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 the response from the the Scottish board is nonsense or they must all live under a rock if they have to be TOLD the case is of great public interest hence their revisit of the application

As I understand it they do have to be told and it is incumbent on the applicant solicitor to make a case for it.

Or do you think they should ignore their own procedures and dole out public money on a whim?

[EXC]

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

Apparently there was a documentary on BBC 4 last week BBC - BBC Four Programmes - The Highest Court in the Land: Justice Makers in which Lord Phillips is reported to have said that despite his judgment, he thought that bank charges were unfair.

Unfortunately the programme isn't available on BBC iplayer and the clips from the website don't contain the quote.

I'd be grateful If anyone could track it down and in the meantime I'll ask the Beeb for it.

[leclerc]

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

Apparently there was a documentary on BBC 4 last week BBC - BBC Four Programmes - The Highest Court in the Land: Justice Makers in which Lord Phillips is reported to have said that despite his judgment, he thought that bank charges were unfair.

Unfortunately the programme isn't available on BBC iplayer and the clips from the website don't contain the quote.

I'd be grateful If anyone could track it down and in the meantime I'll ask the Beeb for it.

The context of what he thought and what the law was are two different things. I did post it on the PPI thread when it was on
BTW, I would check out 4ondemand as well
Britain's Supreme Court - 4oD - Channel 4

They also followed the Supreme Court in its first year and important decisions as well albeit I don't know if they featured the bank charges case, but I would be surprised if they didn't

[EXC]

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

The context of what he thought and what the law was are two different things. I did post it on the PPI thread when it was on
BTW, I would check out 4ondemand as well
Britain's Supreme Court - 4oD - Channel 4

They also followed the Supreme Court in its first year and important decisions as well albeit I don't know if they featured the bank charges case, but I would be surprised if they didn't

I did skim through the Channel 4 one but nothing about the OFT case. In fact I now recall that I was interviewed in the making of it when I was leaving the SC with Ame but they didn't show it - probably because I could barely string a sentence together after the shock of the judgment.

[FrankyG]

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

As ive said before Ive given up on ever getting my money back.Ive had a letter of the banks solicitor saying that he was going to get the stay lifted,in 6 weeks,I think the time is up.I did ask what to do but got no understandable reply.So I have lost £200 on top of my bank charges.Even if it goes to court again it will take years to sort out.I have no more money left and I am dtill having to work at 68 to keep my house.

[leclerc]

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

As ive said before Ive given up on ever getting my money back.Ive had a letter of the banks solicitor saying that he was going to get the stay lifted,in 6 weeks,I think the time is up.I did ask what to do but got no understandable reply.So I have lost £200 on top of my bank charges.Even if it goes to court again it will take years to sort out.I have no more money left and I am dtill having to work at 68 to keep my house.

I would withdraw your case and unfortunately, you would lose the £200.00 filing fee. Did you file the case prior to or during the OFT test case?
Have you got arrears on your priority debts?

[EXC]

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

RBS have admitted that bank charges are unfair.

The Head of Retail at RBS, Brian hartzer, has told the Financial Times that the cross-subsidy banking model – which saw customers who regularly exceeded their overdraft limit, and incur costs for doing so, in effect pay for the accounts of those who did not – was unsustainable.

“Banks have enormous fixed costs that need to be recovered – but it is not fair to charge somebody hugely more than the value they are getting. Gradually it got so completely out of whack.”

FT.com / Companies / Banks - RBS retail chief admits struggle to meet pledges


RBS retail chief admits struggle to meet pledges

By Sharlene Goff
Published: March 1 2011 22:12 | Last updated: March 1 2011 22:12

Brian Hartzer, head of UK retail at Royal Bank of Scotland, admits there is still a long way to go to rehabilitate the bank he says “lost the plot” in the years before the financial crisis.
Nearly half its customers are unsatisfied with how the part-nationalised bank handles their complaints, the product range is still too complex and many branch queues too long.

But the US banker, who joined 18 months ago, feels he is slowly reversing years of underinvestment in the retail business, which comprises the RBS and NatWest brands.

Already he has cut retail products from about 600 to a quarter of that, although ultimately he wants only “a couple” of current accounts, credit cards and mortgage deals, each with distinct features.

On Wednesday RBS publishes the independently assessed report of its “customer charter” – pledges made last year to improve service. It will show that the bank met 20 of its 25 self-imposed targets, including extending branch opening hours and sending out replacement cards within 24 hours. But it fell short on complaint handling, service levels within branches and product literature. Mr Hartzer says the bank is still 18 months from delivering a service he would be comfortable with.

Operating profits at the UK retail business rose from £229m in 2009 to £1.4bn last year, but driving sustainable revenue growth is expected to become more difficult.

Mr Hartzer admits that the cross-subsidy banking model – which saw customers who regularly exceeded their overdraft limit, and incur costs for doing so, in effect pay for the accounts of those who did not – was unsustainable.
So was the package approach that saw banks sell expensive payment protection insurance alongside personal loans to keep interest rates low.

“Banks have enormous fixed costs that need to be recovered – but it is not fair to charge somebody hugely more than the value they are getting. Gradually it got so completely out of whack,” he says.

Fuelling speculation that the end of cross-subsidisation will mean the death of free current accounts, Mr Hartzer says banks will have to “evolve to a system increasingly more reflective of cost and value”. He notes the difficulty for banks to be first to impose monthly fees on all its accounts: “Customers have got used to certain practices. We have to be mindful of customer attitudes and competition.”

RBS aims to increase revenue by selling existing customers more services, particularly mortgages, where the bank has traditionally been weak. “We are sitting on a 7 per cent share of mortgages [so] there is a massive opportunity – but our ability to lend is going to be constrained by our ability to fund the loans.”

Read more at: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold - Page 73 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[enaid]

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

RBS have admitted that bank charges are unfair.

The Head of Retail at RBS, Brian hartzer, has told the Financial Times that the cross-subsidy banking model – which saw customers who regularly exceeded their overdraft limit, and incur costs for doing so, in effect pay for the accounts of those who did not – was unsustainable.

“Banks have enormous fixed costs that need to be recovered – but it is not fair to charge somebody hugely more than the value they are getting. Gradually it got so completely out of whack.”

FT.com / Companies / Banks - RBS retail chief admits struggle to meet pledges

I think more like 'Gradually it got so obvious we could cover our costs and make a fortune, it got so completely out of whack to ever consider how it affected our customers'

[leclerc]

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

RBS have admitted that bank charges are unfair.

The Head of Retail at RBS, Brian hartzer, has told the Financial Times that the cross-subsidy banking model – which saw customers who regularly exceeded their overdraft limit, and incur costs for doing so, in effect pay for the accounts of those who did not – was unsustainable.

“Banks have enormous fixed costs that need to be recovered – but it is not fair to charge somebody hugely more than the value they are getting. Gradually it got so completely out of whack.”

FT.com / Companies / Banks - RBS retail chief admits struggle to meet pledges


RBS retail chief admits struggle to meet pledges

By Sharlene Goff
Published: March 1 2011 22:12 | Last updated: March 1 2011 22:12

Brian Hartzer, head of UK retail at Royal Bank of Scotland, admits there is still a long way to go to rehabilitate the bank he says “lost the plot” in the years before the financial crisis.
Nearly half its customers are unsatisfied with how the part-nationalised bank handles their complaints, the product range is still too complex and many branch queues too long.

But the US banker, who joined 18 months ago, feels he is slowly reversing years of underinvestment in the retail business, which comprises the RBS and NatWest brands.
RBS Group invested lots of money on IT integration which was completed in 2001, they invested heavingly on the IT side of retail to make things easier for the rank and file staff. I'm not entirely sure what he means. RBS/NatWest did have products that simply were not fit for purpose and overpriced.
Already he has cut retail products from about 600 to a quarter of that, although ultimately he wants only “a couple” of current accounts, credit cards and mortgage deals, each with distinct features.
So we will have, basic current account(Step account for NW), Current account with no extras(Current Plus or Current if you do not want interest on current account), a general packaged account(Advantage Gold) a Premium Packaged account(Advantage Premier) and perhaps an offset product,,,,,similar to the One account
On Wednesday RBS publishes the independently assessed report of its “customer charter” – pledges made last year to improve service. It will show that the bank met 20 of its 25 self-imposed targets, including extending branch opening hours and sending out replacement cards within 24 hours. But it fell short on complaint handling, service levels within branches and product literature. Mr Hartzer says the bank is still 18 months from delivering a service he would be comfortable with.
That Customer Charter was a load of crap. Most of the pledges had already been met prior to it. Queuing times down(I waited 10 minutes or more to get served with two till positions empty and clearly a lack of staff being at issue.
Operating profits at the UK retail business rose from £229m in 2009 to £1.4bn last year, but driving sustainable revenue growth is expected to become more difficult.

Mr Hartzer admits that the cross-subsidy banking model – which saw customers who regularly exceeded their overdraft limit, and incur costs for doing so, in effect pay for the accounts of those who did not – was unsustainable.
So was the package approach that saw banks sell expensive payment protection insurance alongside personal loans to keep interest rates low.
I would have said the "packaged account" was unsustainable. In fact the Student account is an unsustainable loss making product.
“Banks have enormous fixed costs that need to be recovered – but it is not fair to charge somebody hugely more than the value they are getting. Gradually it got so completely out of whack,” he says.
I didn't think the term "whack" was in normal parlance. How about out of fashion, out of order, etc,etc,
Fuelling speculation that the end of cross-subsidisation will mean the death of free current accounts, Mr Hartzer says banks will have to “evolve to a system increasingly more reflective of cost and value”. He notes the difficulty for banks to be first to impose monthly fees on all its accounts: “Customers have got used to certain practices. We have to be mindful of customer attitudes and competition.”
Again, what is free banking?
RBS aims to increase revenue by selling existing customers more services, particularly mortgages, where the bank has traditionally been weak. “We are sitting on a 7 per cent share of mortgages [so] there is a massive opportunity – but our ability to lend is going to be constrained by our ability to fund the loans.”

Read more at: Latest updates on PPI Judicial Review and claims on hold - Page 73 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

They're basically not changing the strategy they have had for the last few years which is to increase their share of the mortgage market. That is not a new course but an old one which has been their goal for longer than Hester has been in charge.

[EXC]

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

Hmm

Hope this actually ends up going somewhere rather than just ruffling feathers and p'ing off the wrong people!

You're not wrong there, it's all kicking off again.

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/document...archforWEB.pdf

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/document...Montgomery.pdf

[ncf355]

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

Oops!

So Mike's not taking up a role with the UN anytime soon then?

[EXC]

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

lol, doesn't look likely.

[Amethyst]

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

Legal aid boss in b******s rant against solicitors - Scotsman.com News


That is awful. Any one who talks to Mike now is going to be very aware that they might be being recorded and might end up in the papers - how will that work with his role on the Consumer Panel then ?

[EXC]

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

The FSA have issued a Notice of Undertaking under sec 5 of UTCCR against RBS & Nat West in respect of indemnity concerning payment instructions.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/rbs_undertaking.pdf

[Curlyben]

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

Ooooooooo interesting stuffs..