OFT test case

[ginan]

There is a rerference to this in a recent Guardian piece but I wouldn't read too much into and the OFT have already rubbished it.

 

''The banks which agreed to participate in any (Northern Rock) break-up plan would be expected to exact a price for their support. They would demand reassurance that they would not suffer financial loss as a result and hope to receive a sympathetic hearing from the government which has previously hit the sector with a range of reviews - starting with Don Cruickshank's industry-wide inquiry and culminating in capping overdraft charges - aimed at denting their profitability''

 

Plan for high street banks to bail out Rock | Business | The Guardian

[credit allergy]

can anybody read my thread at 10.23 today I am confused about the test case. I dont know if any body can move it to here.

[ginan]

The judge has now allocated all 11 public places in the hearing to the media - a smart move in my opinion.

[podgydad]

I though I read somewhere that if the court rules that the charges are penalties, then the OFT would not need to go back to court to determine that the fees were fair, as they would have already have the powers they need to force the banks to reduce their fees?

[Alphageek]

From the OFT;

 

The purpose of the application is to get a ruling on whether the provisions of the UTCCRs (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations) that deal with unfairness, apply to unauthorised overdraft charges, and will not address whether terms and conditions or specific charges of individual banks are unfair.

 

As I understand it, if the Court rules that the UTCCRs do/can apply, then the OFT have jurisdiction.

[podgydad]

From the OFT;

 

 

 

As I understand it, if the Court rules that the UTCCRs do/can apply, then the OFT have jurisdiction.

 

That's how I understood it. As they have already concluded their investigation into the charging structure then they already have a figure in mind and would be ready to impose it should the ruling go their way.

 

My guess is that the OFT told the banks that the fee they had in mind, and the banks threatened that should they try to impose that fee then they would challenge the OFT's jurisdiction in court.

[Castlebest]

Here is Zootscoot's excelent summary of the situation.

 

No its not a stupid question. I'm sure many people will be asking much the same thing over the coming weeks and months

 

The test case is essntially divided into two rounds. The first looks at the legal question of whether the UTCCRs apply or whether the charges are capable in law of amounting to a penalty. The second is a question of fact whether the charges are actually unfair or penalties by looking at the costs of the banks in dealing with a customers breach.

 

The test case starting on 16th is only looking at the first issue

 

Once judgment has been handed down there will be an inevitable appeal by the losing party(ies). Leave may be granted by the High court. If leave is denied by the High Court then an application to appeal can be made to either the Court of Appeal or House of Lords if they use the leapfrog procedure. There will be a further few weeks to see if leave has been granted by the appeal court. If leave is refused that is it for the first round.

 

If leave is granted then it will be a further wait for the appeal court. The OFT has said any appeal will be fast tracked (not in the sense of fast track in the county court) but even then you're looking at a minimum of 6mths being optimistic 12 months more likely. If it goes to Court of Appeal there is then a further appeal to the House of Lords possible. If a preliminary ruling from Europe is required this will delay things also.

 

If the banks win on this first stage then end of story.

 

If the OFT is successful, then on to round two to decide whether charges are actually unfair or amount to a penalty. This is the stage where there may be a compromise agreement. If the legal issues are resolved in our favour then its almost certain that the charges are disproportionate or penalties. Its also a question of fact rather than a question of law so is not likely to be subject to an appeal. So the second stage should be shorter than the first. It may well be that stays could be lifted after the first round, but nothing is certain at this stage

[alecmac18]

Most claimants will be bankrupt by then...........nice one OFT.

[richwhit1]

HHMMMMMM...........maybe an 11th hour deal is still a possibility...........surely the judge would have known a little before the eve of a case starting he was going to overrun............both sides have shown that they were and are prepared to face each other in court..........neither blinked now until the last hour...........maybe they've decided it is both in their interests now to come to a deal........a know alot of people would rather something be decided now than wait upwards of 12 months at the very earliest for a decision

 

just food for thought????

[alecmac18]

Would not surprise me at all. Things have changed dramatically since Christmas. The UK economy is literally standing on the edge and continuing to let banks charge OD fees - even for a few months more - will push this country into a massive recession - there is not really any doubt about that.

 

The only question is: Will the FSA use its mandate. Stand up and stop the bank charge madness - it has the power - citing financial stability - to throw the OFT case out immediately and regulate bank charges.

 

From Aug 07:

 

"Sir Fred Goodwin, chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, has criticised the Office of Fair Trading for taking the issue of allegedly unfair bank charges to the high court and described it as an "unsatisfactory" outcome for the industry"

 

"Sir Fred said: "It's a pity this has had to go to a test case. It doesn't seem to be a satisfactory way to operate in a highly regulated market."

 

RBS profits rise 11% to £5.1bn | Business | guardian.co.uk

 

Sir Godwin was right. A test case by the OFT was not then and is certainly not now the way to go. The FSA regulates financial services. The FSA has the power to act. The FSA would be helping the economy by acting. It'll be criminal if they let the OFT carry on. I guess we'll see.

[photoman]

Looks like the case has already been delayed, and WILL NOT begin Tomorrow !!

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank charges court test delayed

[Docman]

Well, the dear old judge may be too busy elsewhere.

Alternatively, he could have read all the papers, applied his legal mind , decided that the banks are wasting everyone's time and has told their armies of QC's that their clients need to settle ASAP. In order to allow some time, he is indisposed for a couple of days.

I know I’m a hopeless optimist.

[Guest vortex]

He is hearing a jury trial and the jury have not reached a verdict. There is NO conspiracy theory(although the case he may be hearing may have one, of course).

[richwhit1]

I agree no conspiracy theory but what I fail to understand is that the judge was supposedly spending yesterday and today reading up on the case and it only comes to light at 5.00pm the day before trial that he is still working on another case!!! Surely he could have guessed even last week that he was likely to be tied up in another trial??

 

I mean he's only know about this case since about November of last year and I'm sorry but bar the Diana trial possibly this case is the most talked about case in the country at the moment.

 

I'm sure the current case he's working on is important for someone but the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are watching this case closely, I cannot imagine any other case in the country attracting any more media coverage than this case AND the fact we have all know the start date for the case since last year makes me think something has happened at the last minute for the case to suddenly be delayed. If not, then the fact the judicial system is not even capable of the most important and watched trial of the year starting on time worries me

[ginan]

He is hearing a jury trial and the jury have not reached a verdict. There is NO conspiracy theory(although the case he may be hearing may have one, of course).

 

 

Thanks for nipping that one in the bud Vortex.

 

Lets's hope it'll encourage some people here to take a few steps up the reality ladder.

[alecmac18]

Ginan: The hard, cold reality is that this case affects millions of people. Its criminal that the OFT has taken so long to bring this case to trial. Banks can still charge people, millions are being directly affected and a 5 year old can see that the charges are unfair, illegal and immoral aside from providing no service whatsoever.

 

The dealy has benefited no one apart from the banks. I think any delay at this stage is disasterous. What the judge may or may not be doing to delay the case is not really the point.

[mailmannz]

Makes you wonder what else the OFT do not realise. Bet the banks knew, how many representatives are they getting in there for this?

 

Well to be fair, the size of the court room is probably way down the list of things for the OFT to be worrying about!

 

Mailman

[Docman]

He is hearing a jury trial and the jury have not reached a verdict. There is NO conspiracy theory(although the case he may be hearing may have one, of course).

 

 

There is no conspiracy theory, just very odd that a High Court judge is handling both a complicated criminal trial (it must be if the jury deliberation is taking a couple of days) and a high profile civil case. If the jury are out, he could easily have had both sets of wigs in chambers to sort out the running order in the OFT case, at the same time giving them his initial thoughts - like banks get real!

[johnnymitch]

You're asking judges to multi -task???????????? Ha-ha!

[smutley]

Ginan: The hard, cold reality is that this case affects millions of people. Its criminal that the OFT has taken so long to bring this case to trial. Banks can still charge people, millions are being directly affected and a 5 year old can see that the charges are unfair, illegal and immoral aside from providing no service whatsoever.

 

The dealy has benefited no one apart from the banks. I think any delay at this stage is disasterous. What the judge may or may not be doing to delay the case is not really the point.

 

My thoughts exactly, well said!

[psm]

It is apparent that some people contibuting to this thread had the benifit of having their claims settled before the OFT case was announced, they have not been subjected to the pressure the banks have placed upon claimants who have had to attend court to be confronted by a local solicitor with no papers save those required to apply for a stay. The judges have allowed the banks to flagrantly disregard court directions, stay application procedures and for that matter any other court protocol the banks felt like flouting. My case was taken up by CAG as a test case I was represented by a QC who was supported by a local solicitor. We failed because the Abbey, having unsucessfyully aplied for two stays previously, were granted one on the third time of asking. They were allowed to change a defense that did not exist, having been struck out, adopt a defense that in effect stated that the "Breach of Contract" T&Cs were not properly constructed and they didn't mean them to say that but were in fact service charges. Thus convieniently fitting the "Test case" remit. Is it any wonder that the general public have little faith in any institution that is constituted to protect them. We were brought up to believe that there is justice for the common man unfortunately events that have unfolded over the last 6 months have plainly shaken those beliefs to their foundations.

[credit allergy]

Although I am not aware of the circumstances of your case that you refer to I would like to add the following. When I first joined this site I was somewhat sceptical that major lending instutions were not complying and in some cases not even au fait with the law and regs in relation to consumer credit. However when I had an account written off and closed and non production of CCAs from various lenders I was proved wrong. The law is doubled edged as has been written elsewhere and as I have stated on numerous occasions I am entitled to utilise such laws some of which are aimed at consumer protection. If you drive a car you must comply with law otherwise your licence can be at risk. If a financial instution dooes not comply with the law then their credit licence should be also at risk. The law is quite clear about the CCA production under the 1974 act yet I am still waiting. Finally whilst I understand you are frustated at the courts decision in your case we have to accept their decisions as we do and will continue too when victories come our way in the near future!

[ginan]

The case will begin tomorrow

[JOSH_IOU]

You're asking judges to multi -task???????????? Ha-ha!

 

Its like asking me to multi task i'l stair at ya until ya get fed up of looking.

 

If the temperature gets a lil heated i'd just get up and use the excuse to leave. lol

[JOSH_IOU]

yawns @ ginan