 Re: Todays Announcment
I read the decision myself - 119 pages of dense legalese is not fun to wade through - and I can expand specifically on the "breach of contract" problem.
The judge determined that the mechanism by which the *present* T&Cs of all eight banks convert Relevant Instructions to Relevant Charges is *not* by breach-of-contract on the part of the customer, and therefore also neither liquidated-damages or penalty-charges. Instead, they describe the Relevant Charges as fees for particular services, facilities or processes, and thus form part of the contract proper rather than a remedy for it's breach.
However, he did not examine or rule on the *historical* T&Cs issued by the banks in earlier years, for example the NatWest T&Cs I was bound to in 2005. These old terms are significantly different, and do invoke breach-of-contract in order to justify the Relevant Charges upon a Relevant Instruction.
So, for the benefit of business customers who canot rely on the UTCCRs, I would advise them to check the contemporary T&Cs for all the periods in which Relevant Charges were levied, and determine whether a breach of contract was responsible as opposed to a fee for a service. If this is the case for some or all of your charges, you may claim under the common-law rules for those specific charges.
(IANAL, just a bored computer guy.) | 
