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

[ginan]

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

 

I am sorry but the link dosn't work for me - its says my membership does

not have the privilages to access it. Is it a recent announcement?

 

Many thanks

 

ginan

[TideTurner]

I am sorry but the link dosn't work for me - its says my membership does

not have the privilages to access it. Is it a recent announcement?

 

Many thanks

 

ginan

 

Same here Caro.

[caro]

It is a recent announcement. I'll try and get it sorted.

[Michael Browne]

The test case is being held at the Admiralty & Commercial Court in the Strand at 10.30 on Wednesday 16th January. The public are able to attend

 

The consumer group Which? is planning an anti-bank demonstration outside the courtroom on the first day of the OFT test case, according to an Independent article.

 

The case is due to end by Jan 28, but judgement is not expected until May.

[photoman]

The test case is being held at the Admiralty & Commercial Court in the Strand at 10.30 on Wednesday 16th January. The public are able to attend

 

The consumer group Which? is planning an anti-bank demonstration outside the courtroom on the first day of the OFT test case, according to an Independent article.

 

The case is due to end by Jan 28, but judgement is not expected until May.

 

Could be good opportunity for someone to get their old Hot Dog stand out of the shed.

 

Do a roaring trade...... would you take a cheque ?

[edgeofadhesion]

It is a recent announcement. QUOTE]

 

 

A recent announcement ?

 

The OFT said back in December when the test case start date was - see below.

 

And I notice from a minor but distinct error in the address for the location

of the hearing, that your 'announcement' is nothing more than a cut & paste

job plagiarized from a post I made on a rival site and seemingly passed off

as your own work.

 

Tut tut.

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Kate Farrow OFT

To: edgeofadhesion

Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 11:53 AM

Subject: RE: Guardian Article

 

 

 

 

Dear edgeofadhesion

 

 

The OFT is the UK's independent consumer and competition authority. Our mission is to make markets work well for consumers. It is in order to make the personal current account market work well for consumers that we are conducting the market study and the investigation and test case under the UTCCRs. We do expect to understand the wider context of consumer interests in the market, hence the market study, but we will do that independently, not in response to any political pressure.

 

You have commented favourably on OFT's positive approach recently on the test case. Let's see how we get on when it gets into court mid-January (we currently anticipate it starting on the 16th).

 

The flowers were a very nice thought, they have certainly brightened up the office! I've passed your kind comments on to the rest of the team who I'm sure will appreciate them too.

 

Merry Christmas to you and your colleagues at the Legal seagulls

 

Kind regards

 

Kate, Emily and the banking team

 

 

Kate Farrow | Retail Banking| Markets & Projects - Services| Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House | 2-6 Salisbury Square | London EC4Y 8JX | T: 020 7211 8816 |F: 020 7211 8819

[edgeofadhesion]

I'm not sure I understand. The post you have made above, and the announcement are similar in as much as they both use the English language - other than that, and the fact that they are both about the OFT, I can see no other resemblance at all.

 

 

You have rather dissapointingly and conveniently misunderstood and indeed

misrepresented my post. I note that you couldn't find space in your post to issue a clear denial.

 

Your entire announcerment, save for a few words. was plagiarized from a post

I made on another site. If you wish I can supply you with documents to support this.

 

On a separate note, I would respectfully ask you not to openly question or denigrate what I state and know as fact.

 

Perhaps you'd like to confirm the source of your 'announcement', but somehow I suspect not.

[edgeofadhesion]

If you honestly believe that we would have the time or inclination to 'steal' from another site - a site with about 4 active members let's not forget - then you carry on.

;-)

 

 

 

Which? Plan Test Case Demo - Penalty Charges Forum

 

Which? Plan Test Case Demo - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

You will of course note that the stated venue for the case - The Admiralty & Commercial Court - is incorrect (my mistake). It is in fact The Royal Courts

of Justice. We seem to have made exactly the same mistake. Spooky huh?

[edgeofadhesion]

Groan. It's so very dull..

 

I'm sure you're mate, it must be getting a bit dull for you.

 

I should imagine getting caught red handed and desparately failing to deny it is never a bunch of laughs

[edgeofadhesion]

If you say so. Do you want your name associated with it? That's fine with me..

 

 

 

No thanks

[JOSH_IOU]

or he can lodge a 3million pound damage court case against LLoyds TSB

 

As I have.

 

This must be the biggest claim for compensation.

 

So if you see my thread in the Lloyds TSB The Silly Billys thread. Give a Cagger a helping hand.

 

I wonder how they can defend this one maybe they cant afford 3Million pounds cus it takes a big chunk out of there profit margin pmsl.

[Michael Browne]

According to Stephen Hone:

The test case on unauthorised bank charges will now commence next Wednesday 16th January

 

(the judge has asked for two days reading)

 

it will now take place at the International Dispute Resolution Centre, 70 Fleet Street EC4Y 1EU - and NOT at the High Court.

[nevos]

I understand the whole thing is trying be kept low profile hence the venue, there are only 11 places allocated to press and public, they may not attend both morning and afternoon sessions.

[un1boy]

Is there any update on this case?

 

No-one in the media seems to be reporting on it anymore!

[BigNick2]

Read somewhere today (cant remember where) that the banks finished giving their side either today or tomorrow and then it's the OFT's turn.

[un1boy]

Thanks Nick.

 

I am really concerned as to the outcome you know - I think the banks might win, given the state of the economy at the moment.

 

I wonder what will happen to the people who have paid court fees and have their claims lodged with the courts? Surely they should at least get the fees back as the courts made the decisions to stay the claims on their own initiative.

[BigNick2]

Thanks Nick.

 

I am really concerned as to the outcome you know - I think the banks might win, given the state of the economy at the moment.

 

I wonder what will happen to the people who have paid court fees and have their claims lodged with the courts? Surely they should at least get the fees back as the courts made the decisions to stay the claims on their own initiative.

 

Im far from a legal expert but my understanding was that even if the OFT looses individuals are still able to continue with their own claims?

[noomill060]

Check out Test Case News on the site where they say its "so easy a monkey can do it."

[caro]

Is there any update on this case?

 

No-one in the media seems to be reporting on it anymore!

 

Ian Pollock of the BBC is still closely following it. I'm sure that once there is more to report, like a decision, it will be all over the front pages. The

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks 'try to dodge regulations'

 

 

I am really concerned as to the outcome you know - I think the banks might win, given the state of the economy at the moment

 

The state of the economy is immaterial to the legality of charges IMO.

 

I wonder what will happen to the people who have paid court fees and have their claims lodged with the courts? Surely they should at least get the fees back as the courts made the decisions to stay the claims on their own initiative.

 

AFAIK the banks applied for the cases to be stayed so the decisions were not the courts own initiative. The stays are only for either limited times, or when the OFT case is over. We'll know then what will happen, but it's pointless speculating or trying to guess now.

[Conniff]

But aren't these 'new T&Cs' introduced late last year (and pointed out in court as in the above article), unfair? They are being forced without proper agreement by the wording 'continued use of this account will be taken as your agreement to these terms'.

 

As the banks work a cartel, you can't disagree with them and move to another bank as they have also changed theirs as well.

[Guest vortex]

Coniff, the Terms and Conditions relied on in court are those as of October 1st 2007. However, the banks had already changed their T&C's to follow a service argument. Brian Doctor, QC, is making great play from the fact that they were changed so as to hoodwink the law and to appear as though the charges was some form of overdraft service provided. Makes no sense to me that argument.

With regards to moving an account, their are building societies and the Post office.

[TideTurner]

AFAIK the banks applied for the cases to be stayed so the decisions were not the courts own initiative. The stays are only for either limited times, or when the OFT case is over. We'll know then what will happen, but it's pointless speculating or trying to guess now.

 

It should not be forgotten that the very reason we are in this position is through the greed of the banks. Initially, they were classed as an 'Institution' and an organisation who could be trusted.

 

'With great power comes great responsibility'.

 

They have abused their position and as a result have suffered a backlash from their customers. Have the Government or the Ombudsmen stood up to the mark? No. It is only the OFT who have realised that they have been doing too little, and decided to do something about it.

 

The FSA are deep rooted, and are heavily involved with their funders, the banks. They will attempt to show they are playing the big Ombudsman, but are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

Egg today announced the closure of 160,000 accounts after they were bought out by Citi. These accounts were those they didn't make money from (they didn't default or have large ongoing balances).

 

The banks are a business and need to make money, they just got greedy.

 

Tide

[Gez]

I

The FSA are deep rooted, and are heavily involved with their funders, the banks. They will attempt to show they are playing the big Ombudsman, but are a wolf in sheep's clothing.

A sheep in wolf's clothing I think you mean

[Castlebest]

A sheep in wolf's clothing I think you mean

 

who's been to the dentist for a full extraction

[Gez]

Aww castle, we not on the same side anymore? Not a lot you can do with a smiley, but with wit, whoahh the possibilities are endelss eh!