Thread: Concern about UTCCR-

Hello,

Bookworm asked me to post this PM in case there were any similar concerns:-

Originally Posted by jimfishybob


"Terms setting the price or defining the product or service

Terms in consumer contracts which set the price or define the product or service being supplied are 'core terms' of the contract and are exempt from the test of fairness as long as they meet the plain language requirement."


Does this not mean that bank charges would be exempt on the assumption they contested that the charges were a fee for a service?
PM'd 'cos I don't want to start a negative debate.



And this was my answer (said Bookworm, lol):

That is the answer that they have used in the 1 case they have won, yes. Henry v Natwest. However, they haven't tried it again becaus they know they wdn't get away with it a 2nd time... If Henry had been prepared, it wdn't have worked even that once, tbh.

The service issue doesn't work on many levels: 1st of all, the T&Cs actually pretty much describe what is a breach, and if it's a breach, it's not a service. If they pay an item that take you o/limit, it's a clear breach, eg no service.
2nd, if they bounce an item, they are refusing to pay, so in effect not doing anything = no service there.
etc etc... On top of which, judges are actually very familiar with the "cloaking the penalty charge" issue.

I think you shold put it out there on the forum , as I'm sure you're not the only one concerned about that aspect.

Similar Threads:

• Utccr 1999

The OFT report specifically says that these kinds of "services" and their related charges are not core business.

*****Deleted 'cos I'm an idiot********


Jim

Am just reading through the report now,

It's fascinating, I especially like this bit:-

"We cannot be tolerant of strategies which seek to avoid the substance of these concerns, for example by merely changing nomenclature or re-characterising the charges"

Guess that's the 'service-charge' argument well and truly out of the window then.