Reclaim Your Bank And Card Charges

[Osem]

Yes it's true! I know I'm being cynical but I wonder if HMG's ownership of many of the biggest has anything to do with this. They'll be wanting our money back as soon as possible after all...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm

was it ever going to go any other way? and yes Osem i think HMG had a lot to do with it .Maybe a couple of years ago we would have had a different result but now ...never ,having said that i think Chris is right the OFT will get them eventually .
What about those who got the charges back will they have to repay or have they been lucky ?

[Russ]

On the upside it means an end to these unsolicited phone calls I used to get from companies offering to reclaim my charges. Guess they'll go back to asking if I've had any accidents or injuries in the last 3 years.

[Ravenheart]

Originally Posted by martyh

was it ever going to go any other way? and yes Osem i think HMG had a lot to do with it .Maybe a couple of years ago we would have had a different result but now ...never ,having said that i think Chris is right the OFT will get them eventually .
What about those who got the charges back will they have to repay or have they been lucky ?

I don't think they can get them back from those they've already paid out

Martin Lewis has posted

"Those consumers who already got money back needn't worry – the money already given back was technically a 'goodwill gesture' and therefore the banks cannot ask for it back.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...nks-win-appeal

I do think today's decision is political, but people have no faith in the banking system as it is, and this will do nothing to improve things.

[Mick Fisher]

Just to proliferate the "Treasure Island", "Rip-Off Britain" status, Supreme Court decrees that Banks can charge the Hoy Paloy anything they like.

Were we fools to expect any other decision? I think we were going on past experiences.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Just to proliferate the "Treasure Island", "Rip-Off Britain" status, Supreme Court decrees that Banks can charge the Hoy Paloy anything they like.

Were we fools to expect any other decision? I think we were going on past experiences.

But no.

From the OP link

In explaining his ruling, the Supreme Court's president Lord Phillips said that bank customers agreed to pay overdraft charges as part of the price of having a current account, so they fell outside the scope of the 1999 consumer contract regulations.
But Lord Phillips added that this was not the end of the matter as the OFT could still try to scrutinise bank charges under other parts of the regulations.
"This will not close the door on the OFT's investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed [put on hold] in which customers have challenged the relevant charges," he told the court.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Russ

On the upside it means an end to these unsolicited phone calls I used to get from companies offering to reclaim my charges. Guess they'll go back to asking if I've had any accidents or injuries in the last 3 years.

They've still got the Payment protection claims

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

They've still got the Payment protection claims

Indeed i have 2 different sets of solicitors after me because i have one they can help me claim on and boy do i know it

[joglynne]

Martin Lewis has posted some more information which I think anyone who is hoping for a refund should read.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...for-reclaimers.

Drawing attention to the Judge's final statement ML says:-

"It wasn’t a loss, the OFT fought on the wrong clause. The initial shock reaction by the crowd in the court, thinking that the banks had won, obscured what was perhaps the most important part of the Judge’s final statement, that ‘the OFT may be able to look at fairness by another route’.

"The fact that this was deemed important enough to be said in his very short verbal statement is of great significance. After analysis of the report it reveals the court’s coded message to the OFT was ‘you took this case on too narrow a legal basis – you would have a much better chance with clause 5 not clause 6’.

Banks always win..I never thought there was a snowball's chance in hell that the consumer would win in this or any other case against the banks.

[Mick Fisher]

One way or another The Banks now control just about all our money and so can and are effectively calling the shots.

Just another result of a weak PM and a weak Government that shyed away from financial regulation when it would have made a difference.

[Will21st]

please go to penaltycharges.co.uk for further instructions regarding the test case.People,this ain't over yet.Anyone who has a court case pending needs to act NOW!!!

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Banks always win..I never thought there was a snowball's chance in hell that the consumer would win in this or any other case against the banks.

I read what you say Mags, but if people roll their sleeves up, and they have credit card/loan agreements pre 2007 and the companies cannot supply the copy of the original cca agreement the companies are stuffed, all they can do is huff and puff about wanting their money back, if same companies are daft enough to follow through to court, without providing the customer with required papers it is all downhill for the companies involved.
So Banks do not always win

[TheDaddy]

OFT drops further cases

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...Overdraft_Fees

since the gov owns the controlling shares of alot of the banks now especially the biggest offender RBS can't they do something ,i notice RBS's charges hav'nt gone down