A Judge's View on the Test Case

[noomill060]

There was another case not long after where banks started to defend claims, citing the Berwick case.

CAG and moneysavingexpert.com hired a QC specialising in banking law to tidy up the applicant's inadequate POCs and represent them.

All the bank backed down and coughed up.

A few weeks after that the test case was announced and most claims stayed.

[noomill060]

Berwick's PoCs were so laughably weak that the Judge really had no alternative but to find against him.

His PoCs were not those provided in template form on this site, but it served as a reminder to those who had grown complacent, assuming victory was as easy as Martin Lewis's early prognostigations had made it appear and that the law is not something to be taken lightly.

[Bookworm]

Well, I had a barrister against me in my Barclays case (stay) and we actually had a good chat before and after, and it turns out he was reclaiming his charges himself using the same principle, so I'm thinking he knew what he was talking about.

I could also point out that I *did* win in court previously, not by default, but on view of the evidence in front of him (including a copy of the T&Cs), the judge ruled in my favour and found that the charge was a penalty, back in November 2006. Granted, it wasn't a bank, but a car finance company, part of a bank group, but I had used the same principles and arguments as I had with the banks. Sadly, the media didn't pick up on that the way they did on the first loss amongst the thousands of wins we had had.

Maybe now would be a good time to point out that we do have legal people on board too, not only non-lawyers.

[noomill060]

The Judicuary were growing tired of the Banks entering faux defences which they had no intention of allowing to be heard in Court.

It appeared to me that, when the Banks had a perfect opportunanty to put their case before a judge and bottled it, the Judiciary howled "enough, already!" and put the FSA/OFT on notice that a test case would be need to be imposed, as the bank's abuse of the court system was causing a almighty log jam.

The banks were only too willing, as the carrot dangled enabled them to cease handling complaints, while still inventing debt where none really existed.

[noomill060]

During a chat with the Information Commissioners Office about Subject Access Request non-compliance, the Information Commissioners Office guy told me he was also claiming his charges back, about £200 he said.

I asked him if that included interest levied, "no" he said, and was delighted when he realised this was as reclaimable as the charges themselves!

(Naturally, I directed him to this site)

[Bookworm]

Naturally.

[dave]

When I had my first bank account in 1970 you paid a charge for every transaction. We may return to something like that.

I agree that the banks should be investigated under monopoly laws - the fact that the charges are all very similar in price, if a service, suggests price fixing.

However, for the banks (all of them) to charge for every transaction, I believe, would be in direct confrontation with the ECHR act. As we, as employees, as 'forced' to use banks by the Wages Act we would be forced into buying a service (or goods) from a third party provider by local legislation - this is the breach of the ECHR act.

[vortex]

If the banks offered a very basic account that was free to use for the services "offered" would that in itself, get around the ECHR act?

[dave]

I believe it would, and that IMO would be fair.

[vortex]

Oh dear, I was hoping you would say that was not the case.

[Bookworm]

Sorry, not sure I understand the question. Do you mean a very basic account free to use, meaning that wouldn't charge for bouncing DD etc? Nothing gets through if you don't have the money, full stop?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I lived in Germany for some years, where I paid for my bank account. A small monthly fee covered x transactions, with any over the limit charged for individually. I've also experienced 'free' banking.

I have to say that I preferred the German banks, partly because their approach to customer service differed. They have an entirely different attitude to UK banks - their staff are friendly and polite and the odd time I accidentally became overdrawn the issue was invariably resolved helpfully. I never came across the sort of judgemental attitudes so prevalent in British banks. Whilst it seems to me that UK banks see customers as objects to squeeze as much money from as possible, and do not care if customers leave - there are plenty more coming in each day - German banks always seemed more committed to long term relationships.

Now I live in Northern Ireland, where I again have a fee-paying account, with which I'm very happy. No big or offshore call-centres, no auto-express-how-dare-you-want-counter-service 'banking malls', and online banking that works.

I suspect that the big clearing banks have had things their own way for so long they feel, like all bullies, that they are invincible. Taking into account not just the OFT case, but banks losses in the US sub-prime market, criticisms over irresponsible lending and bad business models, I think there might just be a step-change in the way banks operate in future.

[patrickq1]

very very good point dave this should also bring into dispute the bt charges for direct debits as we are being forced into using this method without any negotiating and then penalised for using alternative methods of payments ....mmmmmm food for thought
patrickq1

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by patrickq1

very very good point dave this should also bring into dispute the bt charges for direct debits as we are being forced into using this method without any negotiating and then penalised for using alternative methods of payments ....mmmmmm food for thought
patrickq1

Not at all. You don't HAVE to use BT or whoever, you have a choice whether to enter into that contract or not. With wages, you have no such choices, your wages have to go in a bank account, which is where Dave's well gnawed bone of contention comes in.

[patrickq1]

As we, as employees, as 'forced' to use banks by the Wages Act we would be forced into buying a service (or goods) from a third party provider by local legislation

perhaps i should read the full script that dave wrote would have been more sensible bookwoim lol
like a bull in a china shop huh
patrickq1

Well Well I like every one on here has to use a bank ie for wages or to pay bills I don't think there are any people now getting a wage packet on a Friday any more and that's where the banks have us lock stock and barrel! and the bigger picture is that every thing goes on a computer to pay money in how much and where to take out how much and where to where you are in the country. But that's another story.
I read Aequitas reply to the banks charges and the OFT case and had to go in and dark room to lie down! he is employed by the banks and I for one would love them to just say once ' this is the reason we charge because this is our losses and this is what our profit is, but then again pigs can fly
He must think then as a property lawyer the ECRs are OK and that people have been paying £7,000 plus in charges for moving because they are reasonable people and can not because of the interest rates stay where they are but can not do so, they then lose there homes and that's all right then.
The reason the OFT has done this case is because of this site and no our reason, I feel the case will just go away in time as they know as well as the Judge's what will happen bank PROFITS will fall and the markets will also look whats happened in the states and just look at the way the case has gone so far, I may be wrong but then again pigs do fly First class of course!