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

[Smasher]

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

Like you said, let's wait & see what comes from the horse's mouth. Nothing on the OFT newsroom yet, anyone going to contact them?

Newsroom - The Office of Fair Trading

[Luminol]

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

Sky understands the OFT lawyers have decided that another legal challenge could take several years to prosecute and would probably fail, potentially costing millions of pounds.
Some 1.2m people have lodged complaints over "unfair fees" since July 2007, but most individuals' claims are expected to fail.


Another update, I notice Sky dont seem to be commiting to this, 'Sky understands' is hardly definite, I hope anyway.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Anyway as I see it, This hasnt come from OFT, so we should wait until the morning, then we can see what OFT actually have said.

Im sure the news will be on here first (as always), and advice on what steps we should all be taking too..

Sky news chairman probably has shares in the bank and is trying to get his stock up! lol

Lumi x

[Budgie]

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

I just spoke with the OFT.

Thay have no comment to make regarding the Sky News report.

They confirm that they will be making their official announcement tomorrow morning at 7AM.

Budgie

[Smasher]

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

I just called them, the lady on the other end was surprised to hear what I was asking her about and had no idea about the reporting on sky. She asked what page it was on and went to have a look, then came back a few minutes later and said "its purely speculative, we have no information here, so just keep an eye on our website".

Its not hard to see why so many people think there is some kind of conspiracy going on and it'll be impossible to convince them otherwise if the OFT confirm the report tomorrow. I have to say I was suspicious too at first until I was pointed to the facts. Nonetheless, my faith in ANY regulator and those who put them in place will be completely destroyed if this turns out to be fact.

[Mrleelee]

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

HSBC have been printing and sending out rejection letters like there is no tomorrow since Friday, it would be very surprising if they didn't have some sort of knowledge of this decision if in fact it turns out that the Sky Sources are correct.

The whole thing has been a huge cock up, the OFT still stood by their claims that they weren't making an announcement even after Sarah McCarthy-Fry said they were!

[EXC]

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

If the Sky report is true I wouldn't be so quick to lay all blame on the OFT themselves. Don't get me wrong as if this is the case I would very disappointed in them but the fact is that they have - in UTCCR - a lousy set of regulations to work with, a legal process that is painfully cumbersome and expensive in which to enforce them and a pitiful budget from the Treasury.

Although the OFT's external legal bill for the test case was about £1m, the cost in man hours for the investigation would have been many times more and with a total budget of some £25m it's not difficult to do the maths. Even if they did manage to pull off another test case and enforce the result the cost wouldn't necessarily end there OFT faces new legal fight as builders line up to challenge their fines for bid-rigging - Times Online

The real problem is that the free market model this country lives within means that large industry can operate almost unrestrained and in my opinion the OFT's remit is far too large for them to deal with any particular industry or issue effectively. So by all means blame them - but just don't forget to blame the system too.

[stewie082]

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

If the Sky report is true I wouldn't be so quick to lay all blame on the OFT themselves. Don't get me wrong as if this is the case I would very disappointed in them but the fact is that they have - in UTCCR - a lousy set of regulations to work with, a legal process that is painfully cumbersome and expensive in which to enforce them and a pitiful budget from the Treasury.

Although the OFT's external legal bill for the test case was about £1m, the cost in man hours for the investigation would have been many times more and with a total budget of some £25m it's not difficult to do the maths. Even if they did manage to pull off another test case and enforce the result the cost wouldn't necessarily end there OFT faces new legal fight as builders line up to challenge their fines for bid-rigging - Times Online

The real problem is that the free market model this country lives within means that large industry can operate almost unrestrained and in my opinion the OFT's remit is far too large for them to deal with any particular industry or issue effectively. So by all means blame them - but just don't forget to blame the system too.

According to the sky report, did the banks paid for the OFT legal fees? if so they have had to fork out nothing. Just time. They could have used this to expand the limited terms used.

[natweststaffmember]

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

According to the sky report, did the banks paid for the OFT legal fees? if so they have had to fork out nothing. Just time. They could have used this to expand the limited terms used.

Each bank and the OFT paid for their own legal fees.

[EXC]

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

No. When it says ''Under the terms of the test case, banks had agreed to pay their legal costs, whatever the verdict'' it means the banks paid their own costs - as per the original Litigation Agreement - and the OFT paid their own costs.

[Smasher]

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

Who is Joel Hills?

They Thought It Was Over - It Is Now | City Blog | Sky News Blogs

[Amethyst]

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

Sky News | About us | Biography

''
My understanding is the OFT will reserve the right to refer the issue of bank charges to the Competition Commission.
Meanwhile the government will make it clear that it still feels bank charges are not transparent enough and that banks are still not treating their customers fairly.
Change is on the way but it will come from "negotiated settlement" (with the threat of legislation) rather than in the courts.''


GOOD - even though I think he's guessing.

[EXC]

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

Who is Joel Hills?

They Thought It Was Over - It Is Now | City Blog | Sky News Blogs

Who cares but this looks promising ''My understanding is the OFT will reserve the right to refer the issue of bank charges to the Competition Commission.''

[Amethyst]

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

Just a reminder, should the OFT be reading in the event the OFT decide not to continue with the UTCCR investigation, we consider some the likely consequences to be as follows:-

 A widespread reduction in Consumer confidence in the OFT and other Government bodies.

 Concerns related to the wasted costs in terms of money and resources involved in the UTCCR investigation to date.

 Concerns that the banks will raise PCA charges (which can be countered by other work undertaken in the market - the OFT will need to reassure consumers that prices and charging structures of PCAs have become and will continue to be more competitive, transparent and fairer and that regulation in the market will be strengthened and monitoring continued).

 There would be no redress on historical charges - Consumers feel that the changes in the system over the past three years are evidence that the previous levels and structures were unfair and unreasonably high and the structures in place unfair and opaque. The charges have had massive effects on individuals overall life - finances, relationships, businesses, homes, health, the list is endless. The lack of fairness or compassion shown by the banks to individuals prior to and during the investigation has massively
impacted Consumer confidence in the banks and the regulators and they want recompense for the failings.

 A number of Consumers with stayed County Court claims would most likely wish to continue their claims on an individual basis. Whether they actually did so would depend upon their confidence in their own ability to litigate in person. This would of course disadvantage less able or less confident Consumers and would cause renewed chaos in the County Court system. Most Consumers pursuing their own claims in this manner would expect or hope that the Banks would settle in advance of a formal Court hearing. However, because of the complexities of the legal arguments involved these matters would quite quickly have to be taken to the High Court rather than the County Court and no individual Consumer is likely to be able to pursue this course of action owing to both cost and complexity. Such an action would have to be pursued via some form of Representative action and it is unlikely that such a Representative action could or would be entertained if there was no participation in the form of an ongoing investigation by the OFT.

 Seasoned Campaign Groups may also be concerned about 'letting Consumers down' and may push their visitors and members into court on the same and further developed arguments the OFT have declined to continue with. This also creates the risk of pushing Consumers further into debt whilst they try to keep overdraft debts in dispute whilst these cases progress.

 Consumer groups would also be forced to seek or pursue solutions to the Bank charges scenario via political and or parliamentary routes. The Government will be asked to intervene and look again at legislation and independent regulation of the banks

 Consumers who have had overdrafts/debt on hold whilst the investigation was ongoing are concerned about the speed and ferocity with which the banks will demand repayment of this money. Overdrafts, even whilst in dispute, have been subject to charges upon charges upon charges increasing the debt over the past three years. Banks have also taken legal action against Consumers who disputed overdraft debt as being made up of charges to enforce repayment - these claims in many cases have also been put on hold by the courts pending the resolution of the test case. Some of these will be for thousands of pounds, and made up almost entirely of bank charges. Debt Collection Guidelines (OFT 664) and regulation MUST be highlighted and adhered to by the banks. We would like to see some form of leniency/breathing space for these Consumers and the banks to accept repayment plans evidenced as affordable before pushing for charging/sale orders

 Banks asking for ''wasted costs'' etc on claims in the system prior to Nov 25th.

 Amnesty of interest and charges incurred on abandoned overdrafts pending test case (goodwill / PR for banks).

 Future of Credit Card claims - will the OFT proceed to obtain legal clarity on those issues.

 Conspiracy Theories abound

 Will there be a competition investigation

 Continuance of PCA Market Study and release and implementation of findings with regards to charges. The OFT have already found the charges unfair (ref August 2008 letters) How will they take that forward without litigation?


Other subjects which will be raised; much of this will be expanded on in our PCA report update.

 The Governments inclusion scheme pushing people into banking - exposing people to charges.

 Benefits - claimants being 'encouraged' into opening bank accounts rather than using POCA

 Strengthened Regulation of processing of hardship complaints - refer Lending Code Section 9.

 Banks encouraged to accept repayment plans from consumers on Overdrafts BEFORE there is a problem

 Refunds for periods of hardship - clarification if this can continue under BCOBS and Lending Code (historically under Banking code)

 Refunds on charges and interest added on overdrafts where they have been added whilst the charges and thus the debt had been in dispute.

[Dexter]

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

The announcement is of no particular suprise, as the OFT sadly took on the big boys and played them straight and lost. Sadly money always wins and to beat the banks you have to play dirty (see David and Goliath for tactics). However, lets look on the bright side and depending on the statement issued by the OFT this could be a blessing in disguise.

We need to now get our game faces on and support LB as much as they have supported all those with claims with people power.

Let's look at the history of charges claims in brief:-

1) Consumers take on banks and recover about £700 million.
2) Oft get involved and after 2.5 years achieve nothing for historic claims.

So who would you prefer to take this on the OFT or consumer. There is nothing like the stamp of a million or so tiny feet running to the post office with those DSAR letters, response etc, to turn a bankers blood to ice.

We have to now learn from the OFT's mistakes and historic consumer victories and play the banks the only way the consumer can by being 'DIRTY'. By looking at how many people can cause so many problems and at so much cost just by following the FSA's bank complaint procedures.

1) Contact bank with new complaint details.
2) Request new DSAR (the £10 is worth the hassle and cost to the bank to fish this information out)
3) Send complaint to Financial Ombudsman. Not only does this route not cost anything, it takes a lot of bank staff time and ultimately cost to respond to the claim, and even better, will cost the bank regardless of outcome about £600 per case payable to the FOS.
4) If the FOS doesn't agree then the court papers can be issued with the costs again mounting against the banks.

In monetary terms if the banks saw this to the end with each case following this route it would cost them more than coughing up for each complaint. The banks aren't stupid and know this. They are just waiting to see how this game is going to be played. Providing the consumer groups stick together and sing from the same hymn sheet I still think this is very much in the ball park for a resolution for historic charge claims.

To everyone at LB, the best way we can all thankyou for your effort and sacrifice that you have made is that your members are with you and will fight by your side!!

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT announcement 7am TUESDAY - leaks by sky news and sarah mccarthy-fry in advanc

THANK YOU DEXTER

We have been working hard in the background on arguments, and we are still awaiting the formal announcement tomorrow morning before recommending ANY action.

We have a discussion with the OFT in the morning, and with lawyers regarding where this leaves any possible group actions, and will discuss with the other consumer groups (where they still are playing ball so errr MSE, PAG and BC then) what actions are preferred.

Whichever we will NOT push people back into court IF we do not believe there is a cast iron case.

We'll give everyone all the options as early as we can tomorrow and all we can ask is that people are patient and bear with us.

I do agree with what you are saying, however I am quite mindful of keeping peoples hopes up of refunds and the inevitable way this affects their finances and actions with the banks.