OFT test case

[johnnymitch]

C'mon Wild Billy, get real,

 

Do you think there is going to be some underhand deal cut in the courtroom?

 

Answer: You're darn tootin' I do!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If there isn't , then why is this being held practically 'in Camera' - with every effort being made to exclude the Media & members of the general Public????????????

 

A high profile case affecting potentially 10 million people gets held in a tiny little room - a normal court case gets more publicity and space than this - so what are we to think? If it's open and above board why the limitations on attendance and publicity??

[Guest ruby rust]

It has already been stated that the new location makes no real difference to the number of press/media viewers.

 

Lets stop this cyber paranoia and hope that this test case puts an end to the 'service fee' argument once and for all.

[johnnymitch]

Welcome to the forum ruby.......

 

If you have a read of some of the practices which have been experienced by ordinary people trying to get what is legally theirs out of the banks, you will realise that the 'cyber paranoia' you speak of is justified. If it hadn't been for sites like this countless numbers would never have had theirir money back - me included....................

[Guest ruby rust]

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

 

i very successfully utilised this site when i reclaimed all my charges.....i'm moving on to the bigger picture now.

 

i don't doubt that the government would love to see a 'settlement' but i hope the OFT deliver a good result for the consumer.

[jonni2bad]

Hi Kate.

[johnnymitch]

but i hope the OFT deliver a good result for the consumer.

 

Then we're singing the same song Ruby, - so do I ! :)

[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.

[JOSH_IOU]

don't take everything you read on face value

[Guest vortex]

The OFT have taken on the case against the bank and whether there is 11 members of the press or 1 member of the press it will be reported. I do agree that paranoia is being generated with regards to this specific issue of seating. The High Court would have held LESS so the larger venue has been required and yes, I did check after my last post asking about this.

I agree with Gez re the OFT and Egg and that is still something that needs to be addressed by them, but they at least took action to reduce credit card charges(maybe not enough IMHO).

The OFT has taken the decision to take on the banks and this will be a big case and will be reported widely. If there is seating for just 11 members, does that mean that the Judge hearing the case will be basing it on just seating arrangements? I have no doubt he will be using the what is called Evidence from both parties. The transcripts will be available after the cases for additional scrutiny. I really am not concerned with the flower arranging of the room because it is not the Major issue of the test case and will not have a bearing on whether the OFT or the Banks win the case.

[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

 

I have emailed my MP, using the link in the above post.

 

If you don't actually know who your MP is, then the site will find this out for you simply by entering your postcode.

 

The more people that follow suit, the better, and more likely that this issue may be raised.

 

If sending an email, bear in mind that in order to prevent abuse the link will not allow you to copy and paste messages.

 

Although actually this is quite a good thing, as it encourages everyone to compose their own messages, so creating more impact, and further reinforcing how concerned we all are.

 

Here is what I sent (it could perhaps have been a little tidier grammatically, but I think it gets the point across), and anyone is welcome to use this as a basis or take what they wish from it:

 

 

Dear xxxxxx (the system will automatically insert the name of your MP),

 

I am writing to you with regards to the forthcoming court case being

brought by the Office of Fair Trade (OFT) against 8 of the UK's major

Banks.

The case is with regards determining the legality of bank penalty

charge,and is scheduled to commence on January 16th.

 

It has recently been announced by the OFT that the case shall be heard

in a small conference room, that has very limited space, and so will

exclude access to all but 6 members of the Public and 11 members of the

press.

Such access will also be structured in such a way that no member of the

public will be able to witness the full proceedings.

 

This is FAR from adequate for a case of such massive public concern.

 

Bank penalty charges are an issue of vast public concern, as their past

and continued application have and continue to cause all manner of

devastating financial and social effects upon millions.

 

For well over a year, many members of the public have been taking their

own individual civil actions against the banks upon this issue. In such

cases, the banks have so far taken every measure to avoid actually

defending such practices at trial, usually by just making out of court

settlements.

Although this has somewhat satisfied those individual who have been

successful, it is also clarity upon the issue that has really been

sought and is desperately required.

Without this clarity, the banks have been able to retain and continue

to benefit from vast amounts of already unlawfully acquired profits,

and to also continue with their own very profitable but financially and

socially devastating practices. This is also due to the fact that the

vast majority of the public are unaware of their rights, or if they

are, are often just incapable (either financially or knowledgeably) of

engaging the banks in court. Or are simply too scared to challenge

these institutions for fear of recriminations.

Therefore, many action groups and individual members of the public have

been lobbying the OFT for a long time to take an official court action

against the banks in order to finally force them to actually go to

trial over the issues.

 

The OFT have now indeed finally agreed that the issues must be tested

and determined at trial, which the various action groups and the public

at large welcome.

However, it now appears that the proceedings will effectively be taking

place behind closed doors so excluding the vast majority of the public

and media from properly witnessing the proceedings.

This is unjust, undemocratic and should not be allowed.

 

Whether or not you agree with the banks rights to practice in such a

manner, I am sure you must agree that resolving such issues is a matter

of great major public concern, and so should be heard in a manner that

more of the public can access and so can see to have been conducted

properly and transparently.

I therefore ask that you raise such issues at parliament, and that you

also put pressure upon the OFT to get the format and location of the

proceedings changed to a venue and manner more befitting their vast

significance.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

PM

[Guest vortex]

I repeat, does the numbers of press allowed into a hearing have a bearing on the evidence provided and the judgement that will be made?

I know I am not really that clever but what has seating got to do with the evidence and on the case itself?

Will the reporting of the case have a bearing on the outcome?

What am I really missing from the OFT vs The Banks being held in a bigger room than the High Court?

Surely a debate could be more than about 11 seats. I will leave this debate now because frankly the number of seats available to press/public is not the most important debate on the OFT test case. Have fun everyone else.

[JOSH_IOU]

glad someone else brung that up

[car2403]

I repeat, does the numbers of press allowed into a hearing have a bearing on the evidence provided and the judgement that will be made?

I know I am not really that clever but what has seating got to do with the evidence and on the case itself?

Will the reporting of the case have a bearing on the outcome?

What am I really missing from the OFT vs The Banks being held in a bigger room than the High Court?

Surely a debate could be more than about 11 seats. I will leave this debate now because frankly the number of seats available to press/public is not the most important debate on the OFT test case. Have fun everyone else.

 

No, but it will have a bearing on the perceived fairness of the outcome which is one of the overridding objectives of the test case and should be in the minds of the OFT/Court/Banks when dealing with all aspects of the case.

 

If it's me versus the Banks, I wouldn't care how many members of the press are allowed to watch - but with a case that has such importance and public interest, not to mention the potential impact on the Financial Services Industry, I think this is a concern.

 

If you don't share that concern, that's fine - it's your opinion.

[Bookworm]

For well over a year, many members of the public have been taking their own individual civil actions against the banks upon this issue.

 

It's over two years now, PM. ;-)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/126174-happy-birthday.html

[ginan]

Although I'm fairly new to the forum and the bank charges issue in general I think this website is a superb self help group and I’ve learnt so much here but I despair at the misinformation, paranoia and naivety on this particular topic.

 

And I think the facts need to be absorbed before it continues.

 

 

A. The new venue has twice the capacity of the original - which renders even the title of this thread at best misleading and at worst incorrect.

 

B. The decision to move the venue was taken solely by the Royal Courts of Justice and a case over-running at the original venue meant that a change had to be made to accommodate the hearing starting on the due date. I would imagine that if this was not done, the resultant delay to the start of the case would have prompted more conspiracy theories than even the ones already dreamt up here.

 

C. The Office of Fair Trading have no statutory or indeed practical powers to influence the location or capacity of the venue. And so to criticise the OFT for it and also to campaign MPs to ‘’put pressure upon the OFT to get the format and location of the proceedings changed to a venue and manner more befitting their vast significance’’ is comical. What do you think the OFT are? An events promoter?

 

D. There will be 11 places earmarked for the public and press and transcripts of the hearing will be made available just like any High Court case. So to suggest that a deal could be done behind closed doors, and in the presence of a High Court judge are far fetched in the extreme.

 

E. The government has no influence on the judiciary for all sorts of reasons. And as the court is the only body that could increase the places made available to the public, the campaign to email MPs to get them increased would only succeed if the government influenced the court which it simply could not do. Does anyone really believe that it’s a good idea for government to be able influence the legal system? I don’t.

 

F. The OFT do listen to the concerns of consumer groups. Martin Lewis has a healthy and ongoing relationship with them but it’s not surprising that this group doesn’t. By arranging a street protest outside their offices and then expect to arrange a ‘’meeting’’ is not universally recognised as the text book approach to court a meaningful relationship and certainly doesn’t embellish the credibility of the campaign.

 

You all need to be paying more attention to the likes of Wild Billy, Ruby Rust and Vortex if you are not capable of figuring it out for yourselves.

 

Think about it.

[photoman]

I repeat, does the numbers of press allowed into a hearing have a bearing on the evidence provided and the judgement that will be made?

I know I am not really that clever but what has seating got to do with the evidence and on the case itself?

Will the reporting of the case have a bearing on the outcome?

What am I really missing from the OFT vs The Banks being held in a bigger room than the High Court?

Surely a debate could be more than about 11 seats. I will leave this debate now because frankly the number of seats available to press/public is not the most important debate on the OFT test case. Have fun everyone else.

 

As a member of CAG, you are already aware of the issues, and so like a lot of members here, you are probably more inclined to hunt out press reports follow the case, and react to the outcome.

 

It is however important that issues such as these, which actually affect many more millions, be aired as widely as possible; so that the average joe public will also become aware of what is happening, and so can then choose whether or not to also act in response to the outcome.

 

Also, actually it could have an effect upon the outcome.

Although it should not affect how the law is finally interpreted, greater public awareness would go some way to ensure that all parties involved feel pressured to conduct matters properly, transparently, and to the best of their ability.

 

If only faced with the prospect of dealing with the reactions of a troublesome few and those readers of "The Staines Gazette" in response to the outcome, then the OFT may feel less inclined to commit fuller efforts.

[Bookworm]

F. The OFT do listen to the concerns of consumer groups. Martin Lewis has a healthy and ongoing relationship with them but it’s not surprising that this group doesn’t. By arranging a street protest outside their offices and then expect to arrange a ‘’meeting’’ is not universally recognised as the text book approach to court a meaningful relationship and certainly doesn’t embellish the credibility of the campaign.

When did this happen? If you referring to December 06, the talks between CAG and OFT had been ongoing for weeks, if not months, before the protest. In March 06, the meeting had also been arranged ahead.

 

As for Martin Lewis, the fact that he is a journalist with lots of media contacts and coverage wouldn't have anything to do with his ongoing relationship, would it, by any chance? Or are you naive enough to think that it is purely down to his rugged good looks?

 

As for the rest, I have never been convinced myself by the petition/write to your MP tactics on this type of issues, so I am not going to disagree with you there.

[ginan]

When did this happen? If you referring to December 06, the talks between CAG and OFT had been ongoing for weeks, if not months, before the protest. In March 06, the meeting had also been arranged ahead.

 

So are you saying, the protest was a good idea? Are you saying it didn't have a detrimantal effect on your ability to have a working relationship with them?

 

So why don't you talk to them now?

 

It's seems very odd to me that as a self proclaimed 'front runner' in the campaign you don't appear to have any contact with the single most important organisation in the arena.

[Bookworm]

I am saying nothing of the kind, I am correcting your post in which you seem to say that CAG turned up and demanded a meeting on the day.

[johnnymitch]

6 members of the Public and 11 members of the

press.

 

I hate to sound pernickety Photoman , but i think you'll find it is 11 in all i.e. including public and press.............. . 6 of one and 5 of the other I think...........

PS -That's the title of this thread, incidentally.........

[Penfold92]

As for the rest, I have never been convinced myself by the petition/write to your MP tactics on this type of issues, so I am not going to disagree with you there.

 

Hi Bookworm,

 

That is as maybe, but some of us feel that you can never have enough publicity or questioning on this matter. What are your views on the emailing the press that we are trying to get everyone to do as well on other threads?

 

Do you not feel that if enough support is shown they will make sure the matter is mentioned. This in turn has a knock on effect towards the Banks. Maybe just maybe we can ensure there is no cave in as the OFT will also be aware that the ongoing effects of this case are huge.

 

I guess what a lot of us are concerned about is why has this case ended up in a small room. Maybe we are not legally minded and perhalps talking with our hearts rather than knowledge, but are we doing any harm or as I said before perhalps ensuring the interest remains at the top of the Newspapers prioritys...Who knows, but we are trying...

 

Penfold

[Bookworm]

Penfold, the press are already informed, be sure about that. Various media organisations have been in touch with CAG to run features over the last couple of weeks, and I would imagine they have teams on standby already for any interesting news. They would be well aware of the lack of the space too.

 

Sorry if I sound negative, but no, I don't believe that it will make the slightest bit of difference, because it isn't the OFT or the banks who decide on which court the case is to be held at, and the courts are notorious for doing what they want, when they want, and they're not about to change the venue now, a few days before the case starts, simply because the hoi polloi agitates, simple as that. As for petitions, they will have no influence on the matter, and even if it were mentioned at Question Time, frankly, it STILL wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, IMO.

 

What I am saying is that I think that whatever may or may not be going on now, we can only sit and wait for things to develop.

 

By all means, do what you think is best, but don't be disheartened if it brings no results. Personally, I'm saving my energy for AFTER. ;-)

[JOSH_IOU]

Is this why the claim was put on the small claim's track?

[Penfold92]

Bookworm no problem i hear you, but still want to try to keep pushing.

 

James you are joking right this claim is on small claims track? In a high court?

[Penfold92]

Bookworm no problem i hear you, but still want to try to keep pushing.

 

James you are joking right this claim is on small claims track? In a high court?