The OFT Case

[fergal71]

hi fred the oft can only make a recommendation as they did with credit cards... I have successfully claimed all my £12 charges back... only a court can deem the charge lawful...once it has all the facts and decides if they are lawful or not...

[Fred_Funk]

hi fred the oft can only make a recommendation as they did with credit cards... I have successfully claimed all my £12 charges back... only a court can deem the charge lawful...once it has all the facts and decides if they are lawful or not...

 

So, in essence, you agree with what I thought - that's to say, the full amount of any historic charge will be reclaimable?!

[car2403]

So, in essence, you agree with what I thought - that's to say, the full amount of any historic charge will be reclaimable?!

 

You'd be hard pushed to prove that the whole charge was unreasonable in the face of a recommendation from the OFT that £12 is fair.

 

Remember these charges are probably not penalties, (still waiting on the Judgment) so that won't make the whole charge recoverable.

[Fred_Funk]

You'd be hard pushed to prove that the whole charge was unreasonable in the face of a recommendation from the OFT that £12 is fair.

 

Remember these charges are probably not penalties, (still waiting on the Judgment) so that won't make the whole charge recoverable.

 

Sorry to labour this but still trying to get my head around it...

 

So, what you're saying is that if the charges were deemed penalties - which, it appears, ain't gonna happen - they would have been unlawful and, therefore, you could have reclaimed them in their entirety.

 

However, if, as seems more likely, the test case rules the OFT is able to look at the charges under UTCCR then this in itself doesn't make them unlawful and isn't justification for reclaiming them in their entirety.

 

Yeah?!

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[Bookworm]

You'd be hard pushed to prove that the whole charge was unreasonable in the face of a recommendation from the OFT that £12 is fair.

Since we don't know what will happen, it's academic at the moment, but if we're going to base the model on the credit card action by the OFT of April 2006, then this is not correct: The OFT can not set or recommend what makes a fair amount, but only what threshold at which they themselves would take action. That's what they said and did with the credit cards, which is why we have been able to keep on reclaiming c/c charges in their totality, not just the difference between £12 and whatever we were beign charged before.

 

Remember these charges are probably not penalties, (still waiting on the Judgment) so that won't make the whole charge recoverable

That's completely incorrect. 1 - The judgment IS in and the judge has said that the charges were not penalties (and the OFT has chosen not to appeal on this ), and 2 - If the reclaiming process is carried out under the UTCCR (which it will have to be since they have now been declared not to be penalties), then the principle applies that a term which is unfair is non enforceable in its entirety, which would mean that one can reclaim 100% of the charges, as with the credit card charges. No doubt the banks would then try the same tactics as they have with the credit cards, trying to hoodwink claimants that all they have to do is repay the difference, but people who know better could carry on regardless.

 

That's assuming the appeal judges do agree that the OFT has jurisdiction over the banks in the matter and then that the OFT acts in the same manner as they did with the c/c, of course.

[Fred_Funk]

Bookworm

 

Thanks for that. As it happens, I'd been hoping you might look in on this thread and actually attempted to send you a PM earlier today but, alas, I don't have Skype.

 

What you've said is, pretty much what I originally thought - which isn't, I guess, entirely surprising because I gleaned it from you in the first place.

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

 

PS Bookie, you might also care to take a look at my thread regarding the inaccuracies in the recent piece in The Guardian. ;-)

[car2403]

Since we don't know what will happen, it's academic at the moment, but if we're going to base the model on the credit card action by the OFT of April 2006, then this is not correct: The OFT can not set or recommend what makes a fair amount, but only what threshold at which they themselves would take action. That's what they said and did with the credit cards, which is why we have been able to keep on reclaiming c/c charges in their totality, not just the difference between £12 and whatever we were beign charged before.

 

Couldn't agree more about it being academic, as the Bank's are going to allow the level of the charges to be tested in Court at all costs - that much is clear. But, then, what is this test case about exactly?

 

That's completely incorrect. 1 - The judgment IS in and the judge has said that the charges were not penalties (and the OFT has chosen not to appeal on this ),

 

Is that historical terms, though? I may have missed that as I've virtually given up on getting to Court this (maybe even next!) year and haven't been paying attention.

 

and 2 - If the reclaiming process is carried out under the UTCCR (which it will have to be since they have now been declared not to be penalties), then the principle applies that a term which is unfair is non enforceable in its entirety, which would mean that one can reclaim 100% of the charges, as with the credit card charges. No doubt the banks would then try the same tactics as they have with the credit cards, trying to hoodwink claimants that all they have to do is repay the difference, but people who know better could carry on regardless.

 

That's assuming the appeal judges do agree that the OFT has jurisdiction over the banks in the matter and then that the OFT acts in the same manner as they did with the c/c, of course.

 

That's probably also academic, in that case, for the same reason as I've stated above.

[carpman]

this is what it says on the Martin Lewis site.

Q. How long will the waiver last?

A. It’s technically due to end in January 2009, but its always possible it could be extended again or that if something substantive changes it will be ended early.

The FSA has said it will stop the waiver if it believes it is being abused or is to the detriment of consumers (though I believe a waiver which prevents people getting money that was being paid out to others, is in itself detrimental to consumers).

[determindator]

As I have a current case which is not stayed I want to share what happened when I was in Court. The Bank's solicitors told me they were going to accept my defence figure before going into Court. All I can say is if I could go back I would have put the full amount I wanted to get back being the amount of charges, plus interest as the figure in the defence. The Judge explained the defence figure is crucial and seen as absolute. Although I would like to expand I won't at present as it is still on going.

 

My thought on this is even though time is passing the figure you submit to Court stays the same, and you miss out on interest being charged to the Bank.

[car2403]

My thought on this is even though time is passing the figure you submit to Court stays the same, and you miss out on interest being charged to the Bank.

 

Unless your claiming contractrual interest at the same rate, in which case the Bank is missing out due to compound.

[johnnymitch]

If a case goes into court, there must surely be some mechanism for the court to take cognisance of the s69 Interest of 8% which has accrued during the waiting period ?

[car2403]

If a case goes into court, there must surely be some mechanism for the court to take cognisance of the s69 Interest of 8% which has accrued during the waiting period ?

 

Only if it's claimed on the original claim form.

 

8% interest is significantly lower than contract interest of up to 30% though.

[elsinore]

 

8% interest is significantly lower than contract interest of up to 30% though.

 

But still better than a poke in the face with a sharp stick.

 

I have an outstanding claim for which the accrued interest at 8% presently stands at £2794.22.

 

Els

[photoman]

As I have a current case which is not stayed I want to share what happened when I was in Court. The Bank's solicitors told me they were going to accept my defence figure before going into Court. All I can say is if I could go back I would have put the full amount I wanted to get back being the amount of charges, plus interest as the figure in the defence. The Judge explained the defence figure is crucial and seen as absolute. Although I would like to expand I won't at present as it is still on going.

 

My thought on this is even though time is passing the figure you submit to Court stays the same, and you miss out on interest being charged to the Bank.

 

If you are talking about the interest they have continued to charge upon your account due to the charges, then yes you may be in a position whereby interest has continued to accrue upon the account since submitting your claim.

However, once you get a court date through you should be able to apply for an amendment to your claim using an N244 to have the figure revised upto the date of the judgement.

As for S69 interest upon the whole sum, then I presume you used a standard CAG POC which stated that such should also be calculated by the court upto the date of settlement? So you should not lose out there either.

[johnnymitch]

As for S69 interest upon the whole sum, then I presume you used a standard CAG POC which stated that such should also be calculated by the court upto the date of settlement? So you should not lose out there either.

 

That was the scenario I was thinking of photoman - thanks

[Shuff]

I'm quite happy with the case stayed as long was we win. I'm getting a better rate of interest than what barclays could offer if I put my reclaimed money in one of there savings account.

[iconoclash]

Hi - I've been snowed under with DCA etc but....is the OFT case not now hearing this December??? My claim for approx £2k made to HSBC was bundled up into a new loan to include the penalties, and overdraft and an existing loan. This is all now higher rate and I think I must be paying interest on interest - if you see what I mean. We are also fighting a repo action so I dont think they should have forced us into this route and I'm worried that they made my claim disappear somehow, any thoughts - thanks.

[SPROUTY]

Re: Shuffs comment above "a better rate of interest":

 

And (although the expected court result isnt written in stone) its probably safer than being deposited in Icelandic Bank.

[SPROUTY]

Hi - I've been snowed under with DCA etc but....is the OFT case not now hearing this December??? My claim for approx £2k made to HSBC was bundled up into a new loan to include the penalties, and overdraft and an existing loan. This is all now higher rate and I think I must be paying interest on interest - if you see what I mean. We are also fighting a repo action so I dont think they should have forced us into this route and I'm worried that they made my claim disappear somehow, any thoughts - thanks.

 

You will have a pretty water tight case for claiming the interest on the loan, once it gets to court as you would not have needed to borrow the money (pertaining to the amount of charges plus actual interest charged on those charges) had they not applied "in error" charges that were not enfoceable under UTCCR (assuming the OFT get that ruling).

 

The Judges are currently considering their findings in the bank's appeal against the Judgment that the bank charges can be tested under UTCCR. Fingures crossed.

[determindator]

Thank you all for your thoughts and comments which I will digest and come back on.

 

Termi

[madjj111]

ive been outa touch for a while with the oft case - im waiting on a few thousand - can anyone advise me whats happening at mo - mortgage in arrears etc , money prob gettin on top of me

[johnnymitch]

You're on the right thread madjj 111 - it's just a case of sorting out the wheat from the chaff ......... read a few posts- it'll filter through ....

[fergal71]

madjj search for hardship cases you may still be able to claim... check also fsa website... goodluck

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Sorry to post this here. But I have asked before and haven't had a response. I have a friend who is claiming on a business account with Natwest. I am fully aware of the business claims situation as regards the test case. However I have been told that in some circumstances some Claimants have recovered charges beyond the 6 year limitation period. I understand it is something to do with concealement, which is detailed in the Staute of Limitations (1980). Can anyone please advise, at least to get the ball rolling with this. His business claim is currently stayed in the County Court.

 

Many thanks,

 

TheyrCriminals

[Aequitas]

They are still unlawful charges

 

Who says? No court has said so yet.

 

and all the banks paid out trying to prevent a case going to court.

 

That proves nothing except that all the banks paid out trying to prevent a case going to court.