the banking code, is it part of the contract?

[gothicf0rm]

ok, so your bank says that they follow the banking code explicitly in their legal literature and then ignores the banking code. every time the bank ignores the banking code are they breaking their contract with you in doing so?

[BankFodder]

I just responded to another message of yours on this point.

I would certainly fancy my chances in arguing that the code could be used to imply terms into contracts.

It might not be directly incorporated into the contract but I think that the code can be said to outline the expectations which customers reasonably rely upon when opening an account.

 

I can scarcely imagine that a court would allow the Banks to trumpet their adherence to the code when trying to get the business and then saying that it was only a non-binding code when the chips are down.

 

Industrial practice over a long period of time has always been taken to be a source of contractual implication. The practice becomes binding through usage because everyone has expectations that certain industrial contracts will be conducted along certain established and uiniversally acknowledged lines. Inustries are not permitted to argue that the terms are merely practice and are not contractual.

I would want to say that the same logic exists for the Banking Code.

 

The problem with the code is that so much is open to interpretation. Fairness, reasonableness, balanced etc. However even with these apparently subjective terms one can still draw upon many helpful sources to assist in their interpretation.

[gothicf0rm]

well i thuoght because banks do directly incorporate the code into their contract by saying in the contract explicitly they follow it in the part on the complaints procedure, i was thinking in this case of natwest bank who make it very clear they obey the banking code to the letter T in their legal bumpf even if every single point is not directly mentioned in the contract.

much of the code as you say is open to interpretation, however things like they must inform you no less than 14 days before they charge you is not.

[BankFodder]

You are more aware of the detail of the contract than I am. If they make specific reference to the incorpoaration of parts of the code into their contract, then I would want to argue that this doesn't prevent the rest of it being implied.

On the other hand, if I was representing the banks, I would want to argue that by specifically including part of the code, that I was by implication, excluding the rest. I'm not sure which is the better argument ... but I am quite certain that I would win. :twisted:

[gothicf0rm]

it says here -

 

"24 NatWest subscribes to the Banking Code and Business Banking Code. If you would like a Banking Code or Business Banking Code leaflet ask a member of staff at any branch. Full details of the Code are also available from the British Bankers' Association website."

 

they even invite their customers to look at the "full details" which is a pretty strong implication they subscribe to all of it. how would a bank argue it doesnt though ? lol. surely the ombudsman would fine them a huge amount if they tried to do that.

[Vampyra]

I have to agree with the interpretation issue.

 

My experience today left me playing the broken record saying they are in breach of the Banking Code they subscribe to, yet they tried to use every trick in the book to squirm out - it all came down to how someone interpreted it!

 

I was even told I was in breach of contract.

 

I really do find that insulting when all I have done is merrily get on with my banking and by using a cheque book to keep a tab on things and weekly mini statements, find I'm getting ripped off.

 

I digress.

 

But implied contractual obligations, personal interpretations and the like are so subjective, you have to ask yourself if they can swing it in law when they need surely it's more empowering for the consumer to use the say tactics when they take action?

 

Surely it is reasonable to believe that if the banks voluntarily sign up to a banking code - an ethical code set to protect both bank and consumer, that the ethics of that code have been incorperated into a banks contract with every customer, else there would be no reason for the code to exist?

 

Which it must do if people are getting their money back - even with a fight!

[gothicf0rm]

this is why i think its a good idea to stick to known case law rather than this approach too. to me it simply raises some interesting questions (and my bank dont directly refer to the banking code in the contract so there is nothing i can do). it wouldnt hurt to include this in your particulars of claim though if you get that far as long as you have solid contract law in too as the defence of the bank could prove revealing.

[thecornflake]

Sorry to bump such an old thread, but if you're still interested in pursuing the banking code angle you may be interested in the following -

 

"There is a provision in the Code relating to customers in financial difficulties already, which says that they should be left with enough funds for their basic requirements."

 

"The Guidance on this point says that banks should leave the customer with sufficient money for day-to-day expenses, taking into account individual circumstances. We are aware of instances where that has not happened; where the bank has grabbed all the money when it is paid in after the salary date. We have got a very good liaison with a lot of money advisers and Citizens' Advice Bureaus who have frequently told us of this. We have taken them up with the bank concerned and been able to rectify the situation."

 

Source -

 

Q372 - 373 at the following link -

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/uc848-iv/uc84802.htm

[BankFodder]

It may be an old thread but it is still important.

 

The way to test the contractual applicability of a part of the banking code is to try it in court.

So, if you have had so much money taken away that you haven't enough to live on, then sue the bank on the contratual term and see what happens.

It won't cost much - or nothing at all if you are on benefits - and you will probably win.

[thecornflake]

This happens every month!

 

I intend to take on the 'easier' companies, i.e. credit cards, and then take on Natwest. I feel I may have a fight on my hands there, so I may go all the way with the banking code as well.

[Spiceskull]

If you go for it, good luck.

 

See the steps I took to get my bank charges back.

Spiceskull v HSBC.

Thank you Consumer Action Group.

Read my blog.

 

[thecornflake]

I've just checked and the original copy of the code published at

http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/

doesn't mention this so it must be just part of the memorandum thing. I'm not sure about this memorandum - if it is now part of the code or waht, so more investigation is required.

[gothicf0rm]

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group