OFT v Banks - **Don't panic!!!**

[crfx250]

Try this

 

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/OFT's-joint-reply-and-def.pdf?version=1

[photoman]

Thanks both.

 

But browser still quits for some odd reason whenever I try to view the pdf?

 

I'm using Safari on a Mac..... anybody else tried with Safari ?

 

Pm

[adamc6671]

Hi All

 

All the links above work well for me, using Internet Explorer on a PC.

 

Am very interested, but somewhat surprised, at the possibility that some banks may be pulling out of the test case. The banks are winning 'hands-down' at present - they have to deal with nothing as far as refunding charges goes, the Courts seem to be staying almost all cases, regardless of whether its bank or credit card claims, and we, the Consumers, are as always on the butt end of it all!

 

Why should any banks pull out of the test case when they are winning all ends up with things as they are - they are doing nothing about our complaints, and are able to just sit and wait for the test case, and the whole string of appeals, to run its course and watch their massive profits grow even bigger while doing so!

 

All the best- Adam

[photoman]

Nope

Tried again today, still not working for me. Either the site won't allow access for Safari, or there is some strange setting that needs changing on my Mac.

 

Is there anyway that anybody could copy and paste or otherwise post up the content?

 

I think it would be useful for lots of other viewers of this thread anyway.

 

PM

[Guest vortex]

try putting cursor under the links and manually type them into the address toolbar and it should work if the links won't take you there.

[TideTurner]

PM,

 

Could this be an FTP problem? Have a look at Safari and a stateful Firewall [Archive] - The macosxhints Forums

 

Maybe a Safari bug.

 

Tide

[photoman]

Tideturner

Thanks.

Had a look at the site you posted. I don't think this is the problem, as I don't have any seperate firewall other than what comes as part of OSX installed.

I now believe that the OFT site has some sort of problem, as I've also tried to navigate to the link in Firefox, and I've navigated to similar links and pdf downloads on other sites with both browsers with no problems at all.

 

All very peculiar?

Perhaps the OFT site is running some wee spy program in the background, to monitor who is looking and taking an interest in the case; and it's creeping into the machines of those unwary viewers without firewalls.... and will eventually blow up their PC's, and then turn them into Triffids ??

 

..... or maybe I'm just being paranoid !!

 

PM

[Bookworm]

Maybe? :lol:

[TideTurner]

PM,

 

This must be a Mac problem, I can access this (as can others) fine.

 

However, the other voice in my head says it could be a conspiracy.

 

Have a look at what PORTS are allowed for incoming and outgoing comms.

 

There seems to be something stopping incoming data packets.

 

Tide

[adamc6671]

Nope

Tried again today, still not working for me. Either the site won't allow access for Safari, or there is some strange setting that needs changing on my Mac.

 

Is there anyway that anybody could copy and paste or otherwise post up the content?

 

I think it would be useful for lots of other viewers of this thread anyway.

 

PM

 

Hi PM

 

Your suggestion to post the text of the OFT reply seemed like a very good idea to me. However, I've just read through it and it runs to 39 pages of very involved legal arguments which I think is too much to post here. Perhaps one of the Mods could come up with a way of posting at least the gist of the document for the benefit of us all.

 

As far as I can see the depth of the arguments are such that the Court case itself is very likely to run far longer than the published 2 weeks, and the appeal sequence, that will almost certainly follow the case itself, will run even longer! These are very complex legal issues that are going to take a very long time indeed to fully resolve, if indeed they ever are. I honestly believe that the Consumer (US!) is highly unlikely to see the situation where the Banks are legally forced to repay all of the charges they have levied over so many years.

 

I wonder, therefore, if the time has come for 'a meeting of the minds' to try and come up with a different approach to recouping at least some of the unfairly levied charges that we have all suffered.

 

My own initial idea would be to try and meet mid-stream with the banks, and acknowledge that a certain level of charge, say £10, for each default would be acceptable, and then to proceed from there on the basis that everything over that ammount would be formally claimed until the point in time is reached where there would have been no charges on the account had it not been for the previously levied ammounts over £10. From that point the full ammount of each charge levied would be claimed, in addition to interest charged. This seems to me to be a fair and level-headed approach, which may possibly find credence with the legal system and with the banks, and save vast ammounts of time and expense in fighting very long legal battles.

 

As I say this is only an initial idea, and I would be very interested in what others think.

 

Adam.

[crfx250]

I certainly agree with the view that the test case is going to take a very long time to come to a the point of a legal ruling but that's just part of the proccess that will lead to a final conclusion on what the level of charge will be set at.

 

Assuming the OFT win the legal argument they will then have to eek out of the banks the true cost of proccessing charges before they can agree on the level. The FSA have made this clear:

 

In summary, stage one of the case will focus on the determination of whether the relevant terms and charges can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCR 1999, and whether they are a charge for a service or a penalty in respect of breach of contract at common law. These are known as 'preliminary issues'. However, once the OFT has concluded it's investigation, and in the event that the arguments it has put forward in stage one are successful, then issues of fairness and genuine pre-estimate of costs/penalty will be determined subsequently at stage two of the proceedings. These are referred to in the test case as the 'substantive issues'

 

 

 

The process of determining a genuine pre-estimate of costs relies entirely on the integrity of the banks and will no doubt involve endless bartering. This will surely take several years to achieve.

 

The above FSA statement was made in the context of the duration of the waiver which means that it will stay in place until the substantive issues have been settled which is why I'm so keen to attack it as so long as it stays in place, any temporary mid-stream solution as you suggested wouldn't be possible.

[adamc6671]

Hi crfx

 

As I see it, the FSA waiver is a seperate issue from the charges themselves. I totally agree that the waiver needs 'attacking', and from every possible angle. It is very wrong that banks should be allowed to virtually ignore their customers complaints.

 

However, even if success is achieved in overturning the waiver, it would only mean that the banks would have to respond to 'charging' complaints rather than only having to inform those complaining that their complaint would be held on their system until after the Test case is finally resolved. It wouldn't achieve anything in terms of actually bringing cases into Court, as that would remain 'stayed' until after the test case, and subsequent appeals, are finally resolved as that is what, it appears, almost all County Court Judges are now doing, as is their absoloute right under our legal system. The FSA and OFT have no means of altering that. With things as they are, we have no option other than to live with that for as long as it takes - in all probability several years at least!

 

That is why I am suggesting a compromise solution that may, just may, get people something back a bit sooner. In other words, a solution that would obviate (make superflous) the need for complex, long term, and hugely expensive legal actions.

 

I remain firmly of the opinion that our legal system is NEVER going to order the banks to repay everything they have ever levied in charges - that is simply NOT going to happen. So, why not accept that and put forward something now that could pre-empt the outcome of the test case and arrive at a solution much sooner?

 

All the best - Adam

[crfx250]

The question of whether the revoking of the waiver would affect court stays is an interesting one. But it was the FSA afterall who wrote to the Master of the Roles reccomending that judges stay cases and not the OFT.

 

But regardless of the waiver's effect on court cases, if the waiver was lifted the FOS would have to recomence settling claims. The only reason the FOS has suspended claims is that they don't have the power to proccess them unless the claims have exhuasted the banks complaints system first and it's because of the waiver that that can't happen.

[adamc6671]

Good point crfx.

 

However, I believe that the FOS don't actually settle claims - they act as a mediator in order to assist in reaching a compromise solution. In many ways, exactly what I'm suggesting we do, but directly with the banks and avoiding use of 'third parties' - Courts, OFT FSA, FOS etc - in order to save time.

 

Adam.

[crfx250]

As far as I know the FOS have a 100 percent record in awarding the total amount of all claims.

 

It would be nice if a compromise solution could be found with the banks but I don't think they do compromise! I think the waiver is the single biggest obsticle to claiming and it is also in danger of killing off claim sites who depend on donations from successful claimants. PC being a case in point.

 

Which is another reason why I can't understand why sites like this just seem to have accepted the waiver without so much as a squeek.

[adamc6671]

Which is another reason why I can't understand why sites like this just seem to have accepted the waiver without so much as a squeek.

 

You're right, crfx. The waiver does indeed seem to have been accepted, both here and elsewhere, without any major reaction to it.

 

Perhaps that is indeed the starting point to get things moving again - a massive, and co-ordinated, challenge to the waiver. Would CAG, perhaps, be able to put up Lawyers to challenge the legality of it in Court? I'm not a 'Legal Eagle' myself, but do the FSA actually have the legal right to stop Consumer's complaints to the banks from being addressed in a timely manner? Must be worth looking at, surely.

 

Adam.

[crfx250]

CAG could certainly challenge it but their just not interested I'm afraid. And as I know all too well it's not that they couldn't get the financial backing.

 

Iv'e already looked into challenging the introduction of the waiver but legally they have every right to. But there is a fair possibility that if the FSA had enough evidence that the conditions of the waiver were being breached but that the waiver was not revoked as a result of the current review a challenge could be made.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1208395.html

[adamc6671]

Firstly, why on earth are CAG not interested? Things like this are surely their whole reason for being!

 

Secondly, from what I've read there has already been many breaches of the waiver - reduced offers etc etc. Given that evidence, and the fact that the waiver has not been revoked, surely a legal challenge could, and should, be mounted.

 

Come on GAG - lets take this one up and run with it.

 

Adam.

[crfx250]

Why are CAG not interested? I just don't know that.

 

But the legal advice I have suggests that if the FSA has enough quality evidence that proves the the banks are flouting the waiver conditions but subsequently the review results in the waiver staying in place then a challenge can be made on the review.

[adamc6671]

Come on CAG - lets start collecting, and collating, all the evidence we can obtain on flouting of the waiver conditions by the banks. Then lets make a REAL challenge, at Law if necessary, to get the waiver lifted, and then ask everyone to refer their claims to the FOS.

 

At least we'd then be doing something rather than just sitting and waiting, probably for years, for the test case and all the subsequent appeals to take its course!

 

Adam.

[madjj111]

the banks should also be instructed NOW to determine the cost of the charges so that customers are not delayed any further when OFT win, basically they could have that work done so that when OFT win the cahrge that was determined is then set, otherwise the banks will just use this as another delay tactic on top of there appeal

[african_igbo]

g8 information on what I was looking for keep up the good work and "Yes" I will be donating to CAG if I successfully win and we use this site for any other issues.

 

Thanks

[Boff]

anyone have any latest news on what is going on with the OFT case?

[Bookworm]

Nothing, as it hasn't started yet.

[caro]

In case people haven't spotted the announcement yet here's a link.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=85&a=118