About the OFT (not so) impending report - PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU'RE WORRIED

[kennyh]

Personally I would be quite happy for the opposition to quote OFT in support of a 'recommended' cap. (Particularly since there is no weight in law)

We could then point out to any judge, when considering ERC claims, the inequity of the opposition's position since they have consistently attempted (with some success) to have claims kicked out, when the OFT recommendation on mortgage redemption (which equally has no weight in law) is quoted by the claimants.

Think it's called having cake and eating it.

[elsinore]

Bookie, if anyone is still in doubt about the damage done by Martin Lewis's comment, I've just copied this from a post elsewhere on the forum!

 

"I have heard there is a cut off point for claims in April, is this true. The must owe me thousands and i am getting worried now that i will not get anything"

 

Els

[photoman]

Bookie, if anyone is still in doubt about the damage done by Martin Lewis's comment, I've just copied this from a post elsewhere on the forum!

 

"I have heard there is a cut off point for claims in April, is this true. The must owe me thousands and i am getting worried now that i will not get anything"

 

Els

 

Elsinore,

I've just seen that same post and posted a response, and directed them here.

Damage limitation hopefully !!!

This is were I saw it, and what I posted by response.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-675014.html

 

Regards

[Bookworm]

*groans and pulls hair in dismay* :-| :-| :-|

[monkey_uk]

I know the feeling Bookie!

[Spiceskull]

*groans and pulls hair in dismay* :-| :-| :-|

Who's hair?

[kennyh]

Wot b****y hair!!

[photoman]

Anyone seen the OFT announcement today ??

 

Looks like the OFT have decided that a more in depth investigation is required, as they are concerned about:

1/ Just declaring some arbitary rate.

2/ The Banks just finding somewhere else to hide charges, and are thus concerned that this would affect all consumers, not just those incurring charges.

 

Read the following links:

 

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT announces 'quick fix' on bank charges will disadvantage consumers

 

See particularly Note 2.

 

OFT delays bank charge decision | This is Money

 

See particularly paragraph 2.

 

 

Seems like it's business as usual then!

[Bookworm]

Seems like it's business as usual then!

 

It always was. ;-)

[Will Scarlet]

Bloody Marvelous!

No "pay the difference" tactics for another year then....

I hope Martin Lewis helps himself to a large portion of humble pie at lunchtime as well.

Indeed, business as usual. Happy Days!

 

PS. Any chance one of the mods could have a look at this:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/78099-15k-mercantile-court-consent.html

[elsinore]

Thanks for the link PM, well spotted.

 

I like this bit

 

3. In the course of the scoping work OFT has liaised closely with the Financial Services Authority and Financial Ombudsman Service and held discussions with the British Bankers' Association about the activities banks engage in when dealing with a default by a customer and the relevance of banking law to this issue.

 

Els

[Bookworm]

Erm... VERY relevant? As a guess?

[Bookworm]

Title changed to reflect today's OFT press release.

[will77]

phew ... heres another bump ......

[RFisher33]

No need to bump will77. This is a sticky now.

 

I'm glad that all the mis-informing will now be buried for at least a while until it gets close to the date when the OFT reveal the results of their investigation. I'm sure this debate will start up again once that happens. Hopefully people will be more informed by people on here by then.

[Bookworm]

Actually, it's always worth a bump now and then, as it then brings up the thread in "new posts" and more people will then see it. ;-)

 

But I agree that for the time being, it doesn't have the same urgency anymore.

[JonCris]

Once again the wonderful OFT has let the consumer down. They are NOT going to cap bank charges for fear of the banks retaliating by stopping free banking.

 

Apart for the OFT being happy that the poor should finance free banking for the more well off, they cannot cap charges they can only state that they will not intervene of charges are at a certian level as they did with the CCC.

 

What they have demonstrated at the outset of their so called enquiry is to make it perfectly clear to the money lenders that they have nothing to fear from that regulator.

 

We really need to mount a concerted campaign to rid ourselves of this hopeless regulator who is more interested in supporting the money lenders rather than the consumer

[Bookworm]

Well, to be fair, (ouch ;-)), JC, I think that we all, me included, jumped the gun a bit on that one and got carried away.

 

The OFT stated back in September they would be carrying out research into bank charges to see if it warranted a more in-depth study. It's taken them 6 months to decide what we could have told them, that is that YES. And now they're going to do that. Somewhat naively, us all, the great unwashed, having been at the receiving end, could see that it was necessary and assumed that the wheels of administration would turn faster.

 

We of course forgot the nature of the beast. ;-)

 

Having said all that, it's not all bad news. If the OFT had completed their research now as we thought, things like the Whistleblower/CAG findings would have come too late. The meeting at the House of Commons on Thursday would have come too late. Now, it's going to be very hard for the OFT to ignore those findings and more public awareness, and they'll have to be a bit more careful about the "magic numbers" when it comes to their public conclusion. So in the end, the delay may well prove more beneficial for the majority.

 

The minority who do reclaim their charges? Well, nothing's changed at the moment. Business as usual, hey?

[oneofakind]

Bump.

 

This thread should be read thoroughly by EVERYBODY!

 

[Butterflycollecter]

bump up again , very well written piece and very informative . I too had worries about this however now feel more reassured. thank you

[scotty69]

About the OFT (not so) impending report - PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU'RE WORRIED

In the "Tonight" programme a few days ago, Martin Lewis announced his belief that the OFT "cap" would be set at £12-£15 and that the banks would then only refund the difference between that amount and the amount people were charged. This opinion created a panic amongst reclaimers, thinking that they were about to lose a large chunk of their money if they didn't rush to claim now.

 

This needs a few clarifications:

 

First, this is Martin's opinion. It is not based in law, or insider knowledge. He may be a well known journalist, but it is still only his personal opinion, speculation if you will.

 

The facts are these:

 

a) The OFT is a regulatory body, they do not make law. The only way the law can be changed is through an Act of Parliament.

 

b) The OFT, when they announce the results of their enquiry on bank charges, will only be announcing a level at which they themselves will take legal action against the banks. It is not a cap!!!

 

In their credit cards report of April 5th, 2006, they clearly stated that they could not declare what was a fair or lawful charge, only the courts could decide on this. Furthermore, the OFT also declared at the time that consumers who felt that they had been charged unfairly should go through the legal system to reclaim their charges. There is no reason to suspect that their stance will not be identical this time.

 

c) The law on penalties is well entrenched in contract law. Even if a bank tries to tell you after the OFT announcement that they will only refund the difference between the "cap" (It's NOT a cap!) and what you were charged originally, (leaving aside the fact that such a decision couldn't apply retrospectively anyway ), well, they also told you their charges were lawful, fair and transparent, and did you believe them? Why should you believe them now?

 

d) Bottom line is this: If the bank try to say that they'll only refund you the difference, carry on with your claim. They will still have to convince a judge that what they are charging is lawful, which means they would still have to disclose how those costs are calculated, and they still won't want/be able to do that.

 

Conclusion: Ignore the sensationalism, stick to the facts, and you can't go very wrong. In other words, business as usual, OFT or no OFT report.

 

I hope this helps setting a few minds at rest.

__________________

[miss_squeezy77]

Bookie - thank you for your excellent and informative (as always!) post.

 

I have been trying to convince my friend to claim back her charges for the last 6 months or so (think she was holding out to see if I would have any success first!), she has finally relented and I'm now helping her to do so.

 

I had a frantic message from her yesterday saying that a barrister had told her that 'they were going to change the law' at the end of the month. I asked what, exactly, he had said and apparently ( ) it was that the 'government are going to close the legal loophole!'

 

Laugh??? I haven't laughed so hard in ages.....

 

I can only assume this barrister guy was misinformed and was actually referring to the (now not so) impending OFT report.

[kennyh]

Thanks Scotty this needed clarification especially for newcomers.

Why couldn't Lewis have had his '15 minutes of fame' and begone!

I'm beginning to believe that these ill judged comments and gaffs might not be so accidental after all!

[kippy2]

dont get me started on MFL!

 

great post scotty

[miss_squeezy77]

kenny & Kimmy - scotty's post above is a cut and paste of bookie's original post which started this thread