OFT v Banks - Round One to OFT

[JOSH_IOU]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

What is your authority for that proposition?

What?

That view comes after reading the unfair contract terms act.

The master of rolls has strategically paused thousands of claims on the basis of an idustry that is in virtual crisis due to its own devlopment.

I am a british citizen I have the power to vote for who ever I see fit.

I did not get to choose the current Primeinister.

If you think this has no rellavence then there is something definatly wrong somewhere.

I have the right to choose I was denied that right how can I trust these people who take that right away from me?

They talk about libities and they pick and choose which ones we can and can not have. That is not liberalism thats republicanism.

You talk about what right I have well i have the right of expression.

[Bookworm]

Calm down, Josh, I think Aequitas is not criticising your right to post your opinions, he's asking you the legal authority on which you base your assertions (precedents, etc...)

For example, if I were to talk about the 6 months reverse burden of proof in a consumer case, the authority would be the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). You get the gist.

[JOSH_IOU]

Well bookworm,


I remember somewhere it said the UTCCR's gives the judge the authority to make that judgement through the Sales of Goods Act 1979.

Was that in the OFT defence?

[Aequitas]

Sorry if the way I posed my question caused offence. You are of course free to make whatever assertions you like about the law.

I do not think there is any authority to back up your proposition and it is not to be found in the UTCCR. Indeed, it is my view that the UTCCR do the exact opposite. Regulation 6 (2) says:

In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate...to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange

So, the Regulations specifically exclude the possibility that any enquiry can be made as to the level of any charge. What the Regulations do permit (at least according to the current state of play) is that any of the banks' term imposing charges can be subject to assessment as to fairness - something quite different.

[JOSH_IOU]

Terms to which these Regulations apply
3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, these Regulations apply to any term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer where the said term has not been individually negotiated.

(2) In so far as it is in plain, intelligible language, no assessment shall be made of the fairness of any term which —

• (a) defines the main subject matter of the contract, or

• (b) concerns the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services sold or supplied.

(3) For the purposes of these Regulations, a term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(4) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of the contract indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(5) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

Is the above section the section you refer to?

Lets take this one for starters.

(4) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of the contract indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

[yourbank]

JOSH IOU, have you read the test case judgement?Paragraph 328 onwards deals with the 1999 regulations which seems to incorporate some of the things you have mentioned.

[JOSH_IOU]

Right the way through.

I dont think there should be stays on just to see this test case through.

This is the point I am trying to make.

[yourbank]

Why not?

[Aequitas]

You are in fact quoting from the 1994 Regulations which have been revoked.

[JOSH_IOU]

The law is clear in this area.

There has already been thousands of pounds returned to customers.

If the oft win there will be a settlement of how much they can charge.

I personally do not think they can say 3 or maybe 6 or even 12 pounds are fair.

You know this is going to happen because the oft said they are not going to chase credit card charges under £12.

[JOSH_IOU]

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994

[JOSH_IOU]

They certainly have

its now the 2006 regulations

[yourbank]

JOSH IOU---The payments have been made as Gestures of Goodwill and no lability admitted. There has been NO PRECEDENT setting case on Bank Charges. Barwick lost even though no one turned up, thousands of others lost as well by not attending court because they believed a templated MCOL would get them their money back.

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by yourbank

Barwick lost even though no one turned up, thousands of others lost as well by not attending court because they believed a templated MCOL would get them their money back.

Thousands?

[yourbank]

Yes, HOWEVER hundreds of thousands of people did get their money back.

[Bookworm]

Do you have anything to back up this assertion? Something as alarmist as this really needs some authority (sorry, Josh! ) to back it up, and i would be very interested to see anything to confirm it.

[yourbank]

bookworm, thousands can refer to 2000.....I am looking for a source for verification and at present can only rely on the number of times I have read of people losing by default across all forums. THIS is not evidence though so I wit