Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[elsinore]

Originally Posted by andrew1

I'm a little confused by this.. I'm thinking aloud here and not making much sense..

Not just you, Andrew, we all are!

There needs to be a lot of discussion on this point before anybody thinks of throwing in the towel.

Els

[elsinore]

Originally Posted by welshwizzard

Yeh,

This is a mate of mine's Lloyds account.

He spoke to Foot Anstey and they say that the judge had commented that he had found that the charges did not represent a penalty and their instructions from Lloyds were to withdraw all offers.

The point was then made to Foot Ansty that the judge clearly indicated that his comments made were limited to CURRENT T&C ONLY.

The phone went quiet then she said Yeh I Know (pretending she did)

So if The Judge turns round in his findings on the "historic" charges and says yes they are penalties then its game on again?

Yes she said, I suppose so.

Not dead in the water yet, then?

See prevoius post.

Els

[andrew1]

Originally Posted by elsinore

Not just you, Andrew, we all are!

There needs to be a lot of discussion on this point before anybody thinks of throwing in the towel.

Els

I know it drives me mad. I'm helping a friend of mine with an old AIB account over 10k's worth of charges - Ltd co. They won't reply and do you think I can find ANY other claims either here or anywhere else on AIB business accounts to compare notes with? Not a one..no wonder he got charged so much over the years he must have been their only business account customer!!

[photoman]

I've just posted this on another thread, and thought it might be handy to post here also:

Quote (from BBC website):
His judgement, stretching to 119 pages, dismisses the idea that anyone who goes overdrawn without permission is in breach of their current contract with their bank.
Therefore, he decided, overdraft fees could not be a penalty for breaking that contract, as no breach had occurred.
But what about old contracts?
Most of the banks have been busily re-writing their terms and conditions since customers in their tens of thousands started demanding that their charges be refunded.
"An initial reading of the judgement suggests that the issue of historic terms and conditions is still wide open," said Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group.


Also Quote:

The banks will be even more upset to see that some of their other central arguments were firmly rejected.
They had claimed that their charges were in fact fees for a service, and that their customers received a service even when their cheques were bounced.
"If a bank declines to pay upon a relevant instruction, it supplies no, or no relevant, services by way of considering, processing or otherwise dealing with it," the judge said.


So...

If their not penalties for a breach of contract...
And, their not charges for a service....

Then that only leaves the option that they must be Liquidated Damages.

In which case by such laws, they must not exceed the actual cost or remuneration involved in dealing with such. Which we all contend that they do, and the Banks continued lack of disclosure only adds weight to the likelihood that this is the case.

I believe the judge backs up this contention when he then says:

"I am unable to accept that either the paid item charges, and guaranteed paid item charges, or the overdraft excess charges, are the price or remuneration, or even a part of the price or remuneration, that the customer pays," he added.

[Goldlady]

Originally Posted by andrew1

I know it drives me mad. I'm helping a friend of mine with an old AIB account over 10k's worth of charges - Ltd co. They won't reply and do you think I can find ANY other claims either here or anywhere else on AIB business accounts to compare notes with? Not a one..no wonder he got charged so much over the years he must have been their only business account customer!!

I have several clients who have business accounts with the AIB. Only one of them has ever had problems with her account and she always gets her charges back straight away by ringing her business manager. I suspect that there are not many people who have had a problem with them Or do I stand to be corrected?

[andrew1]

Do you have any idea of how AIB have reacted then to these current bank charge issues which have accumilated. My friend had a horrendous time with AIB. They just kept charging and charging. Can you point me to any Goldlady?

[Goldlady]

My friend who got the charges refunded obviously has a good relationship with AIB as every time they charged her she simply rang and asked for the charges to be credited. She pays a flat rate of £500 a quarter in bank charges which are not quantified, so probably she is losing money without even knowing what the charges relate to.

I don't know of anyone else who has had a problem with them, but I don't see why they should be any different to the other banks in the UK.

[TINK660]

In light of the test case news (24th April) I am now really confused. I am (or was as the case may be) starting a claim for a Nat West Business Account (opened 1991 - closed 2000) so a pre 6 year business claim.

Advise seems to be to stop claiming on business accounts, however as the judge is only ruling on current terms and conditions does this advice still apply?

Unfortunately I dont have the terms and conditions from my account for 1991 and dont know how to obtain them (if anyone has any or knows how to get them please please let me know!) This will be a really large claim for me (£20000 including 8% interest and rising daily) as they crippled us for years with these charges.

Can anyone give me any advice on whether to go ahead or not, I must admit I find the whole idea daunting and really will need all the help I can get from start to finish!

Thanks Tink x

[welshwizzard]

Tink,

It will cost you the price of a couple of stamps to find out, you can drop your claim at any time so you had might as well bite the bullet and claim.

You will get all the help you need (and more on this site)

Remember the Judge restricted his comments to the Current terms and Conditions . Unless you have accrued all of your charges since Nov 06 when all the banks changed their T&Cs you are likely to have "earned" your charges under the dubious "historic" Terms and Conditions which the Banks admit by their actions (i.e. they all rewrote them!) are likely to fail in a court of law.

If and when the Judge gives us his opinion on the "historic" T&Cs he says they are still not a penalty you can claim they must be "liquidated Damages" which again must not exceed the cost of administering the Bank as we know will not be comfortable explaining that in court so Bingo you're back in business!

That’s my opinion...Good Luck

[nicklea]

Originally Posted by welshwizzard

If and when the Judge gives us his opinion on the "historic" T&Cs he says they are still not a penalty you can claim they must be "liquidated Damages" which again must not exceed the cost of administering the Bank as we know will not be comfortable explaining that in court so Bingo you're back in business!

That’s my opinion...Good Luck

Liquidated damages are damages that are payable in the event of a breach of contract. If there is no breach then there can be no liquidated damages

[c_allen]

hi all,
I've not been around for a while so forgive me if i'm raising an issue thats already been thrashed out but i'm wondering about claiming CCI or CI on a business account, i'm asking because with it being a business acc then surley it's a commercial agreement so the same rates must apply?????

thanx

[nicklea]

Originally Posted by photoman

I

The banks will be even more upset to see that some of their other central arguments were firmly rejected.
They had claimed that their charges were in fact fees for a service, and that their customers received a service even when their cheques were bounced.
"If a bank declines to pay upon a relevant instruction, it supplies no, or no relevant, services by way of considering, processing or otherwise dealing with it," the judge said.


So...

If their not penalties for a breach of contract...
And, their not charges for a service....

Then that only leaves the option that they must be Liquidated Damages.

I believe the judge backs up this contention when he then says:

"I am unable to accept that either the paid item charges, and guaranteed paid item charges, or the overdraft excess charges, are the price or remuneration, or even a part of the price or remuneration, that the customer pays," he added.

What the judge was saying here is that if he had found that these charges were part of the price or remuneration then the UTCCR would not have applied and the OFT would have lost the case.

[hijinkx]

Hello . I put my Loyds business account reclaim into the FSO late last year and they have been working on hundreds of such claims .The test case
outcome seems to suggest to them that as the judge specifically identified common law as not to apply , that we would be less likeky to receive a satisfactory resolution. However the ruling is still being assessed by the OFT lawyers .
On reading various comments above should we have faith in other legal
arguments to assist our business account claims as the notion that Common Law was our route to differentiate these claims from personal account customers and also allowed the FSA/FO to allow their adjudicators to continue to assess business customers complaints during the test case period?
I do hope the OFT and your campaigners will not allow this test case to
scupper the chances of success for us business complainants.
The liklihood of a win always seems so tantalizingly close yet so far

[photoman]

Nicklea

Exactly.
He has ruled that they are not fees for a legitimate service, and he's then also gone onto say that he does not consider them as being representative or relative to a recuperation of costs either.
Therefore (as far as personal accounts covered by the UTCCR99 are concerned) he considers them to be charges that have arisen under some contractual terms that are open to examination as to whether they are unfair terms under the UTCCR.

What I am saying is;
His statement with regards also considering them as not actually being representative of costs or remuneration in such circumstances, also leaves the door open for Business claimants, who are claiming they are excessive charges under Liquidated Damages and common law principles.
Certainly in the case of Lloyds, the charges were often presented in letters at the time of such events as being in relation to a recuperation of their costs involved. We now know that the judge does not consider this as actually being likely.
However, oddly enough he does not consider they arise due to a breach of contract ?