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

[Dougal16T]

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

Morning all,

Was it this bit.....

'We will not charge you for using our Alerts Service. However, your network operator may charge you for receiving a text alert from us or for sending a mobile text
message to us.'

Best wishes

Dougal

[leclerc]

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

Come on, Dougal, do you need a clue?

Here it is: How old do you have to be to have an overdraft, authorised or otherwise?

[Dougal16T]

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

Evening all,

Was it this bit.....3rd attempt.....

'To receive text or email Alerts you need to hold an eligible account and be at least 11 years old.'

I believe that to have an overdraft authorised or otherwise you need to be sixteen, but I may be wrong....again!!!

Best wishes

Dougal

[leclerc]

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

bang on Douglas and it's 18 for overdrafts and the fact remains that they would have to refund charges made to anyone under 18 years of age. Furthermore, most under 18 years accounts have a clause stating that no standing orders or direct debits are permitted for under 18's.

[EXC]

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

The very best of luck with your bank charges hearing tomorrow - you know who you are.

[Dougal16T]

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

The very best of luck with your bank charges hearing tomorrow - you know who you are.

Luck is always what someone makes it.......

[Dougal16T]

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

Evening all,

Well a certain young (ish) Barrister was brilliant!

There are some very good new Consumer programmes coming on BBC 1 this week.........in the mornings at 11 a.m......I think I'll watch the one on Wednesday!.

Best wishes all, and thanks for your support.....

I would not have got this far without you.

Kind regards

Dougal

[enaid]

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

The Consumer programme was brilliant and so were you and Tom, any chance as to letting us know how the Hearing went?

[Celestine]

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

Yay! Great feature Howard, well done. :beagle:

Your case most elegantly demonstrates just how very unfair these charges really are.

[EXC]

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

The Consumer programme was brilliant and so were you and Tom

Have you got a link me dear?

[enaid]

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

Have you got a link me dear?

I am sorry no, I think it has gone off I PLayer now.

[Dougal16T]

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

Afternoon all,


Thanks for the good wishes...it has cost me a fortune in Bonio's!!!

Still he is a good dog....Dougal that is.....not Counsel.

As for the hearing we are still awaiting the Judge's decision, and please rest assured as soon as it is to hand (he reserved Judgement) it will be on here.

Once again my grateful thanks on behalf of myself and everyone involved in the programme. Just to put the record straight...despite what HSBC said when asked about my claim: IT HAS NEVER BEEN TO THE OMBUDSMAN !!

Sincerely my very best wishes,

Dougal (the hairy one with four legs!!)

[EXC]

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

As for the hearing we are still awaiting the Judge's decision, and please rest assured as soon as it is to hand (he reserved Judgement) it will be on here.

Yes please do it'll be a really interesting judgment on several levels.

Tom's grasp of the requirement of good faith argument and his ability to apply it to bank charges is truly impressive.

[EXC]

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

Consider this statement from Marc 'The Master' Gander:

''Firstly, most banks in Europe and in Australasia do not rely on this level of charges for their revenue. Theur model is based on customers paying for their accounts and their transactions''

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post3857069

Then consider this news item from Couriermail Business, Australia:

''The High Court will hear a class action by customers of the ANZ Bank alleging it charged excessive fees for overdrafts, overdrawn accounts, dishonour fees and over-the-limit credit card accounts.......These class actions against unfair bank charges are the largest in Australia's history - more than $220 million for fees charged against around 170,000 customers from eight banks and it continues to grow.''

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1226353082171

Now, using your skill and judgment, do you think Gander is right?

[leclerc]

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

I would add that there has been a similar campaign on bank charges in Australia as there has been in the UK. You will note that their defence is the same as the one here: