OFT test case

[Guest Wild Billy]

That's exactly what happened though, isn't it? The Country goes to War and those that didn't want to protest against it. This is a "free speech" Country - and CAG is no different, IMHO.

 

You can't please everyone all the time.

 

 

Different opinions are a great thing but its good when both opinions have some factual basis. That's not an attack on you or anyone else; I just prefer informed opinion, of which there is too often not enough of here.

 

And it's right people should have the freedom of speech. But you're analogy is wrong. I'm saying the troops are already at war so let's get behind them whatever I may think about the war itself.

[Guest vortex]

A petition to start on the day the OFT test case starts?(you mentioned three working days to get it set up) That kinda defeats the object surely? What can the PM's office do in a Civil case? To intervene would show bias.

[Penfold92]

A petition to start on the day the OFT test case starts?(you mentioned three working days to get it set up) That kinda defeats the object surely? What can the PM's office do in a Civil case? To intervene would show bias.

 

 

Sit back and do nothing...we are only asking...upto you. What about the rest of the thread or did you not read that either?

[Penfold92]

Intervening is not the question ensuring justice is done and not some closed door deal...This is to remind everyone that this is in the interest of the public at large not just individuals. Remember that hardly anyone here would have got a penny back unless we all talked to each other so we knew the banks moves or tactics...

[Guest vortex]

Penfold, I asked the question What can the government do in a civil case? I am not suggesting it as a bad idea merely that you posted it takes three working days to set it up(is that a misread?) That would mean the petition would start on the OFT test case day which would defeat the object of what you are trying to do. Not knocking the idea merely stating the obvious. As I said have I misread your petition post?

[Penfold92]

Penfold, I asked the question What can the government do in a civil case? I am not suggesting it as a bad idea merely that you posted it takes three working days to set it up(is that a misread?) That would mean the petition would start on the OFT test case day which would defeat the object of what you are trying to do. Not knocking the idea merely stating the obvious. As I said have I misread your petition post?

 

No you have not, but hopefully being up by Wednesday it will allow as many people as possible to state very simply that they are interested in this case. The press emails are there to be done ASAP and that will add weight too to the whole process.

 

As someone said earlier we cannot all go or stay outside to protest, however, we can all email and sign an online petition...Who knows what has already been agreed etc, but we can, together, make a statement that we are not ignoring or lying down after all the announcements and the stays...

 

Like I said before upto you as an individual, however, as a collective we all know what the results...could be...

[Guest vortex]

Penfold, please re read Post 27 the last bit asks what can the PM's Office do in a civil case? (I did call it the government later on so you are correct I did not state Government so apologies for my error).

[Penfold92]

Penfold, please re read Post 27 the last bit asks what can the PM's Office do in a civil case? (I did call it the government later on so you are correct I did not state Government so apologies for my error).

 

 

Keep it in the news...and ensure fair play, that's the idea anyway...

[photoman]

This is a disgrace.

It is a matter of national concern, and affects millions of people.

The proceedings should be held in a place and manner that is more befitting of it's importance, allowing the public to follow and be aware of of how this is being conducted.

I suggest that as many CAG members as possible write to their MP's requesting this matter be brought up at Prime Ministers question time (which occurs on Wednesday).

Anyone wishing to do so, can contact their MP's through the following link, and send their objections and views via email, requesting that their MP bring this matter to the attention of parliament.

 

WriteToThem - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

[Guest vortex]

The OFT test case is BIG news for everyone involved in it and so the Petition itself, has to have an aim beyond that, although if it gets largescale signatures then it will have the desired affect. Have you or do you plan to post the petition on all the charges sites, such as MSE and Penalty charges(the big ones)? This would have maximum affect on the numbers signing it.

 

The Conference rooms being used can supply audio feeds and so the size of the room maybe be small for 1 set of barrister from the OFT and the Banks barristers. The website shows the various rooms and sizes and styles.

I think that if there was a press room set up by the OFT so that the whole proceedings can be reported on it would be better. Has anyone rang the OFT to suggest this?

[Penfold92]

The OFT test case is BIG news for everyone involved in it and so the Petition itself, has to have an aim beyond that, although if it gets largescale signatures then it will have the desired affect. Have you or do you plan to post the petition on all the charges sites, such as MSE and Penalty charges(the big ones)? This would have maximum affect on the numbers signing it.

 

The Conference rooms being used can supply audio feeds and so the size of the room maybe be small for 1 set of barrister from the OFT and the Banks barristers. The website shows the various rooms and sizes and styles.

I think that if there was a press room set up by the OFT so that the whole proceedings can be reported on it would be better. Has anyone rang the OFT to suggest this?

 

Fantastic point...Would they not look into this being made aware of the situation by all the emails they are getting? Also I am not registered on the other website, but hopefully once the petition is online we will be able to get this to them too...

 

Let's all hope a bit here...

[Guest vortex]

Why email them when you can pick up the phone and ring them? or If there is a Press contact they can call the OFT Press office team and there is even an out of hours mobile number. The OFT has yet to comment on the venue although the press release shows as being made on Friday and so it may still be deciding what if any changes will be made with regards to the press as it is an important case.

[Ladidi]

I found this and thought it might make interesting reading...

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Key test for bank overdraft fees

[Bookworm]

Incidentally, I don't see anywhere on this thread that the OFT chose the venue, the very fact they say they were not aware of the size of it seems to indicate that they didn't choose it.

 

WildBilly (glad to see you back on our boards, btw), I understand what you are saying, but you have to remember that in early 06, when CAG met with the OFT, Bankfodder was actually asked to leave when he started asking questions which were a bit too probing. In December 06, CAG wasn't even granted an audience, even though the OFT had been advised of the protest well in advance and Bankfodder had repeatedly tried to arrange a meeting. Right up to the point where the OFT suddenly announced this test case, the OFT was often seen and described as a "toothless tiger", with little interest in protecting those very consumers it was supposed to. Combine this with the setting of this case, where banks were allowed to keep on levying charges whilst people's cases were put on hold thanks to the FSA waiver, add the general suspicion that the banks hold so much more power than the consumers do, and it's hardly any wonder that this latest development should cause a feeling of unease amongst many. Remember also that for some people, the outcome of this case means the difference between getting or losing hundreds or thousands of pounds, so emotions are likely to run high.

[Guest Wild Billy]

Hey Wormy, I popped back now the test case is about to start.

 

it's hardly any wonder that this latest development should cause a feeling of unease amongst many

 

This is where responsible and informed moderators need to be active in explaining the realities and ensuring scaremongering isn't given too much air to breathe. A lot of people take a lot of notice what is posted here, which is fine when it is accurate and factual; we both know this isn't always the case and falsities and misconceptions need to be shut down quickly. Just because Bob The Builder issues a "press release" - in reality, a statement on his website- and sends an e-mail out to people with some unattributed quotes, it is interpreted as the "truth" and somehow important. I'd like to know how many people court rooms in the High Court normally hold because it sounds like 11 might not be too unusual.

 

We've discussed CAG's involvement in all this before. CAG could have done this a whole lot better and been more actively involved- it's attitude towards the OFT did it no favours in building up a productive relationship and I repeatedly made suggestions about how it could have done that. Has anyone EVER sent a detailed dossier of all cases and concerns to the OFT? And no-one could have any beef with the OFT not wanting to meet a bunch of protesters! Would you? Terrible, terrible way to go about things and as I predicted it had zero effect. Obviously I wasn't at any CAG/OFT meetings either but I've been told some things that don't quite chime with your account. But as it's second/third hand, I can't repeat it here.

[Guest vortex]

Wild Billy, this is something I have tried to find out with regards to seating in the High Court. Do you know the answer to that question as I could not although I could at the International Dispute Resolution Centre.

[JOSH_IOU]

should we be getting annoyed about this or should we be filing civil action.?

[ads2014]

I received an email from Stephen Hone, as I am on the PenaltyCharges mailing list, and I have emailed my MP to support an Early Day Motion on the subject of few people being able to attend a hearing, which affects us all, and is obviously in the public intrest.

 

However my understanding was that the case is a test case, but the OFT on their website state that

 

"The High Court test case, which is a key part of the investigation, is seeking to establish the preliminary legal principle of whether the provisions of the UTCCRs that deal with unfairness apply. It will also address the additional point of law of whether the charges can be a penalty at common law. It will not lead to a judgment as to whether charges themselves are fair or not. The OFT will decide after the initial judgment what steps to take should it win the test case and conclude from its financial investigation that any of the charges are unfair. The hearing, due to begin on 16 January, is being held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre, 70 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1EU."

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Personal current accounts - UTCCRs investigation and test case

 

Does this mean then mean that the test case won't set a precedent on the legality of charges?

 

Cheers

[Bookworm]

The OFT is asking for a decision on the UTCCR and whether the banks' T&Cs are subject to the test of fairness.

 

However, the banks' defences and counterarguments in turn ask for a declaration that the charges are for a service, not penalties and therefore lawful.

 

This should in theory cover all bases.

[ads2014]

The OFT is asking for a decision on the UTCCR and whether the banks' T&Cs are subject to the test of fairness.

 

However, the banks' defences and counterarguments in turn ask for a declaration that the charges are for a service, not penalties and therefore lawful.

 

This should in theory cover all bases.

 

Many thanks for the reply, thats great news, I be will reading the defences and counter arguments later.

 

But it is obvious that the case will definately go in everyones favour, if the banks were so sure they would win, then why settle out of court, its obvious that they wouldn't win so gave in, but on the plus side we do get money and lots of intrest on top so it ain't all bad i guess.

 

I really like this site, especially the campaigns, its about time people stood up for themselves, and this site sure does it

[car2403]

Many thanks for the reply, thats great news, I be will reading the defences and counter arguments later.

 

But it is obvious that the case will definately go in everyones favour, if the banks were so sure they would win, then why settle out of court, its obvious that they wouldn't win so gave in, but on the plus side we do get money and lots of intrest on top so it ain't all bad i guess.

 

I really like this site, especially the campaigns, its about time people stood up for themselves, and this site sure does it

 

Oh yeah, that 9.8p per day is really beginning to add up now!

[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..

[stonedecroze]

Could it be possible the the banks and FSA/OFT have reached a settlement before the test case ?

 

Most of the banks have revised their penalty charging regimes and are now calling these fees ie: Paid referral fee, unpaid item fee, unauthorised overdraft fee etc.

 

Some are starting to move on new claims as they were before test case was announced, Halifax in particular and making no reference to test case.

 

Moving the Test Case venue to a small room holding 11 persons.

 

The Judge giving 2 extra days "To read up" on case.

 

 

Could it be that just some sort of announcement will be made along the lines :

 

We the banks will settle all claims now in the pipeline, and accept no new claims from this date

 

We will remove penalty charges from our terms and conditions, and will replace these with clearly defined fees for each of the various defaults.

 

thus the banks will only have to pay back £713million that USwitch.com state is owed to nearly 1million current claimants. This is peanuts when compared to the £12.4 billions that USwitch state the banks have taken in the past 6 years, and have paid back £2.6 billion.

 

They are still showing a tidy profit at the end off the day !

[car2403]

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.

 

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.

 

What will have to happen, regardless of this TC decision and any appeal, is that the OFT/Banks will have to allow a real test case through - probably to the House of Lords - to decide the overridding policy issues, which will give a binding precedant on lower Courts.

 

Of course, all this could have been done 2 years ago, but the OFT has had it's head in the sand and the Courts have had to take the strain because of the Banks' dodgy litigation techniques.

[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..