News from the CMC - May (OFT v Banks)

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

lol ladidi you are on the ball today - can you try keep it clear where its come from on the posts. I'll try and get more bits clarified next time i speak to the team down there - so dont take everything i say as gospel (yet lol)

I did try to state where the information was coming from and post links instead of copy and pasting but all I kept getting when it went on the forum that I had got the information from disneyland or disneyworld..I thought I was going cuckoo dunno about everyone else who was reading what was being put up but I reckon they must have thought I was minnie mouse having a fall out with mickey mouse and pluto run rings round me...lol

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

pmsl s'ok hun you get used to it

xx Theres likely to be amendments and corrections thats all and wouldn't want peeps over there not to get the full picture.

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

nice one.

Just wish the OFT had appealed the penalty aspects, but they aren't interested in those at all are they.

The good thing is, it's already been said the Judgment on Penalties for current terms can be ignored because it flies 'so' in the face of history it's unbelievable.

But Smithy finding that they can be looked at under UTCCR because they aren't 'really' service fees, coupled with the OFT's disinterest in penalties means 'we' can if you are up for the argument, still forge ahead on penalty issue it just would be a more convoluted argument in Court now and not as simple as befire.

up for anything me

[ed.]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

How do I respond to that Ame PMSL

[righty]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

No CAG don't for some reason allow a link to LB.......... Don't no why we are all on the same side .................. or so I thought

[Budgie]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

OK Proceedings have finished for the day and we are back at the Bunker.

Here is a summary of the key points from todays CMC

Banks are appealing against judgement regarding UTCRR 1999 issues

OFT are not appealing Penalty charge aspects for current terms

OFT will decide tonight and advise Judge tomorrow if they will be appealing the PIL judgment for current terms.

The official applications regarding the appeals will be heard tomorrow.

Judge will hand down declarations regarding historic terms ( inc basic accounts ) at the CMC to be held on 7th/8th July.
Banks and OFT have basically agreed that UTCCR judgment will be carried over to historic terms and the OFT tried to suggest to the Judge that he should accept that agreement, however Judge wishes to do this properly so as to give correct guidance to County Courts ( basically in his own words - how can he be expected to make a judgment on something that he hasnt read or listened to arguments on ). However, he felt it likely that his view would be in line with that supposedly agreed between Banks and OFT.
With regards to Penalty charge aspects in relation to historic terms. OFT have produced an updated version of G1 and G2 annexes, taking into account initial judgment and issued this to the Banks yesterday. OFT are still working on this list and will continue discussion with Banks and submit final list to Court on 5th June. This list will determine which of the original terms the OFT identified as possibly being Penalties are no longer such ( as a result of the initial judgment ) and terms which the OFT still consider are penaltys. The list will include reasons and the OFT hope that this will be of assistance to the Judge.

Judge wishes to handle both the Penal aspects and the UTCCR aspects in relation to the historic terms together , in one exercise at the meeting on 7th/8th July.

More to follow

Budgie, Exc, Celestine www.legalbeagles.info

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Ladidi - can you put on them that they from here and who wrote them pls. Else its going to get very confusing. Not a lot of point copying the whole thread over there, they won't allow links to us which is sad and means their users miss out on information, so I'm okay with you copying any of my posts over so long as they are credited to me &/or LB, but you should check with other posters before doing so. Cheers hun x

[Budgie]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Continued.............

The judge expressed on several occasions that he was unhappy at the potential delays and uncertainty with regards to timescales as already reported in Ame's earlier posts. Before lunch he had requested that the OFT provide a more definite indication as to when they might expect to produce their PCA report and to progress further with the Banks on the fairness issues.

The Judge, during an exchange between himself and Malik ( Abbey QC ) hinted that a injunctive remedy may be applicable for people with stayed County Court claims who are still having charges applied to their accounts. More information to follow once we receive transcripts.

After Lunch the OFT QC, Richard Coleman reported that it is the OFT's intention to engage seriously with the Banks on the issues of fairness after the CMC on 7th / 8th July. If no disagreement with the Banks then the OFT would hope to be able to come back to the Courts in the period between October and Xmas having identified certain aspects requiring decision by the courts. This was obvioulsy still very vague although slighty more informative than the response given before Lunch. Obviously this all depends on how the appeal proceeds with respect to the original UTCCR judgment.

The FSA representative was also not very happy with the lack of information supplied by the OFT. They were expecting more discussion to have taken place at the CMC with regards to Phase 2 ( the hearings to argue whether terms are actually unfair or not ). The FSA were certainly expecting more definitive timelines to have been agreed and had been disapointed by the OFT's response before lunch. The FSA said that matters were now a little clearer however they did expect matters to proceed with the utmost expediency and wanted markers put down.

Our Comment - We found it quite remarkable that the FSA have actually been put in a postition that they are compalining about progress ( or lack of it ) being made by the OFT.

The Judge indicated that it might be necessary to hold an additional CMC towards the end of July if it proved not possible to lay down a firm timetable going forward at the CMC already organised for 7th / 8th July.

Apparantley the OFT and the Banks had agreed prior to the CMC that a judgment / declaration would not be required in relation to PIL for historic terms. However this may change if the OFT decide overnight to appeal the original PIL judgment.

At the end of todays events the Judge made an announcement regarding stayed County Court Claims.
He said " Regarding claims that have been stayed, pending guidance from this litigation, at each stage I have been considering whether this has changed. The reasons that those actions should not recede seem as strong as they were and will remain so until any appeal by the Banks regarding UTCRR 1999 has been resolved."


Exc, Celestine and I will try to add some more meat to these notes tonight but hope that it gives people an insight in the meantime. ( Apologies for spelling mistakes above )

Budgie, Exc, Celestine www.legalbeagles.info

[Budgie]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

I confirm that any posts of mine on this thread may be reproduced on any other site, however they must specify the source. IE a proper link to this thread.

[righty]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

So it's possible that the judge might do what the FSA should have done when they allowed the stay, place a moratorium on bank charges

[stevokenevo]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Good work guys, it is most appreciated! :okay:

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Budgie as you are aware I have been copying and pasting the links on this website for use at CAG.
I have copied the information you have posted onto the CAG website but the links will not be allowed for some reason. I am making it known it is not my details reporting and the information is form this website for people to read and use at their own discretion.

Thanks for allowing the use of your information to be reported for other use and see.

Ladidi

[CYNthesys]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Is Abbey's QC this Mr Malik

http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/cons...ik-9685.07.pdf

[Budgie]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Just a little more information on the penalty charge aspects in relation to historic terms.

The updated G1 and G2 annexes that the OFT will be submitting to Court in relation to terms that the OFT considers are still capable of being penal ( specifically in relation to historic terms ) effectively mean that the OFT will be seeking specific declarations in relation to specific terms for specific Banks on the historic terms.

The one exception to this will Nationwide accounts, the OFT have not identified any terms in Nationwide terms and conditions, either current terms or historic terms ( Remember that Nationwide didn't update their terms once the Test Case was announced so current terms and historic terms are basically the same thing for Nationwide ). So the OFT have already effectively agreed that NO Nationwide terms are capable of amounting to penalties under common law.

Nationwide have therefore indicated that there is no need for them to attend the CMC on 7th / 8th July.

There was a hint that the Banks will use the same arguments for the penalty aspects in relation to historic terms as they did for the current terms. The OFT requested that they have the same opportunity as the Banks.

Also, although the actual permission for the Banks to appeal the UTCCR aspects of the judgment for current terms will not be granted until tomorrow, once the applications have been officially heard, the Judge has already indicated that permission to appeal will be granted subject to a condition that the Banks will not revive the "specific contract argument". Nationwide expressed concern and their intention to request a caveat to this condition so that it will not prevent them from reviving their own specific argument which is fundamentally different to that of the other Banks.

Budgie, Exc, Celestine www.legalbeagles.info

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Legal Beagles - Ali Malek

Thats him - not same one as far as I am aware.