OFT test case

[saintly_1]

Regarding comments about council finances....its been reported today that Councils now make more money on School dinners and parking charges than they do on council tax.......

 

 

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Council charges 'raise £10.8bn'

I would like to know how councils make money out of school dinners !! As the cook in a school kitchen I know that my kitchen is running at a loss as are the majority of schools in our borough !!

 

 

 

On the banks one thing keeps bugging me ... Why do the debits always come out before the credits go in ?

[car2403]

So is the oft ruling Final?

 

The reasoning behind it may be pursuasive argument that is considered in the decision, but their view is not binding on a Court.

[JOSH_IOU]

so we could make the lack of available information as a particular?

[Castlebest]

So is the oft ruling Final?

 

The credit card £12 charge comes from the August 2006 OFT report where they say they will not investigate charges below £12. Its a figure the OFT set for their own guidance and was never meant to be any sort of limit.

[JOSH_IOU]

I would like to know how councils make money out of school dinners !! As the cook in a school kitchen I know that my kitchen is running at a loss as are the majority of schools in our borough !!

 

 

 

On the banks one thing keeps bugging me ... Why do the debits always come out before the credits go in ?

 

 

Have a look at this from the Audit Commission.

 

Audit Commission

[JOSH_IOU]

The credit card £12 charge comes from the August 2006 OFT report where they say they will not investigate charges below £12. Its a figure the OFT set for their own guidance and was never meant to be any sort of limit.

 

 

 

 

Lol i gathered that

[dave]

I would like to know how councils make money out of school dinners !! As the cook in a school kitchen I know that my kitchen is running at a loss as are the majority of schools in our borough !!

 

 

 

On the banks one thing keeps bugging me ... Why do the debits always come out before the credits go in ?

 

It's not only that the debits come out first, they also process the largest first - that way it maximises the chances of you bouncing more.

 

If you had 100 quid in your account and 3 direct debits. One for 51, one for 49 and one for 60, they would process the 60, then the first 51, then the 49. Result = 2 bounced payments, as they wouldn't bounce the 51 then try the 49.

 

If they had processed the 51 and the 49, then only the 60 would have bounced.

 

Snidey isn't it?

[Son of Shoestring]

Hi

 

Try this link below

 

 

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Current credit card default charges unfair

 

Ta!

 

The concern is that a £12 penalty fee will be charged across the banking board for bouncing DD's etc. Anyone know if this hairy monster has been raised as a compromise formula yet? If so the banks would still cream it in unfairly...

 

Shoestring

[Bookworm]

If the OFT wins on the UTCCR and they do have jurisdiction (part 1 of the test case) then like in the credit card report of APRIL 06 (not August, that was the deadline for the banks to comply), they are likely to set an amount at which they themselves will take action. It won't be a compromise formula, and would still be challengeable in court in the same way the current c/c charges are.

 

IMO, if the OFT set an intervention amount, it will be more than £12, my best guesstimate would be £18-£20, after all, banks have more expenses than c/c companies (branches, ATMs, staffing, different array of products etc...). That's what I reckon anyway. ;-)

[dave]

Personally, I think what needs to change is the Wages Act.

 

If we once again had the legal right to decide how we accept our wages, I wonder just how many would choose to have it paid into a bank account.

 

To start with probably about 95%, but with the very poor service and rip off tactics that banks employ, at least we would have the choice to NOT use these services.

 

I for one, would have nothing to do with any company that deals with customers in this way. If I get poor service or legally doubtful practices from any other firm or industry sector, I can choose not to use it. Not so with banks, and this needs to change.

 

That way we might actually start to see some competition in the industry and with that, we might get to see some 'real' service, and 'real' services offered to us to try to retain, or gain our business in much the same way that 'real' industries have to.

 

I must admit to laughing when I see adverts for banks on the rare occasions I get to see a TV. I saw one the other day that claimed to be different from all the other banks.

 

Yeah, different how?

 

I tried to get an account with this very bank (it might have been a BS), some years ago, and they ended up losing my ID - passport, driving licence, and a couple of utility bills.

 

Were they bothered? Not in the slightest.

 

The same service levels are across the board.

[dave]

If the OFT wins on the UTCCR and they do have jurisdiction (part 1 of the test case) then like in the credit card report of APRIL 06 (not August, that was the deadline for the banks to comply), they are likely to set an amount at which they themselves will take action. It won't be a compromise formula, and would still be challengeable in court in the same way the current c/c charges are.

 

IMO, if the OFT set an intervention amount, it will be more than £12, my best guesstimate would be £18-£20, after all, banks have more expenses than c/c companies (branches, ATMs, staffing, different array of products etc...). That's what I reckon anyway. ;-)

 

True, Bookie. However, their staffing levels shouldn't (can't?) come into the equation.

 

They have nothing to do with the cost of the breach of the contract - much the same way that the banks stating that they will have to change their banking model - or make a private commercial decision if bank charges are abolished.

[ohoh4312]

Quote from the Barclays QC:

Referring to charges levied for bouncing a cheque, he said: "The whole of this debate is academic unless the OFT is going to contend that any unpaid item fee at all is unfair.

I may be totally wrong, not being legally-minded and all that, but does that statement not reinforce OUR argument? "Unpaid Item Fee" - ie a charge for a breach, not for a service??

 

And does it not also go to prove that the Banks know the fees are excessive and punitive - "any fee at all"?

 

Just my thoughts - feel free to shoot me down!

 

Jo xx

[dave]

Well, I would agree with what you have said.

 

...and if I were the OFT, I of course would be contending that ALL unpaid item fees are penalties and thus unfair. Of course they are. How can it be fair to NOT pay something from an account (which is what should happen if the funds are not there unless an overdraft is agreed with the bank prior to the potential breach), and then go on to take the money anyway, but not for the payee, but for yourselves?

 

In fact, to contend otherwise, is blatantly ludicrous.

 

If these are indeed services, then surely the option should be there for customers to opt out of using these services?

 

I don't walk into Currys and say, "I'd like a TV please", and they say "ok, but you have to buy this DVD player first" do they?

 

The more I think about their arguments, the more I realise that they are clutching at straws. To say that the charges issue is a core part of the current account, is just like saying you can't have a DVD player without a TV. Or Sugar without t-bags (if you take sugar that is, I am assuming everyone does for this argument).

 

However, my faith in the justice system of England is not what it once was. If I was in the same lodge, or even a different lodge and I were the judge in the case, and I happened to find the number of a Swiss bank account by my chambers with 150 million quid (15 days worth of 'service charges') in it. I think I'd start to see it the way the banks do.

 

I'm not suggesting that this would happen you understand, I'm just saying that theoretically, if it were to, and I was the judge, then I'd sometimes fly back in my chopper to say hi to a few friends from my helipad in Monaco.

 

...and yes, it would be morally wrong, and wrong to suggest that the banks or the judge would participate in acts like these, but wouldn't we all do the same?

 

I'm sure the thought would have crossed all our minds.

[Bookworm]

But the fear of sounding ludicrous has never ranked high in the banks' priorities.

[dave]

Has anyone got an update (from Stephen's site perhaps) of the last couple of days?

[patrickq1]

are mp's exempt from the Freedom of Information Act ?

no they are not exempt except from personal stuff report in news today the ICO has instructed the mps to be more transparent and write down all details about their finances

patrickq1

[Crazy Diamond]

Has anyone got an update (from Stephen's site perhaps) of the last couple of days?

From what I gather, after all the posturing from other sites they'd be there reporting every moment, they got bored after a couple of days and decided it wasn't worth the time and money after all, getting the point somehow later than you guys did.

[dave]

Yeah, I suppose so.

 

I must admit, I would have liked to have been there, but for financial and family reasons I was unable.

 

However, I think, TBH, it's just the outcome that we're mainly interested in.

 

None of us would have any say over proceedings, despite my emailing the OFT daily with responses to the QCs arguments ;-)

[Michael Browne]

Has anyone got an update (from Stephen's site perhaps) of the last couple of days?

 

EXC on, dare I say it, l-e-g-a-l b-e-a-g-l-e-s is posting daily first-hand reports

[mailmannz]

That analogy doesn't really relate properly to the authorised/unauthorised argument. It is not a question of whether or not it is "ok" to attempt to spend money you don't have, it is to establish if such a thing as an unauthorised overdraft can even exist. IMO it can't. If it is unauthorised, then it should not be paid. If it is paid, then it is authorised & interest should stay at the same rate..

 

Yeah, you will have one hell of a time arguing your case in court if you try and argue that your overdraft, the one that only exists because you spent money you dont have, is authorised.

 

Essentially your argument is one where its not your fault you spent money that you dont have...somehow I very much doubt it any judge, no matter how enlightened, will support your position???

 

Again, just because you can do something does not automatically make that something "doable", "right", "authorised" etc.

 

The fact of the matter is you created a certain situation by spending money you dont have.

 

Of course this situation would go away overnight if the banks just refused to allow any transaction to go through where that transaction will take you in to the red without a prior arrangement in place. Then again, there is no money in it for the banks if they actually did this is there???

 

Now, as for the situation where that "unauthorised" overdraft is being created by the banks...well, thats a whole new argument altogether!

 

Mailman

[car2403]

Yeah, you will have one hell of a time arguing your case in court if you try and argue that your overdraft, the one that only exists because you spent money you dont have, is authorised.

 

Essentially your argument is one where its not your fault you spent money that you dont have...somehow I very much doubt it any judge, no matter how enlightened, will support your position???

 

Again, just because you can do something does not automatically make that something "doable", "right", "authorised" etc.

 

The fact of the matter is you created a certain situation by spending money you dont have.

 

Of course this situation would go away overnight if the banks just refused to allow any transaction to go through where that transaction will take you in to the red without a prior arrangement in place. Then again, there is no money in it for the banks if they actually did this is there???

 

Now, as for the situation where that "unauthorised" overdraft is being created by the banks...well, thats a whole new argument altogether!

 

Mailman

 

I couldn't disagree more - the intentions or reasons behind why the payments were requested have nothing to do with the fact that charges are applied as a result of their payments.

 

That's like saying that a debt that is irrefutably unenforceable under consumer credit law should be enforced against the debtor because he has had the benefit of a loan - the law clearly says it isn't.

 

The law is the law, and, while I can see how it is open to abuse, it's not as open to interpretation in the way it's suggested in this post, IMHO.

[dave]

...but another point to add is that you cannot accurately get an account balance from these people.

 

I had a balance from Abbey National at the ATM, I had a different one given to me by the teller less than an hour later. Out of interest I logged on to their Internet Banking when I got home and sure enough the balance was different again.

 

I took to carrying a notebook with me and jotting down when I had withdrawn money, just so I could have an accurate account of what I had available to me.

 

You cannot get a balance at the point of sale, so you do not (and almost cannot) know if you are spending money you 'don't have'.

[Gez]

Yeah, you will have one hell of a time arguing your case in court if you try and argue that your overdraft, the one that only exists because you spent money you dont have, is authorised.

 

Essentially your argument is one where its not your fault you spent money that you dont have...somehow I very much doubt it any judge, no matter how enlightened, will support your position???

 

Again, just because you can do something does not automatically make that something "doable", "right", "authorised" etc.

 

The fact of the matter is you created a certain situation by spending money you dont have.

 

Of course this situation would go away overnight if the banks just refused to allow any transaction to go through where that transaction will take you in to the red without a prior arrangement in place. Then again, there is no money in it for the banks if they actually did this is there???

 

Now, as for the situation where that "unauthorised" overdraft is being created by the banks...well, thats a whole new argument altogether!

 

Mailman

 

What are you babbling on about? I never made any argument about who's fault it was. I simply made the point that if the transaction was allowed to happen, someone or something must have authorised it. I'd love to argue that point to a judge, it is perfect logic.

Of course I won't get that opportunity now & I didn't for all the claims I made for myself & for family/friends because the banks & their lawyers were too frightened to face me in front of a judge. So much so that I charged abbey 28.9% APR once & they argued like hell about it in their defence, but when the court date arrived, they backed out & paid it all..

[FANTASY CHARGES]

HAve been trying to determine legislation that states how long a cheque is valid for ( with a view to sleeping checks say someone pays the cheque in [against your account] 3 months after the date -- nowhere in the t & c does it say how long a cheque is valid for) but have found the cheque acts bill of exchange etc c were no help.

 

NatWest t & c are no help link here

 

http://www.NatWest.com/content/global_options/terms/Terms_Conditions.pdf

 

BUT DISCOVERED however if in NatWest you pay a mixture of cash and cheques into your account in a single transaction over the counter on a friday . Then the cash is not "available" until the monday.

 

now imagine you want to buy something on the internet etc on the sunday potentially you can go overdrawn

 

so you are being charged for a service that due to NatWest inefficiency you are forced into having - when in reality there is no need for it

 

can anyone develop anything from this ???

 

4 PAYMENTS INTO YOUR ACCOUNT

4.1 Cash

4.1.1 The following terms apply if cash is paid into your account by itself:

(a) if the cash is paid in over the counter in one of our

branches, the money will be added to your balance and

credited to your account for interest purposes immediately; or

(b) if the cash is paid into one of our quick deposit facilities, the

money will be added to your balance and credited to your

account for interest purposes on the next business day.

4.1.2 When cash is paid into your account together with any

cheque(s), the cash will be:

(a) credited to your account for interest purposes on the day

that the cheques are added to your balance; and

(b) available for withdrawal the next business day.

4.2 Cheques

4.2.1 The following terms apply when a UK Sterling cheque, which is

issued by and deposited with us or another UK bank, is paid into

your account:

(a) If the cheque is paid in over the counter at the branch where

you have your account, the money will be added to your

balance by the next business day. In any other case, the

money will be added to your balance by the next business

day following the day on which we receive it or (if we

receive it on a day which is not a business day) by the

second business day after the day we receive it.

(b) The money will be credited to your account for interest

purposes no later than two business days after it is added to

your balance.

© The money will be available for you to use no later than four

business days after it is added to your balance.

(d) If the bank, building society or other organisation that the

cheque was drawn on decides not to honour it, they will

normally explain the reason for non-payment. We will

deduct the amount of the cheque from your balance no later

than the end of the sixth business day after it was added to

your balance. After that, we will not deduct the amount of

your cheque from your balance unless you give your consent

to our doing so or you were knowingly involved in a fraud

concerning the cheque.

[Guest vortex]

cheques are valid for 6 calender months unless otherwise stated ie dividend cheques are normally valid for 12 months.