OFT WIN

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

Thanks EXC

[Kafka]

Re: OFT WIN

Hardship has been a tricky one all the way through this and the FSA are aware of these, possibly a more public campaign is needed.

First of all does anyone have a list of cases that we know HAVE got a stay properly overturned and the case allowed to continue.

Probably not - but this is vital info to research across all the forums to get the true picture

Temptys stay was overturned, as it should have been due to her circumstances, but was reimposed at appeal. The case should have been allowed to continue as the bank were partly responsible for the problems she was having at that time. I understand the banks arguments and that the legality of the charges is a massive subject to look at and rule on in the county court level, but I very much doubt if any compensation would be made to people, if/when charges are ruled unfair, that have lost homes etc that would have been prevented had they received their charges back when originally claimed. The additional 8% interest earnt on those claims (should they then go on to win) just doesn't cut it.

Agree absolutely on the difficulties faced by County Courts. However, the FSA is saying that the cases should be (and are being by the 1000) filtered and processed - neither is happening so this needs to be exposed as a false claim.

A lot of hardship cases which have been claimed haven't, in my opinion, been hardship in the true defination of the term, but I think a good review of cases across the sites and press which have been claimed as hardship is called for, and these cases that stays were continued upon should be given priority once the stays are lifted - IF those people want to continue depending on the judgement.

Agreed - that's why we need to identify the strongest cases as examples and ensure that those people would be happy to participate. We do need to find out exactly where they have got to

I don't underestimate the work involved with all of this, but I think it is so important that it warrants a big effort by a small dedicated team in the coming weeks.

[argentarius]

Re: OFT WIN

tomterm8 - thanks for the info on CCA 2006 and its impact on the unfair charges issue - I'll have to get up to speed with that.

EXC - on the same logic, it might be considered ridiculous to have accused another judge of being biased towards BT and hence making an inappropriate decision - but then, it wasn't me who made that allegation, was it? The nature of the law is that a judgement is (in most case's) an individual's view, and they obviously can get things wrong as well as right.

Claiming that there is no service provided in respect of receiving a DD request, processing it, then rejecting it, is ridiculous. I don't care how wise you think Andrew Smith is - the judgement has no merit in this regard. Provision of a service doesn't have to mean providing something which the recipient deems of benefit. On the same dubious logic you could claim that any charge for cancelling any agreement is invalid as the cancellation isn't a service of any benefit to the customer.

Tools - as has already been posted by Vortex, the mechanism is that the DD is processed as if it is going to be paid, and then a later decision is made to reject it. Some banks will show both "legs" of the transaction; others will net them off and it will be as if the debit never occurred. My point that there is more "effort" in rejecting, than in paying, is for that very reason - a rejection involves paying the money, then calling it back, whilst paying it merely involves the first element.

Tomterm8 (again!) and Cetelco - the amount of computer time is irrelevant. There is a cost; a service is being provided. That's why the judgement is wrong. We are not talking about a charge relating to cost (a penalty charge) here.

[EXC]

Re: OFT WIN

EXC - on the same logic, it might be considered ridiculous to have accused another judge of being biased towards BT and hence making an inappropriate decision

It might be, but it wasn't me that did was it.

[argentarius]

Re: OFT WIN

No, but you were mysteriously silent in that situation. Which was my point.

[EXC]

Re: OFT WIN

ffs!

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

We should remember that when asked about the stays, just after Judgment, the FSA was quoted as saying "they only effect a few people"

Read what you like into that

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

The OFT recognises the “desirability of achieving a fair and orderly resolution of the relevant issues” and agrees not to object to any request or application for a stay of other court proceedings between the Banks and their customers about the charges made by banks. I understand that, at least for the most part, the customers’ litigation has not been proceeding pending the determination of issues raised in these proceedings.

...........................

[Vortex]

Re: OFT WIN

Righty, where is that quote from because the times have a different FSA quote
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3805711.ece
"A spokesman for the FSA says: "The waiver will continue for the time being. When we granted it it we said it would run for 12 months or until the test case was resolved, whichever was sooner. The test case is not yet resolved as the parties could still decide to appeal."

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

Back to the hardship cases -
1)problem there is no clear definition of hardship between the banks
2) One of the cases I am in touch with also tried to bring up the situation of benefits being taken to pay charges - and the judge commented that he had no guidance on this and that would have to be decided in a separate case. I am no expert in this area.

My initial thoughts were to contact the hrdship cases I am aware of, that were in the court system and had thier cases stayed and even those who had not got that far, and try one last letter again with copies to the FSA - referring to the original terms within the agreement which indicated that these cases should be filtered out of the court system and at least be considered.

A shorter version of the letter we did before - and make it clear that a copy has been sent to the FSA - and asking for reasons in writing why they have not adhered to the agreement and if they do not consider it a hardship case the reasons why.

I think after the 22nd would be a good idea. We may then know a little more.

I will help as much as I can.

Jan

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

I'd agree with most of what Kafke & Ame said.

I think Scoob would be just the gal for the job - with our help of course. She has already offered to do it.

Ame's suggestion of finding successful hardship claims is very good. we've tended to concentrate on the unsuccessful cases in the past and we could learn from them - if indeed there are any!

The PCA investigation and market study are 2 separate things. It's the PCA investigation that will rule on the fairness issue and Tom asked them on Thursday when it would be published but needless to say they wouldn't say.


I would hope that the PCA investigation will be published shortly after the CMC. The last I had on this was in February from Kate Farrow:

With regards to the investigation, we are continuing to request and analyse information from the banks and we therefore will not be concluding the investigation until after the judgment. The market study is expected to be published pre-judgment however this depends, to a certain degree, on when judgment is handed down.

Do you mean suceeded in court ? - not many as far as I know

Or outside court?

Jan

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

Personally I don't think anyone should wait until May as frankly I fear the worst........at the least that any Judgment will be appealed........I think that any campaign should be collated & delivered through the media asap........as who knows who it might affect :tinysmile_grin_t:

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

Also I am afraid I need a bit of a idiots guide to the ruling as it is understood so far as have not had time to read it yet - due to my daughter having crashed her car this week - she is ok - but has taken up a lot of my time

I am confused by the posts on here and OTR about whether the OFT will have the power to influence the level of charges even if they can use the UTTCR.


Sorry:cry:

[Vortex]

Re: OFT WIN

Post number 54 on page 3 of this thread may help or it may be too simplistic.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

Thanks Jan. Of course the hearing thus far hasnt taken in Hardship cases and the waiver....after 22nd if the waiver is continued then I think action needs to be taken to get those claims considered - even if not on the test case basis just on the fact that the charges are excessive particularly when you are on an extremely limited income and should be given consideration under the banking code.

The Benefits being taken to pay charges area is pretty tricky - we have previously been looking at inalienability but I no longer perceive this as applying in the case of bank charges.

The first right of appropriation (which doesnt work retrospectively) should be used more, and banks should look at their responsibilities under the banking code with regards to hardship. Legally at present bank charges can be taken from benefits unless the customer asserts the first right of appropriation - which is also a bit airy fairy in the banks and not many seem to understand it. But people shouldnt be put in that position by the banks in the first place (or get themselves in that position) I'd always have benefits paid into a seperate account solely for the benefits rather than mixed in amongst salary payments etc then distribute where required. But thats another subject really.