H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[InformedSearcher]

I could not agree with you more Gez!

Shameful state of affairs to say the least.

Michael

[Stoked]

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

 

You bet it does!

[mailmannz]

Of course they could also win because their arguements were much more robust than those of the OFT? [insert rolling eyes]

 

The judiciary has time and time again proven they are not at the beck and call of the Government [insert more rolling eyes]

 

Honestly, some of you people need to lay off the stuff them 9/11 goons smoke [insert yet more rolling eyes]

 

Mailman

[Gez]

LOL.

I do have faith in the court system, it served everyone quite well until this test case started. I personally just don't have faith in the OFT.

We didn't need them & their test case and the courts could possibly have forced a real test case (or perhaps even a few) by now, which would surely have tested the legalities of the original T&Cs and examined banks' costs, something the OFT failed to do despite claiming that it was these cases that prompted them to act..

[breeze1996]

I phoned the OFT and they say we will need to wait till the end of June ? July to hear anything. But this is on the website so it's just an offical reply.

[brown1950]

'Mail on Sunday' today says OFT Test Case decision now delayed until July 08.

[kennythecelt]

'Mail on Sunday' today says OFT Test Case decision now delayed until July 08.

 

Hi,

 

can you clarify what it actually says please. Have checked on line, with no success.

 

Perhaps it is to do with the waiver??

 

"The FSA initially granted the Waiver (which allows the banks to put on hold their consideration of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges) for one year; it is due to expire on 26 July 2008."

[SELV]

Looks to me like SPIKE has gone on holiday too much pressure.... SELV..

[Guest wino]

I have tried to scan the news item but it looks bleary.

On page 61 of the Mail On Sunday it says

'A crucial ruling on the legality of bank overdraft fees has been delayed for three months.

With billions of pounds of potential customer refunds in the balance, the verdict hoped for next month will not be delivered until July.

[JonCris]

Hi,

 

can you clarify what it actually says please. Have checked on line, with no success.

 

Perhaps it is to do with the waiver??

 

"The FSA initially granted the Waiver (which allows the banks to put on hold their consideration of complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges) for one year; it is due to expire on 26 July 2008."

 

No according to MoS the banks are stating that if they lose they may not have sufficient records with which to calculate the refunds to customers. Yeah right:rolleyes:

 

They are apparently claiming that they may not have records going back beyond 6 years - something we the consumers know is crap:mad: & anyway aren't they going to claim limitation or do they think they will lose that as well - I do hope so:grin:

 

& if the Judge or anyone else believes this they need their head examining - or are employed by the banks:eek:

[kennythecelt]

Thanks Jon!!

[breeze1996]

I thought that records have to be kept for 6 years.

 

I also wonder if they are trying to make sure they only pay 6 years from last july, as the less time we can go back the better off the banks will be.

It would also allow them to stretch out the payments back to customers by saying they needed time to go through archive records.

[InformedSearcher]

I personally was quite specific with HSBC and stated that I expected 6 years from my initial claim and they agreed this would be done (as the 7th year in in the running now). I further found that the FSA 'stay' expires .... Oh, hang on, 'just' at the time of the expected ruling! - That's quite amazing eh?!

I never thought it'd come down to this (as I mentioned previously mentioned) but there again people say I'm both sceptical and cynical - I wonder why?

Now I also believe that the OFT were 'forced' to instigate this test case becase the courts were running a little scared and overwhelmed to say the least. Just like anything else they run on budgets and manpower and the thoughts of X million claims would simply have unnerved them to say the least. It's so strange that this is such importance to so many that the media involvement has been so little. Surely there was some media presence at the original hearing or who were these 11 special onlookers?

Just my views as I watch HSBC continue to send me letters telling me how succesful (/lucky) I am to have been allowed to exceed my zero overdraft at £25 a throw to a maximum of £150 a month (in charges)!

Michael

[JonCris]

Perhaps those of us who have evidence of the banks records going back to long before 6 years should send it to the judge:)

 

I have Abbey obtained in 2006 & going back to 1993!!

[Guest amethystdragon]

I've been told today that someone who works at the Halifax (obviously I know who this is - I'm being vague to hide their identity) - has been told to reduce the charges to £15 across the board as the banks have lost the test case but have come to a compromise agreement with the OFT of £15 per charge

 

This is going to be announced at the end of April - Now at the moment it is completely speculative - I don't have any written evidence of this but this person has been told something and it looks to be in our favour - I really hope so because I really really need the cash back

[JOSH_IOU]

Well whatever happens they will most likely appeal against the situation.

[Son of Shoestring]

I've been told today that someone who works at the Halifax (obviously I know who this is - I'm being vague to hide their identity) - has been told to reduce the charges to £15 across the board as the banks have lost the test case but have come to a compromise agreement with the OFT of £15 per charge

 

This is going to be announced at the end of April - Now at the moment it is completely speculative - I don't have any written evidence of this but this person has been told something and it looks to be in our favour - I really hope so because I really really need the cash back

 

Interesting, if proved true.

 

For a long time now I have argued that the outcome of the case would result in a fee of approx. £12.00 per item and that this would be a smoke-filled room fix.

 

This amount is a great deal more than it costs the banks to bounce a payment. And since it was the bank bounce cost factor that sat at the core of the case (as I understand it anyway), this would be a de facto victory for the banking sector.

 

After-all, if it cost them 10p to bounce a payment (which is said to be the case in some quarters), and they can on-charge 15 quid, that amounts to a grand profiteering margin ratio of 150:1 (or a mark up of 13,500% my wife says ).

 

Also factor in to the equation that this ugly greed factor is designed to be visited upon the poorest and less wealthy members of society, as they are the ones who are likely to overdraw far more frequently as they daily try to make ends meet. Conversely, it is not visited upon the wealthiest sectors of society at all. Never. Nada.

[Bookworm]

I've been told today that someone who works at the Halifax (obviously I know who this is - I'm being vague to hide their identity) - has been told to reduce the charges to £15 across the board as the banks have lost the test case but have come to a compromise agreement with the OFT of £15 per charge

 

This is going to be announced at the end of April - Now at the moment it is completely speculative - I don't have any written evidence of this but this person has been told something and it looks to be in our favour - I really hope so because I really really need the cash back

 

That sounds like rumour and speculation. Let's look at it closer, shall we?

"the banks have lost the test case" - Considering that the judge's decision is not expected until May at the earliest, and possiby even not until July, we have to assume that your contact at the Halifax has such a close relationship with the judge that the judge told that person what his decision will be a minimum of 2 months before it gets officially revealed.

 

"compromise agreement at £15 per charge" - If we look at that happened last time the OFT cracked down on the credit card companies, it is highly unlikely to be any compromise agreement, in fact, the banks screamed blue murder at the time about the £12 charge and only reluctantly complied with the OFT's directives when they had no other choice.

 

I'm sorry, but however nice a story it is, I don't believe it.

[Bookworm]

Furthermore, if the OFT win, they will then be able to publish their findings into the overdraft charges, the report having been postponed due to the test case, and fix a maximum charge at ehcih they themselves they will take action the way they did with the credit card charges, effectively capping those charges. I personally think these charges will be closer to the £20 mark. Regardless, these charges will still be challengeable under common law as not being a true pre-estimate of costs and recoverable through the courts.

[breeze1996]

Bookworm, You make a lot of sense, it really is just a game of wait and see what the judge says isn't it.

 

The Banks havn't revealed the true cost YET , and I really do thing that is what they want to hid. As it will show just how much we have been ripped off.

 

I got told by someone who worked at NAtWEST it was 45P which included the stamp. As a computer did it not a person.

 

They spent a few weeks working on having refunds ready incase the banks caved in. The person said it was all ready to go but for the push of a button. Which makes sense. The being ready to repay if necessary.

[kennythecelt]

That sounds like rumour and speculation. Let's look at it closer, shall we?

"the banks have lost the test case" - Considering that the judge's decision is not expected until May at the earliest, and possiby even not until July, we have to assume that your contact at the Halifax has such a close relationship with the judge that the judge told that person what his decision will be a minimum of 2 months before it gets officially revealed.

 

"compromise agreement at £15 per charge" - If we look at that happened last time the OFT cracked down on the credit card companies, it is highly unlikely to be any compromise agreement, in fact, the banks screamed blue murder at the time about the £12 charge and only reluctantly complied with the OFT's directives when they had no other choice.

 

I'm sorry, but however nice a story it is, I don't believe it.

 

Thanks BW:)

 

Because of the subject matter and overwhelming huge interest in the Test Case there is always the possibility of rumour from a friend of a friends auntie's mate's, brother in law!!

 

Steady as she goes, let's wait on the judge.

[JonCris]

Furthermore, if the OFT win, they will then be able to publish their findings into the overdraft charges, the report having been postponed due to the test case, and fix a maximum charge at ehcih they themselves they will take action the way they did with the credit card charges, effectively capping those charges. I personally think these charges will be closer to the £20 mark. Regardless, these charges will still be challengeable under common law as not being a true pre-estimate of costs and recoverable through the courts.

 

 

You beat me to it BW.

 

Any such 'agreed' charge, like the credit cards & which exceeds their costs will still be able to be challenged in a court of law & if that be the case we will be back to square one

[JonCris]

Bookworm, You make a lot of sense, it really is just a game of wait and see what the judge says isn't it.

 

The Banks havn't revealed the true cost YET , and I really do thing that is what they want to hid. As it will show just how much we have been ripped off.

 

I got told by someone who worked at NatWest it was 45P which included the stamp. As a computer did it not a person.

 

They spent a few weeks working on having refunds ready incase the banks caved in. The person said it was all ready to go but for the push of a button. Which makes sense. The being ready to repay if necessary.

 

They have revealed them. More by mistake than intention

 

In their submissions to the Competition Commission on their investigation into NI bank charges & they are 45p!! & that's for processing a cheque which DOES include manual intervention & must therefore by it's very nature be much more costly than a computer generating decisions & letters

[noomill060]

"banks are stating that if they lose they may not have sufficient records with which to calculate the refunds to customers."

 

Hmmmmm... HMRC may be a little concerned that banks arent keeping proper records then!

[noomill060]

I got copy bank statements going back to 1987 ( mind you the ICO leaned on them pretty heavily!)