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

The Government have finally published the detail of how they intend to 'end unfair bank charges'.

I've got my head in my hands.

News : NDS

[leclerc]

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

"Responding to consumer concerns about the lack of control and transparency over bank charges, the Government has driven forward a voluntary agreement which will apply to all full-facility current accounts offered by the major banks."

**** off

[enaid]

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

Another load of bollox and how many years has this taken?

[Fortinbras]

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

"Banks set out the charges customers pay if they don't arrange an overdraft before taking the money or where they go over an existing limit. Nonetheless, we know it can be hard to keep on top of what is going in and out when there are a lot of transactions going through the account.

Of course, we knew this ten years ago but, because the vast majority of our customers trusted us and believed that we would never do anything underhand, we were able to screw them rotten.

[EXC]

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

''Under the new agreement, over 85 per cent of personal current account customers will benefit from measures to make charges for unarranged overdrafts clearer, fairer and more manageable. This includes annual statements so that customers can see how much their account costs over the year.''

How can it benefit 85% of customers when only 20% pay the charges according the the OFT PCA Market Study?

Also they can't claim credit for the annual statements as this was an OFT initiative that was announced in March.

"We’ve listened to these concerns and have worked with industry to develop a strong package of measures in response.....And from September 2013 a new guaranteed switching service within seven days will give customers the confidence to switch accounts quickly, safely and without hassle.''

Again this is nothing to do with the Government as the 7 day switching guarantee was a Payments Council initiative announced in July Switching banks to be made easier - Telegraph

[EXC]

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

So much for the Government claiming that the initiatives were ''driven'' by them.

[EXC]

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

UK banks charging as much as 800,000% on overdrafts

Some High Street banks are charging "eye-watering" rates of interest when their customers go over their overdraft limit, research by Radio 4's Money Box programme has revealed.

A customer borrowing £100 for 28 days without the consent of Santander would repay £200, for example........


BBC News - UK banks charging as much as 800,000% on overdrafts

It's is confusing to compare payday loans with overdrafts on current accounts because an unauthorised overdraft charge is for unauthorised use of a current account while a payday loan is an agreed loan facility.

This is just nonsense.

All ''unathorised'' overdrafts are in fact authorised.

As the Supreme Court judgment held:

''Liability to pay Relevant Charges is not contingent upon breaches by the customers of their contracts. It is not a breach of any of the standard form contracts under consideration to overdraw, or attempt to overdraw, on a current account.''

If, as Santander contends, you could borrow money from a bank without their authorisation it wouldn't be much of a bank would it?

[enaid]

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

UK banks charging as much as 800,000% on overdrafts

Some High Street banks are charging "eye-watering" rates of interest when their customers go over their overdraft limit, research by Radio 4's Money Box programme has revealed.

A customer borrowing £100 for 28 days without the consent of Santander would repay £200, for example........


BBC News - UK banks charging as much as 800,000% on overdrafts




This is just nonsense.

All ''unathorised'' overdrafts are in fact authorised.

As the Supreme Court judgment held:

''Liability to pay Relevant Charges is not contingent upon breaches by the customers of their contracts. It is not a breach of any of the standard form contracts under consideration to overdraw, or attempt to overdraw, on a current account.''

If, as Santander contends, you could borrow money from a bank without their authorisation it wouldn't be much of a bank would it?

Is the word for that not 'Theft' ?

[Gorang]

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

Is the word for that not 'Theft' ?

1000000000% YES

What gets me is, the fact that a customer can NOT BORROW whilst being UNAUTHORISED, it's IMPOSSIBLE

The ONLY person/orginistation that CAN do this is the BANK themselves (sorry, the banks AUTOMATED system) as their charges is the ONLY thing that can put ANY account into a NEGITIVE balance

IMO that is why it is NOT called THEFT and why NO ONE is charged with THEFT

I have said for years it is IMPOSSIBLE for a customer to withdraw, out of their account, MORE money than is actually IN the account, ONLY, a BANK can do this

If a customer DID borrow without being AUTHORISED then it WOULD be THEFT

IMO the ONLY 3 ways a customer can borrow whilst being, UNAUTHORISED, is if they

1, hack computers and STEAL it, which IS FRAUD
2, STEAL another customers details and use them, which IS FRAUD ALSO
3, and finally, the old fashioned way, go in with a shotgun, and STEAL the money

Thus it is ALL THEFT which to me proves a customer can NOT borrow whist it being UNAUTHORISED, as if they did they could and would be charged with THEFT

THIS is why I have wanted for years, for this SIMPLE phrase to be put in PRACTICE

No money, then NO PAY

Just the EXACT same as if you have all your money under the matteress
ie you CAN'T spend what you HAVN'T GOT

BUT the finacial orgs just HIDE under the
O it costs US money for us NOT to pay a BILL for you

as we ALL know this is complete B*11*CK$ as they will NOT prove it EVER

Ok I am getting down off me soapbox before I really get started

[EXC]

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

Just a couple of weeks after the Government heralded that (emphasis supplied):

''Responding to consumer concerns about the lack of control and transparency over bank charges, the Government has driven forward a voluntary agreement which will apply to all full-facility current accounts offered by the major banks.''

Barclays are trebling the limit on unpaid direct debit charges for basic bank accounts from £8 to £24.

BBC News - Barclays basic account customers face fee rise

[leclerc]

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

"However, a Barclays spokesman said: "We want to ensure this product remains financially sustainable so that we can continue to help those at risk of financial exclusion gain access to banking."

Translator: However a Barclays spokesman said: "We want to make more money on this product because we are not making enough money so we can continue to shaft those at risk of financial exclusion and make some more money".

[MIKE770]

Who Arranges The Outragous Interest Loans For Payday Loans

Are the Banks behind these outragous rates i.e. the backers? if so who>>???

[EXC]

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

''I think that reclaiming charges on the basis that they breach Reg 5.1.1 in BCOB is a real possiblity'' (sic) says a hopelessly deluded Marc Gander.

The Consumer Forums - Re: Fairness - work in progress

Thing is unauthorised overdraft charges don't fall within the jurisdiction of BCOBs or even the FSA.

Twit.

[Curlyben]

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

Think he needs to read this

[leclerc]

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

''I think that reclaiming charges on the basis that they breach Reg 5.1.1 in BCOB is a real possiblity'' (sic) says a hopelessly deluded Marc Gander.

The Consumer Forums - Re: Fairness - work in progress

Thing is unauthorised overdraft charges don't fall within the jurisdiction of BCOBs or even the FSA.

Twit.

I agree but if no one complains to those organisations they cannot build up evidence and they need more than simply a few forumites or a dozen cases to take action. Furthermore, the pressure on banks have caused them to lower charges(I know that personally speaking that it's not good enough but something is better than nothing).
I would be intrigued by the POC that might produce from the BCOBS angle cos there is unlikely to be much in that to be perfectly honest.