OFT test case

[Gez]

I'd be interested to see where claims that were made before banks re-branded them as 'fees for a service' would stand after this case.

 

Lets call a spade a spade, this 'fee for a service' crap is a clear admission from bankers that they were lying when they claimed charges were to cover their costs (of course you know that), and the OFT have thus far only served to protect the banks from the consumer & justice. Irony or design?

 

If they settle on 'fair fee' figure then it will be clear in my mind at least, that the purpose of the test case was to prevent the consumer from getting the chance of a ruling on the legality of the charges in the event that the courts ordered a 'test case' (a real test using a real case) which was close to happening IMO.

 

So if the OFT do grow a tooth & use it to bite us on the arse, and a 'fair fee' is agreed between the them & the banks, then presumably those, (of which I am one) who started a claim when the banker's T&Cs still stated that charges were to cover costs, can still ignore the OFTs deal & proceed to trial if they don't get settlement in full (as opposed to the difference between 'fair fee' & amount claimed) because these claims will have to be defended on the basis that they were to cover admin costs. I still have the original overdraft agreement which clearly states this, and it was still in effect when I started my last claim.

 

Unfortunately, this would still only be at county court level. This is another angle that fills me with suspicion about this case because they becaue there could be an opportunity for the OFT to make something of those cases which are a clear cut case of penalty charges, but they're not interested in retrospective action are they..

[Gez]

Most of them have always used the fee for a service defence. The counter to that is it is an attempt to cloak their contractual penalty fees as a service to avoid the common law on penalties.

No they haven't. Only Lloyds have used this for any length of time. Most banks always claimed that charges were to cover costs. It was only when this test case started that they re-branded them as fees..

 

The OFT can pass an opinion on what is "fair", but ultimately only a Judge in Court can decide that based on the facts - even these figures of £12 instead of £25/£30 can be challenged, IMHO. A Judge would consider the OFT's guidance, but that isn't a sealed decision.

 

Yes, I have challenged & soundly beaten £12 charges, but the initial part of this case is for the OFT to obtain the power to make a ruling themselves. It is what happens after that that will show us the true intention of the OFT..

[Gez]

but what if 'sites like this' had unwittingly generated the paranoia that alienates us from the real situation by missing the bigger picture.

 

There is nothing unwitting about it ruby. I'm not sure if 'paranoia' is the right word, but sites like this definitely generated it, by highlighting all the underhand tactics used by banks & the uselessness of those bodies who call themselves regulators.

 

Why should we trust the OFT to even keep their word if they do a deal or secure a ruling?

They ruled in 2006 that they would automatically consider credit card charges that exceeded £12 to be unfair & investigate. However, egg still charge £16. Are they being investigated? No, the OFT gave them exemption because they have some flowery terms requiring a minimum monthly payment. Yet when the consumer seeks justice for himself against egg, he wins. So the evidence is staring the OFT in the face that egg's charges remain unlawful but they ignore it. This effectively condones cloaking of penalties, the very reverse of s.4.21 of their own report!

 

This has become a bit of a long post, and its just the tip of the iceberg, which is why I am 100% with johnnymitch, if you had time to read lots of cases, the vast majority of which had experienced deliberate misinformation, stalling & intimidation tactics from the banks and the 'actions' of the regulators, you would understand that this 'paranoia', or 'suspicion' as I would describe it is totally justified.

[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..

[Gez]

That's a huge if

 

Indeed it is a huge if.. Which is why the "service fees" buls**t simply must be condemned & outlawed by both the OFT & the courts. If it is not, then penalty charges are effectively perfectly legal as long as you call them service fees.

It will give the green light to any company to introduce new services for which fees are applied. They won't have to ask you if you want these services, they can just apply them to your account and start charging you for them.

 

This would cause economic chaos..

[Gez]

MySpace.com - Oystar - UK - Folk / Comedy / Rap - www.myspace.com/oystar

Chief exec avoids Martin Lewis' questions on GMTV

Has any one seen this?

 

I saw this on the day, great interview.

 

One thing that results from this interview is that we can now say, without any libel issue that:

Angela Knight doesnt always tell the truth!

 

That interview shows the above statement to be a fact. If there were any doubt, she would have wasted no time in taking action against Martin for calling her a liar on national TV.

Of course this is no news to most of you, but since that interview, it is at last official

[Gez]

HSBC, you missed one. I quoted Martin Lewis when he used the same word (several times) on national TV

Pardon me for speaking my mind (and the truth)

[Gez]

No, I know, I'm not getting in a huff about it, he's perfectly right to edit it. Just highlighting what she said, when she knew it was not the truth. There is no way she wouldn't have known about A&L closing people's accounts in retalliation..

 

Just because he said it doesn't mean it is true.

I don't have such blind faith in Martin Lewis, but in this instance he was 100% spot on.

[Gez]

Dave,

 

I think you are splitting heres hair

 

If you dont already have an overdraft arrangement with your bank in place and you spend money you dont have in your account, thus taking you in to the red then there is no way you can consider that an "authorised" overdraft.

 

Just because they let you do something, doesnt necesarilly mean its ok. Just as in just because your cat lets you kick it doesnt automatically make kicking your cat right.

 

However the simple solution here is to NOT let people draw money out they dont have in their accounts! Its not rocket science BUT I guarantee you the banks wont make any money out of that!

 

Mailman

 

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..

[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..

[Gez]

This should probably be merged with the existing thread, but your last point is one I have been talking about for a while too.

There can simply be no outcome other than to rule that these are not genuine fees for a genuine service, they are indeed disguised penalties which must be deemed illegal.

Anything other than that will give all the other vultures the green light to get creative with T&Cs.

[Gez]

I have seen a couple of posts around about the disgraceful habit of banks siphoning off people's benefits payments to cover their charges. One way of minimising this is to have benefits paid into a Post Office account and then withdraw the entire sum in cash and pay into the bank only what you need to cover DD's, SO's etc.

 

This is another area that needs to be explored to the full IMO. If we could get a list of all the services & best deals that do not require a DD, then we could get a great set of resources together to help people live without the need for a current account. That will kick the banker where it hurts most because regardless of what happens in this test case, there will be a lot less people to fleece anyway..

[Gez]

Hi dave, I'm trying to PM you some info, but yer inbox is full. It could be useful.

[Gez]

I am babbling on about the fact that people should front up and take responsibility for their own actions.

 

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.

 

Its not the banks fault you are spending money that isnt in your account...although it would only be a 30 second fix by the banks to ensure you cant do that (but then again, there is no money in this for the banks is there!).

 

 

Again, you will have a hell of a time trying to convince a judge that its not your fault you spent money that isnt in your account. Further, banks will counter that you dont have an agreed over draft already in place, thus making this a case of where you have gone overdrawn because of your own actions (whether the bank allowed that to happen is neither here nor there, just as whether the cat let you kid in in the gonads doesnt make kicking your cat in the gonads right:)).

 

Wrong. I'm not going to spend much more time answering this, but I will reiterate that I would not be arguing to the judge about who's fault it was, I would be questioning if there could be such a thing as an "unauthorised" overdraft & asking how the transaction could have been paid if it was not authorised. If the bank, or its computer had taken the decision to allow the payment, then they have authorised it. Simple argument.

[Gez]

There is petition about this Petition to: Abolish processing fees for non Direct Debit payments. for what its worth..

 

I believe that it is now illegal in Ireland to have only DD as a payment method..

[Gez]

This is in relation to making bill payments - nothing to do with bank charges.

 

For instance, BT accept payments by DD but if you pay by another method they charge you a fee - it's these fees this petition is about, not the bank fee/charge.

Yes I know. Fortunately I understand English so I managed to work that out fairly quickly.

 

I was talking about trying to find services where DD is not required so that people can pay bills without the need of a current account, therefore avoiding completely the risk of bank charges of any kind..

[Gez]

I wonder, will the judge be asking the banks.. "..and how long have these services been a part of your core terms?"

I'd love to see the reaction when 7/8 defendants say "Since September your honor"

 

Immediately after the test case was announced? What an astonishingly freak co-incidence!

[Gez]

One other thing. If, as banks now claim, the services & fees are part of the price for the package of services for the account as a whole, then isn't it mis-selling to say that it is free banking?

 

Doesn't that make this false advertising?

Bank Account: internet banking, easy access: HSBC Bank UK

[Gez]

Hmm we're off topic here now, but I do agree somewhat. The trouble is, this place is absolutely huge so finding the right place to put everything is always going to be a tough job.

If you go to the campaign section though, it sits right at the top so that certainly seems the right place for it.

[Gez]

Aequitas

They do not arise as a result of a core term in some contract that could not stand alone without it. It would be a core term if it only provided for recompense for actual costs and losses, and many similar clauses do exist in many other contracts that we all enter into.

Beyond that, when one party to a contract seeks to punish another for some infraction, or with an aim to deter a repeat, we have a judicial system to dish out such punishments, and also be present as a visible deterrent to others.

HSBC describe formal & informal overdraft "services" as additional services. It is plain & clear in their T&C revisions. So presumably they have no defence whatsoever?

[Gez]

Unfortunately it means nothing if it is not in writing. In fact it seems that it also means nothing if it is put into writing, signed and given to a court of law. There are possibly thousands of claims in the system where the written defence is that all the charges including those for unauthorised overdraft are to cover admin costs, but for some crazy reason, those will be ignored.

 

It seems ridiculous when you think that those are the very claims that the OFT say brought about this "test case", yet those those are the claims that will be swept under the carpet never to be examined.

 

Before I started my first claim, the "customer service" guy I spoke to in India also told me that my charges were a penalty for going over my agreed limit!

[Gez]

I have always been of the opinion that all overdraft interest should be reclaimable after the very first charge, if it is charges that kept you overdrawn. The reason being that the overdraft wouldn't have been needed & this interest would not have been incurred if the unlawful penalties had not been levied on the account beforehand. All subsequent interest becomes part of the penalty.

 

That's quite reasonable, but then since when did that come into it..