OFT WIN

[scoobydoo]

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:

True - it may only take a handful of cases in the right place to bring things to peoples attention again. I just think people are confused with consumer groups claiming victory ,and the banks doing the same and really doing a finger up sign to the OFT

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

I struggle with that too Jan.

paras 434 etc seem to deal with it in part

parties’ rights and obligations under the contract. While this might entail some consideration of the level of the price paid by consumers as against what they receive in exchange, the assessment under Regulation 5(1) is a broader one (and would be so the more obviously if the term the fairness of which is assessed does not relate to all that the consumer pays by way of the price or remuneration under the contract but only part of it.) It involves, as Lord Bingham said in the First National Bank case (cit sup at para 17) “looking at the contract as a whole”. As recital 19 to the Directive makes clear, a distinction is to be drawn between (permissibly) taking into account the price/quality ratio when assessing fairness and (impermissibly) assessing the price/quality ratio itself.

oh and

421. I therefore conclude that the Relevant Terms are not exempt from assessment under the 1999 Regulations. This does not seem to me surprising. Regulation 6(2) exempts assessment of the fairness of the balance of the essential bargain between a seller or supplier and a consumer. As the Banks themselves explain, under a “free-if-in-credit” price structure the economic balance in a contract between a Bank and its current account customer is between the package of services supplied by the Bank and the total benefits to the Bank from operating the current account, not only by way of Relevant Charges but also in particular by way of the use of the funds if the account is in credit and interest if it is in debit. On no view does an assessment of the Relevant Charges (or the Relevant Terms) impinge upon the adequacy of the totality of the benefits received by the Bank in exchange for the package of services. The OFT’s investigation might well involve consideration of the fairness of the structure of a “free-if-in-credit” pricing regime but that is very different from an assessment of the overall “adequacy” of the benefits to a Bank from operating it.

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

Forgot to say i don't just mean publicising hardship cases as referred to here but also cases were the banks & or their agents have acted in an appalling manner .. threatening ..........bullying.......constant phone calls sometimes 15 or more a day... calling debtors at their place of work in contravention of the OFT guidelines. As we know the list is endless.

If we can for arguments sake find 6 -12 people who all have accounts with the same lender & are willing to be named who are all suffering the same sort of harassment we can use that & instead of claiming it's a one off, as they so often do, we can prove, by the number involved, that it's part of their normal practice

In each instant we need to establish a pattern of behaviour that contravenes the OFT guidance & hopefully even the law

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

Ame

I agree the case I referred to had income of only benefits - and they tried to bring this up in court - but were dismissed. I just dont think those cases should have got into the court system in the first place.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

I agree completely. The situation shouldn't have arisen in the first place.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

Ian Pollock has put a bit of it quite well Slow Progress On Bank Charges - Legal Beagles

Cheers tuttsi x

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

I think personally that a problemis that the banking system is sightly different to other services in that you could say - I dont like your charges I will go elsewhere. But those in the most vunerable position have to have their income paid into a bank account and also once they are in financial problems - because of the credit checking system may not be able to change banks.
Also in my case I know I was responsible for the original error when my account went OD ( well MOH actually) but I was for no reason at all ( believe me my CR was good) refused a temporary OD for 4 days while I tried to transfer money. Thats when i got mad. The fact that your money disappears into the black depths of the system when it suits them - but money can go out of your account as quick as a flash .

In respect of DD by previous poster I was charged twice on the same day - once for deciding to refuse the DD and then they charged me for paying it although still OD.Ł50.00 for a DD of Ł4.65. Great!

Jan

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

Ian Pollock has put a bit of it quite well Slow Progress On Bank Charges - Legal Beagles

Cheers tuttsi x

thanks for that link

much clearer now! Well as clear as I can be anyway!:tinysmile_grin_t:

jan

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

But those in the most vunerable position have to have their income paid into a bank account and also once they are in financial problems - because of the credit checking system may not be able to change banks.

The Post Office Card account is ideal for people struggling to this extent who exist on benefits alone. Leave the Overdraft at the bank and deal with cash. Its quite easy once you get used to it and you are at zero risk of bank charges.

so

I dont like your charges I will go elsewhere.

does still apply.

I'm not sure on the future of the PO card account tho. Something I should look into as i had heard rumours it would be vanishing in 2010.

articles for now should migrate this to a new thread solely concentrating on the hardship aspects really ?
Access to benefits and other payments through Post Office Card Accounts
Statement on the Post Office - BERR
Financial Inclusion Taskforce
Postwatch - The future of the Post Office Card Account and its impact on the post office network
Post Office Card Account: 17 May 2007: Written Ministerial Statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)


ewww POCA is operated by citibank

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

Shall I just play around with that original letter and make it as short and to the point as I can ? And then we can try it with a couple of cases to see what answer we get. ?

I have two definites in mind.

[Vortex]

Re: OFT WIN

The Post office account isn't the thing disappearing, its the Post Office branches themselves.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

Good plan Scoobs - I do tend to waffle off in other directions

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

To XXXXbank

From XXXXX
Reference account number XXXXXXX Case numberXXXXXX
Dear sir / madam

I refer to my claim on the above account. I am fully aware of the current case regarding charges and the ruling that has been published.

However I wish to bring to your attention again the condition of the Waiver.

This is an extract from:
FSA waiver statement 27/7/2007 & Memo to Treasury select committee 9/10/2007
.
Consumers who are in very difficult financial circumstances - 'hardship cases'
Banks and building societies will have to conduct a filtering process to ensure that cases of genuine hardship are still dealt with during the waiver period.
Also as I am sure you are aware the banking code requirement for banks to deal with persons in financial difficulty sympathetically and positively has not been affected by the waiver.


The agreement reached between the banks, FSA, FOS and OFT prior to the OFT v banks case being submitted to the High Court at the end of July clearly states that responsibility for determining and resolving a ‘hardship case’ lies with the bank, that the waiver granted to banks, allowing complaints re charges to be held pending the outcome of the High Court case does not apply to ‘hardship’ cases, and banks should therefore seek to identify and resolve such cases; further that where agreement cannot be reached between a customer and a bank the bank must issue a final response letter as a precursor to the FOS seeking to resolve matters.


I am therefore (again) identifying myself to you to one of the cases where the excessive charges have been a cause or have worsened my present position . You are fully aware of my situation from previous correspondence in your possession.


The fact that I have commenced legal action is not a factor as the ability of the banks to request stays was made with proviso that banks would continue to consider hardship cases.

I fully believe that my difficulties meet any definition or criteria of hardship. If you disagree confirm your reasons in writing together with your reasons for not adhering to the terms of the waiver. I look forward to your reply within the next 7 days

Yours sincerely :tung:

a brief summary or budget sheet or reasons for hardship could be attached if necssary.

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

My thoughts

not quite sure what happened to the list of cases that were sent from OTR and also not even sure what the reaction from FSA was?

Hard for me to pm people to get them over here without being obvious So could we try a letter similar to that above with one or two good cases and then if we get a reply use that as publicity to get more cases through the media?

Jan

[argentarius]

Re: OFT WIN

The Post Office Card account is ideal for people struggling to this extent who exist on benefits alone. Leave the Overdraft at the bank and deal with cash. Its quite easy once you get used to it and you are at zero risk of bank charges.

I'm glad you said that, Amethyst.

The whole "I don't have a choice about banking - I have to have a bank account and therefore I can't avoid these 'unfair' charges" argument is flawed, as you point out.

It's not just the POCA. Anybody who doesn't want to pay bank charges can operate in a 100% cash way, even if they have to have their income paid into a bank because their employer, or the government (pension or benefits) or whoever insists on it. Many bank accounts (including basic bank accounts) allow free withdrawals at post offices or through ATMs.

If you don't have any transactions going through your bank account other than withdrawing your income in cash, you have no risk of charges.

BTW I'm not suggesting that this is how everyone should live. It's not the most convenient way to live, and nor will it be the cheapest because of DD payment discounts etc. And as other threads have pointed out, there are suppliers who won't accept cash payment at all; but in most (if not all) cases there are alternative ones who will take cash.

All I'm affirming is Amethyst's view that there IS an alternative for those who don't want to be at risk of incurring charges.