July 7th Hearing

[EXC]

Re: July 7th Hearing

In an e-mail from Tom: ''I'm hoping that Monday's ruling will help somewhat, and having spoken to some people at the OFT and FSA, I think we will be having some movement on the issue of the stay and the waiver. Interesting times ahead!''

[Shazzaw]

Re: July 7th Hearing

EXC - sincerely hoping you don't mind me doing this but I'm posting up your comments on PC which people may find of interest. Hope this is OK with you if not I'll delete straight away.

EXC ADVISED THIS EARLIER

"Looks like there's going to be another case managment conference later on in July which will presumably be scheduled at next week's hearing. This could possibly indicate that the judgment on historicals could be handed down either before or during the CMC."

[EXC]

Re: July 7th Hearing

No probs Shaz but thanks for asking anyway.

[EXC]

Re: July 7th Hearing

Monday's hearing is back at the IDRC and listed to start at 11.00.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: July 7th Hearing

Have you got plenty of pens mate? :-)

[EXC]

Re: July 7th Hearing

Marvelous - they have a video feed room as they did during the main hearing which means you can hear everything they say, coffee on tap and leave the room any time you like to make calls.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/c...commercial.htm

[EXC]

Re: July 7th Hearing

And who has only just left home becuase she lost her keys?

Step forward Celestine....

[Amethyst]

Re: July 7th Hearing

ROFLMAO !!!! You divvy dov Cel :kiss:

[Amethyst]

Re: July 7th Hearing

The day has started with Jonathon Crow acting for the OFT outlining, with regards historical terms, how penalties should be judged by effect , wording , or application and the issues of when does a penalty arise. Following this they will be going into individual terms for each bank, and it is believed the OFT will be asking the Judge to reconsider his decision on Nationwides terms that were deemed unable to be penalties.

The General Consensus is that Jonathon Crow is doing a great job on behalf of the OFT. There are also rumours that the OFT are having trouble with the funding of this case, and following this stage MAY be handing over the proceedings to the FSA to continue with.

More in an hour or so xx

[Amethyst]

Re: July 7th Hearing

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4281743.ece

for an idea on the OFT Budget

[Amethyst]

Re: July 7th Hearing

Next installment


Its all quite slow going and in depth. Jonathon Crow acting for the OFT has been outlining each term in the historical terms that the OFT believe can be deemed as penalties.

First bank up is the Halifax


Halifax Easy Cash Account 2007 (basic account) Clause 15.1

which says basically 'you will not allow your account to go overdrawn''

Jonathan crow ripped it apart word by word and said it was a penalty and judge didnt disagree.

The OFT also pointed out a clause from Intelligent Finance Current Account from 2007 which states ''you must not use debit card if funds are unavailable'' - and stated this to be a penalty. Again the Judge didn't disagree.

Some conversation took place over the charges that these two clauses would actually trigger on the accounts, and the Judge, with lots of eyebrow raising, seemed suprised that an Excess Overdraft Fee was in addition to the Overdraft Transaction fees and the OFT outlined to him how these charges triggered others in a snowball effect.

The OFT will go through all the banks, clause by clause, and the banks will be responding, probably tomorrow.

Although initially the OFT stated they hoped this would be tied up in two days, at current progress rate it looks as though it will take all three as allocated.

The Judge is confused by the charges. and is asking for lots of clarification, and on the surface doesn't appear to be liking whats coming out.


We shall see. More after lunch break.


Thanks to EXC, Tom and Celestine for their updates xxx


About the OFT's man - Johnathan Crow - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...8848#post68848

[EXC]

Re: July 7th Hearing

Quote of the day from Abbey's QC Ali Malik: ''Just because a charge is exorbitant, does not necessarily make it a penalty''. (!)


HBOS QC Dicker has chosen not to reply to the OFT's submission until tomorrow.

Jonathan Crow identified 2 Abbey clauses as penalties: Current account Jan 07 - clause 6.3 ''If UO occurs without our agreement" ....meaning that if you go OD without our agreement, you are in breach. Also clause 16.3b "you must not use your card to guarantee a cheque, if you know that you have insufficient funds to cover that cheque"

Jonathan Crow also cited clause 13b from Abbeys Instant Plus Account May 2005 T&Cs, "You must not use your card to guarantee a cheque..." and 24.2 that you will be 'in breach of the terms and conditions of the account'.

The OFT is currently working their way alphabetically through the banks, citing 2-3 points from each set of T&Cs to illustrate the penalty aspect of the T&Cs. They are not struggling at all in doing this!

More soon...this is live from the feed room. (we snuck the lappy in)!! Kate
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
No usher here so laptops on!

[argentarius]

Re: July 7th Hearing

I can't see how the banks are going to win the penalty argument on the basic accounts, the Ts & Cs of which all pretty much said "you must not go overdrawn" when they were first created.

Indeed, the very point of the accounts was to provide a useful service to customers who didn't want to get overdrawn, by not allowing them to do so. The problem, of course, is that it's not possible to prevent people from attempting to do so, and the banks wanted to charge them for those attempts.

[stevokenevo]

Re: July 7th Hearing

Quote of the day from Abbey's QC Ali Malik: ''Just because a charge is exorbitant, does not necessarily make it a penalty''. (!)


!

It beggers belief! :loco: He is quite correct, but what a choice of words.

[ROBSTER]

Re: ******** July 7th Hearing - LATEST NEWS *********

Am I mistaken or was today supposed to be the day that the judge started to deliver his findings on "historic" (pre Nov 2006) charges, this seems to be a continuation of the previous case on the more modern T&Cs ?