Are the banks pre empting a decision by the OFT?

[nickmack]

It seems that quite a few recent cases on here have been offered about half the charges as a settlement.

 

Is anyone of the opinion, that the banks know that the OFT will introduce a cap of around half of the current fees shorty?

 

If this is the situation, it is likely that any court cases after the ruling only refund half of the full claim.

 

I would say, if you want the full amount of charges, you need to act quickly.

[Spiceskull]

If there is a cap - fair enough. It will still need to be proved that the charge is lawful and fair...if the cap was raised to £60, the actions of the bank still cost pennies...

[nickmack]

Yes, I guess the situation is that unless the bank can PROVE their actual costs, then any amount could be considered too much.

 

As discussed lots on here, they are very unlikely to do that for obvious reasons.

[Maxie]

I don't think thats an issue personally, but I see what you mean. Ok, so the banks charge say £30 for a bounced cheque. The OFT (eventually) make a ruling saying the banks must only charge no more than £15.

 

This will not give the banks any protection at law. The genuine pre-estimate or even actual cost to the bank is around £2-£3, therefore anything over this still a penalty charge.

 

Secondly, if such a ruling was introduced, it would not effect any charges before that date. The OFT is dealing with these matters in very slow time. Take a look at OFT press release 05/135.

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2005/135-05.htm

 

This is talking about credit card charges which are even less defensable that banks charges! Bank offer 50% or so because the hope you will be pleased, you get some money back but in the end the bank still makes alot of money out of you, even with a 50% refund.

[Bookworm]

I think that it's mainly Barclays who do the 1/2 price offer. Others pay up at the whiff of a lawsuit. Others try to ignore us. Others give in at the steps of the court house. Most argue, some don't.

 

Trying to outguess them is like spitting in the wind, IMO.

[Maxie]

[quote name="

 

Trying to outguess them is like spitting in the wind, IMO.[/quote]

 

The problem is the banks, and in particulars there litigation departments are so arrogant and think of customers as **** of the earth. That the real problem IMO.

[ispartacus75]

A consumer protection office

 

Presumably this is to protect the banks from the consumer!

[Spiceskull]

At the moment the banks profit £28 from a charge (if £2 is the real cost) - A £15 cap will mean that they are still fleecing you for £13 - I don't want to be fleeced for a penny...

[Maxie]

The banks have been told by the OFT what to expect.

 

A consumer protection office, that has alleigence to the banks - nice.

 

Arghhh! Poor banks; my heart bleeds. Its really not fair, consumers enforceing their legal rights against the banks who do they think they are

 

Perhaps the banks will start paying the mods here protection money to discourage people lol!!!

[Spiceskull]

Who do they think they are - I don't think they are capable of thought at the moment. What is the normal time frame for corporate damage limitation processes to be implemented? Clearly the banks don't have a clue...

[nickmack]

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group