OFT test case

[freakyleaky]

Well, my thing is, that I believe if they start charging everyone for a bank account, then effectively we've been forced into buying a third-party product by legislation (The Wages Act (1984)).

 

This is a direct contradiction of the ECHR laws.

Is there anyway of handling your finances whether you're employed, unemployed, retired or whatever, without having a bank account?

 

Total stitch up!

[stonedecroze]

Future Of High Street Banking In Balance In High Court |Sky News|Business

 

 

According to this report today OFT are saying that charges are ILLEGAL not unlawful, It may be a reporting error but if true would make a difference

[alecmac18]

"Thats a hell of a gesture of goodwill from an industry only known to act in their own best interests and stuff everyone else.

If any representative in a bank ever asks if they can help me I am instantly concerned that they believe they can screw some money out of me for their own benefit."

 

 

Ha.....I think the banks weill end up generating so much mistrust as a result of the bank charge robbery that they'll find it increasingly difficult to cross sell anything.

 

Q: How do you damage years of goodwill and trust?

A: Steal £1 billion from your customers every year and tell them its a 'service'

[dave]

£4 Billion!

 

I can see a fight: Wages Act (1986) v ECHR Act !

[JOSH_IOU]

the barter system

[Bookworm]

Future Of High Street Banking In Balance In High Court |Sky News|Business

 

 

According to this report today OFT are saying that charges are ILLEGAL not unlawful, It may be a reporting error but if true would make a difference

No, it wouldn't, illegal means "against or not authorized by law." Unlawful means "contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by law...while necessarily not implying the element of criminality, it is broad enough to include it." (Black's Law Dictionary)

[JOSH_IOU]

£4 Billion!

 

I can see a fight: Wages Act (1986) v ECHR Act !

 

Could we see if we can get something written up?

 

I would be willing to test it in court. ( I am exempt from fees by the way)

[dave]

I'm not sure it would be our remit - and it would most likely cost a bloody fortune!

[stonedecroze]

No, it wouldn't, illegal means "against or not authorized by law." Unlawful means "contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by law...while necessarily not implying the element of criminality, it is broad enough to include it." (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

 

Thank you for that Bookie

[photoman]

I predict, regardless of the outcome, there will soon be some amendments to or even new legislation to replace UTCCR '99 on the cards in the near future.

 

This would be necessary to encompass the changing face of customer relations with banks, and the way that banking products are priced, sold, made available (or not), presented to consumers etc post Test case.

 

Many on site have contended that it is obvious that the Banks have in actual fact been fully aware for a long time of the way these contractual terms have contravened, if not the exact wording then certainly the essence and intent of UTCCR 99.

They have thus just very carefully and cleverly worded their contracts, in the belief that just by simply avoiding the use of certain words, this gave them the ability to avoid being subject to it's applicability.

 

Thus, post Test case, there would need to be new legislation or changes to UTCCR, to attempt to prevent abuse of consumers rights simply by carefully constructing a contracts wording.

[joe1965]

If (God forbid) the banks won their case, what's the probability of them claiming back all the money they have paid out? Would they bother or just write it off?

[Castlebest]

To my knowledge I don't think any of the banks have actually paid back one penny of the charges that have been claimed back from them. All of the settlements have been exgratia payments that happen to be for the same amount

[dave]

Yeah, in the main, banks have made people accept the payments as "Full and FINAL" settlement - they can hardly go back on that. It would be a binding contract.

[Gez]

If (God forbid) the banks won their case, what's the probability of them claiming back all the money they have paid out? Would they bother or just write it off?

There would be far more to worry about than that! Wait until you get your next gas bill & mobile phone bill with all the new "extra services" you never asked for. There will be a precedent in which companies can introduce new services at any time without negotiation & charge what the hell they like for them..

[andrew1]

There would be far more to worry about than that! Wait until you get your next gas bill & mobile phone bill with all the new "extra services" you never asked for. There will be a precedent in which companies can introduce new services at any time without negotiation & charge what the hell they like for them..

 

Yes, a bit like BT have done

[johnnymitch]

by Gez :There will be a precedent in which companies can introduce new services at any time without negotiation & charge what the hell they like for them..

 

And what are the OF watchdogs going to do about it ?- surely that is pressure selling - which IMHO is illegal..........

[JOSH_IOU]

a BANKING Package?

 

Dose that mean we just don't sign for it?

[Castlebest]

What Gez is saying is if the banks prove the "fees" for their "services" are legal it will set a precedent in law and everyone will be able to do the same.

 

So all sorts of services will start appearing on your direct debit statements and because they are direct debits you wont have any choice, the money will be gone from your bank account.

 

pete

[sillygirl1]

Why do you think I stopped all DDs and SOs from my bank account nearly three years ago!

 

Since then no fees and other rubbish and I haven't been overdrawn. Okay I've been charged the next step in the chain, "Non payment by DD fee" but that will soon be deemed illegal too.

[JOSH_IOU]

Bank's are entitled to make a Direct debit charge its just that they cant make an excessive charge. so maybe £0.0000001 would be lawful

[joe1965]

To my knowledge I don't think any of the banks have actually paid back one penny of the charges that have been claimed back from them. All of the settlements have been exgratia payments that happen to be for the same amount

 

So if it went our way we could reclaim the charges as what most people recieved from the banks were payments of goodwill.

[JOSH_IOU]

The OFT have ruled Credit Card charges are unlawful if they are over £12 already.

 

I wonder what government departments profit off banks.

[Goldlady]

So if it went our way we could reclaim the charges as what most people recieved from the banks were payments of goodwill.

 

 

A cunning plan :lol:

[Castlebest]

The OFT have ruled Credit Card charges are unlawful if they are over £12 already.

 

I wonder what government departments profit off banks.

 

The OFT have said nothing of the sort, they have said they will not investigate any charge of £12 or below but a court of law would have to decide if a charge was excessive.

 

Thats why all of the credit card companies have set their charges to £12 so they wont get investigated by the OFT the charge of £12 still has to be proved in a court of law and it never will because its still way over what it costs the credit card companies.

[Castlebest]

A cunning plan :lol:

 

Yeah, in the main, banks have made people accept the payments as "Full and FINAL" settlement - they can hardly go back on that. It would be a binding contract.

 

and how would we argue Full and Final? lol ...like your thinking though