Court judgment-they do not feel that they have got the remedy to which they felt entitled-which is why the Government have announced that we will take action to work with the OFT, consumer groups and the banks to seek to agree a fairer, simpler and more transparent system of bank charges in future. We have not ruled out further measures if a voluntary approach does not produce results. We believe that a voluntary solution has many advantages. It can quickly adapt to changes in the market place. As my hon. Friend knows, any regulatory solution will need to be carefully thought through and will take more time. We must maintain price competition and avoid unintended consequences if firms compensate for any revenue reduction by developing new types of charges. However, there is a determination on the part of the Government that we should seek progress through the voluntary route.
On the broader point about the regulation of contingent charges across all financial services sectors, as I have indicated, I do not think that the case has been made. It has always been the policy of successive Governments to rely on competition to make prices fair and to intervene only where there is a demonstrable market failure that cannot be fixed by other means.

We can only make our voice heard AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE to get proper independant regulation and/or legislation on the table.

[Amethyst]

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

Also on 9 December 2009, in its Pre-Budget Report, the government noted that it "will take action to deliver change if a voluntary approach does not result in a fair outcome for consumers." (p.57). HM Treasury website.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Hmm I feel like the fairest thing would be banks pay up and THEN and only then we all close our accounts and let them rott!

[Yoda]

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

Still no news on this fantastic POC that the QC and My Smug Expression are coming up with?
Old coxy must be earning a fortune by now.

[Amethyst]

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

Ray Cox was only instructed for a limited time on limited issues. MSE have had the opinion for some time but there is a lot of other issues surrounding the POC's and court proceedures which need checking before releasing them to the general MSE public - as we know, people tend to follow Martin blindly, so I am behind him in this and think he is acting responsibly and correctly in delaying their release.

[Tools]

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

Otherwise he risks another Icelandic Bank / Loancheck embarrassment

[Yoda]

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

Ray Cox was only instructed for a limited time on limited issues. MSE have had the opinion for some time but there is a lot of other issues surrounding the POC's and court proceedures which need checking before releasing them to the general MSE public - as we know, people tend to follow Martin blindly, so I am behind him in this and think he is acting responsibly and correctly in delaying their release.

So, is there still a glimmer of hope for us?

BTW, what is interesting about the Voller case? he lost.

[Amethyst]

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

lol re Voller - yes he lost - its a case that Lloyds are using in their defence for having no T&C's for their current accounts pre 2007.

[Amethyst]

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

Advance warning to A&l peeps who kept overdrawn accounts in dispute during the waiver - A&L are now starting to unfreeze the disputed accounts and chase you for the debt.

If you were refunded charges direct to you and left an overdraft without using the refund to pay it off then you do still owe it.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Govan Law Centre: Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

Some people are attributing this story to something very very important. The bare facts are that the claimant has been given permission to amend their POC(particulars of Claim). There are other Scottish cases where Govan Law Centre are not representing them who have had permission to amend their POC and there are cases in England and Wales where permission has been granted. Let's not over emphasise permission to amend a POC with a win or with something that will mean the bank will cave in over. They won't and by the time this case reaches court others will have gone before. Let's keep our feet firmly on the ground, ok?

[Dougal16T]

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

Govan Law Centre: Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

Some people are attributing this story to something very very important. The bare facts are that the claimant has been given permission to amend their POC(particulars of Claim). There are other Scottish cases where Govan Law Centre are not representing them who have had permission to amend their POC and there are cases in England and Wales where permission has been granted. Let's not over emphasise permission to amend a POC with a win or with something that will mean the bank will cave in over. They won't and by the time this case reaches court others will have gone before. Let's keep our feet firmly on the ground, ok?

Good morning,

I am afraid it is not quite that easy. IF and it is a big 'if' the Court does find against BOS, this will possibly stimulate a wave of amended claims under the same terms and principles. However it is also possible that BOS might appeal that decision.

Having said that if this case is found in favour of the Claimant, and BOS then pay out, that will then mean there may be 'light at the end of the tunnel.'

If BOS pay out prior to the case hearing, this may also stimulate some interest (pardon the pun!), and in any case it is about time the Consumer had their rights restored, and was able to halt the excessive unwarranted charges by all of the Financial sector which are for automated letters and the like. (These in turn lead to bonuses completely out of proportion to the work done by Banking Staff - obviously the Banks won't be happy :cry:, but they will have to learn to live in the real world - like the people who have been subsidising their excesses for far too long!)

Meanwhile a happy Easter to all my readers!! ??

As always, (slightly losing the plot...), best wishes to everyone,

Dougal

ps: My feet are always firmly on the ground, except when I'm sleeping!

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Why does parliment not interfear with these obviously stupid and excessive bonus's after we bailed them out, surely they HAVE to put away any bonus'. Why do OBVIOUS things never get sorted, obvious the banks robbing us (nothing done about it by government) and then robbing us for bailing them and then they still gt bonus' surely its clear BANKS FAILED in banking and failed their customers JEzz!

[natweststaffmember]

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

Why does parliment not interfear with these obviously stupid and excessive bonus's after we bailed them out, surely they HAVE to put away any bonus'. Why do OBVIOUS things never get sorted, obvious the banks robbing us (nothing done about it by government) and then robbing us for bailing them and then they still gt bonus' surely its clear BANKS FAILED in banking and failed their customers JEzz!

Not all banks received government money to survive so the Government cannot really say to one bank, "don't pay bonuses" when other sectors of financial services ARE paying bonuses because that sends out a message to those who are not paid bonuses.......leave because you can get better pay elsewhere.
RBS Group for example, have already said that they could have reduced their losses if they did not lose staff due to very strict bonus rules. I don't agree with you to a degree if you are only arguing bank bonuses and failing banks as a reasoning alone.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Sorry I should have stated Im with RBS Natwest, I just hate the fact that Taxes bailed them out and nothing in return expect more of our money into bonus'. I see what your saying about they would go somwhere else, Well there would be other ways around it I feel, I personally am an accoutant for a leading market sector firm in the U.K and I don't get huge bonus's for making loses. At the end of the day the way my simple mind sees it is, big fat greedy ... .. . Buggers just wanting more and more money, but thats fine for som reason would other trading sectors allow this to happen? I know Im moaning much ado about nothing.
One alternate could have been any bank recieving gov funding cannot pay out bonus's that excessive, So they leave, well they are just greedy so and so's then.