OFT DROP bank charges case - leaks by sky news and sarah mccarthy-fry in advance ..

[natweststaffmember]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

I never knew she normally wore briefs......(apologies for the comment but haven't got anything more constructive to say)

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

I never knew she normally wore briefs......(apologies for the comment but haven't got anything more constructive to say)

actually thats really very funny (for you) :27:

[EXC]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McArthy-Fry

It's standard practice for such announcements to be made on very short notice and whilst the Stock market is closed.

Indeed, in fact the OFT's original announcement of the test case back in July 2007 was made at just after 6pm - Office Of Fair Trading Test Case - The Consumer Forums

And according to the OFT Board minutes for that month the announcement was originally intended for the following day but due to a leak was brought forward a day.

[ROBSTER]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry

Robster i agree i am intrigued now......
by the way what is "cci" ?

Compounded Contractual (rate) Interest, as the banks would normally charge you.

As opposed to statutory rate of (simple) interest (ie 8%) the court might award you

here's the difference.

A five year old charge of £20 would attract interest of £8 at 8%
(8%X£20X5years)

Apply 8% compounding each year it becomes £9.39

Doesn't sound a lot but it really starts to make a difference when you start applying it to the unauthorised rates the banks are likely to have been "enjoying" on your account over the last X years.

[Centium5000]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

Compound versus simple interest is pretty scary or exciting stuff, depending on which end you're on, but that's nothing compared to fractional reserve banking.

The relevant charges allow the banks to accelerate their share of the money supply because they are actually creating money from nothing.

We're all under the false impression that banks actually "cross-subsidise" free-if-in-credit banking, implying that accounts in credit would be too costly to run for free otherwise. Well , if banking was a normal business that would be true - how else would they cover their costs when charging nothing?

But it isn't true.

It isn't even that accounts in credit sacrifice interest to pay toward the running cost. No, every account deposit allows the bank to create new money via loans several times larger than the amount deposited.

Banks could lend out, say £3 for every £1 deposited, usually many times more, and earn interest on these loans at up to 32% (if they're towards an unauthorised overdraft for example).

Charges are different however. When £25 is 'loaned' to a customer for 'services' on account, no equivalent amount is deposited in the customer's account for them to spend against - it goes directly into the bank's assets. The bank has created money that has no corresponding liability in the form of a deposit, except to themselves!

They can also charge interest on this amount, but it is money they have already paid themselves. They already have the £25 because it was loaned to the customer to pay directly to the bank. They can then loan that £25 out several times, as before, at interest.

Our contract laws cannot conceive of this, as it's something that happens outside of our dealings with the bank (outside of contract); it's the wizard behind the curtain.

The bottom line (and point of my exceedingly long post!) is thet we are left to argue our case on the basis of unfairness of contract etc., because the real system is hidden from both the contract and the court.

Choice between that and compound interest for evil genius of the year award? I'll take option 1.

[borgbaiter]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

hi

what was actually said, from 20 mins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ury_Questions/


Borgbaiter

[Ladidi]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

Thanks for that link, It was intersting hearing what they had to say.

One thing I found I thought I heard wrong but I was right, there seems to be an announcement of some kind on the 22nd December 2009. I might be wrong, If I am, I am sure someone will correct it!!

I just wish they would make a decision and stick to it, and for it to one that benefits us all not just the rich and well off!!!

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

kinda the title of the thread ladidi but since been told by OFT Ms McCarthy was talking out of turn a little.

[Budgie]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Office of Fair Trading is still considering that judgment in detail, and on 22 December it intends to make an announcement about what further action will be taken. Our position is very clear: we want to see a fairer and more transparent system of charges, and we are working very closely with the OFT to achieve that.

As I have already picked apart the first sentence of the above statement by McCarthy I thought it was worth also picking apart the 2nd one.

As the Supreme Court judgment precluded an assessment of the charging terms wrt price as against the whole package of services supplied in exchange. I am assuming that McCarthy's reference to fairness can only mean fairness by virtue of Regulation 5 (1) of UTCCR1999. The only way that the OFT could assess for fairness via that method would be by continuing it's investigation. A competition enquiry would not determine the fairness aspect. Also if something needs to be fairer then that would imply that it is currently less fair than it should be.
As far as an assessment under Reg (5) 1 of UTCCR1999 is concerned then there are no seperate degrees of fairness, terms are either fair or unfair.
If terms need to be fairer then one must assume that they are presently unfair.

Regarding transparency, well the Supreme Court have decided that the charges are "charges that the banks require their customers to agree to pay as part of the price or remuneration for the package of services that they agree to supply in exchange".
What does McCarthy mean by we want to see a more transparent system of charges? The Supreme Court Judgment makes matters pretty clear to me. Maybe McCarthy is actually of the same opinion as the average Consumer in that these charges are not in fact, as the banks have argued and the Supreme Court have accepted, part of the price or remuneration for the package of services, but are simply common law penalties dressed up to look like service charges purely to avoid both a common law penalty judgment and an assessement as to price under UTCCR1999 Reg 6 (2).

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

Twitter - Ms McCarthy-Fry Still in demand from the media about bank charges, a big blow to the campaigners but we must get a fair system in place for the future 2:11 PM Nov 25th from web


Think you may just a wee little taddy tiny bit be over analysing her words Bud :clgblinkie171:

[Budgie]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

Think you may just a wee little taddy tiny bit be over analysing her words Bud

I was bored !!!!!!!!!!!

[EXC]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

I think the McCarthy-Fry statement is cause for cautious optimism:

“The Office of Fair Trading is still considering that judgment in detail, and on 22 December it intends to make an announcement about what further action will be taken.''

Compare this to the OFT's announcementof 25 November:

''The OFT will now consider the detail of this judgment before it makes a decision on whether or not to continue its investigation into unarranged overdraft charging terms.''

[enaid]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

Does that not simply mean the OFT will or will not continue?
Why must they be so vague with their statements anyway?
This is the thing that is wrong with most of whats going on at the moment, no one will give a straight and definate answer and they must know, it has been going on far too long for them not to.
While am here lol why have they indeed spent all this time and money on the case when many unlearned (for want of a better word) people thought it would fail?
Should they not have researched every avenue for this to succeed for the consumer rather than wait till one fails and then have a shot at another part of the T&C's?

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

The banks narrowed the issues down to concentrate on reg 6(2) and the OFT were a bit daft and let them being quite confident after the first two judgments that they would walk it.

Smith refused to make a declaration on 5(1) at all.

For the reasons that I have explained, I decline to make any declaration as to the meaning and effect of the requirement of good faith in Regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations (paragraph 448 above).

446. The focus of the third proposed declaration is that the Banks’ wish to establish that, provided a Bank acted properly (as it was put in Mr Rabinowitz’s opening submissions) with regard to the manner in which it obtained its customer’s agreement to the terms under scrutiny, the requirement of good faith is satisfied and any enquiry as to how the Bank acted thereafter and any enquiry as to whether any contractual term causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract would be superfluous. They argue that this follows from a proper understanding and application of the speeches in the First National Bank case and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bryan & Langley v Boston, [2005] EWCA Civ 973.

447. I have serious doubts whether in any case it would be appropriate to make a declaration of this kind in abstract terms and without regard to the facts of any particular case, but in any event I am not willing to make one without forming some view as to when, for the purposes of the declaration that the Banks seek, the process of making the contract containing the Relevant Terms is to be taken to be complete. Otherwise, I am not in a position to consider the implications of deciding that subsequent conduct cannot bear upon whether the requirement of good faith is satisfied, and otherwise the meaning of any declaration that I might make would be inappropriately obscure.

448. For these reasons I shall make none of the declarations about the requirement of good faith that the Banks seek.

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: OFT to make announcement DECEMBER 22nd - says Sarah McCarthy-Fry in unbriefed way

are these contracts not standard form then? if they are not standard form then the similarity between the banks contracts, would surely be evidence that they are discussing and even fixing prices, if not then let them prove these terms, or even implied terms are relevant.
Standard form contracts are known to put the issuer in a position of contrrol, if the issuer of a contract is in a position of control, then the implied terms are subject to a test of fairness.