H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[kennyh]

The redoubtable Mr Crow

denied that victory for the OFT implied there would be a deluge of litigation in other industries where cross-subsidies were common in pricing tariffs.

Any idea which areas of finance might be covered by this rather broad statement?

[MARTIN3030]

Well we are talking about the OFT here....who are privy to many things that we arent.

It would also be their remit to sort out any such deluges-perhaps theres a feeling that Mr Crows team will be deserving of a break after all this is sorted.....the customers of the banks will be best placed to decide if he has earned that at the end of it all !

[MARTIN3030]

I think earlier in the thread it was mentioned the probably decision by the HoL will not be for a month or two once final arguments are made.

 

I still keep wondering why all the banks seem to have changed anything they class as a charge to being called 'Default Charges' both with current accounts and credit cards?! Probably they've known something long ago that we all nothing about yet?

 

Michael

 

 

Its not so recent-if you look at the terms and conditions supplied to Smith and look at the dates-its remarkable how many were changed not only on or around the time the OFT began its original investigations-but also to compliment the later rulings on common law in October.

[HSBCrusher]

day one

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks 'not Robin Hood in reverse'

 

day two

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks 'face deluge of litigation'

[Deso]

Is it just me who has got a very bad feeling about all this?... I reckon its been decided already and guess who is guaranteed not to be fairly treated by all this....

[MARTIN3030]

We can only wait and see Deso-its in the hands of the Gods.

[callumsgran]

We can only wait and see Deso-its in the hands of the Gods.

Errr no Martin it's in the hands of the doddery old lords pmsl

[MARTIN3030]

I dont have any problem associating them with Gods.....on the provisio of course that any rulings go our way.

If it goes the banks way-then I reserve my OWN judgment to amend the reference to GODS to something more befitting;)

[yourbank]

For fear of CAGBOT.

I loved the exchange between Lady Hale and Crow QC. Very witty I think. Cannot mention where as it was not from the press reports

[MARTIN3030]

You will recall there was quite a bit of wit in the main exchanges in 2008.

Still falls short of a Brown v Cameron session tho.

[yourbank]

You will recall there was quite a bit of wit in the main exchanges in 2008.

Still falls short of a Brown v Cameron session tho.

Nah, can't remember last year except that I took one week off work and the bank got government money and the CEO resigned and the share price was almost as good as a chomp bar that I remember from my younger days. They were great.....chomp bars that is

[yourbank]

Errr no Martin it's in the hands of the doddery old lords pmsl

Don't forget the lady CG(no doubt she will not be indecisive )

[djgordyp]

Is everyone out enjoying the sun?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Is everyone out enjoying the sun?

 

Yep.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[emmasot]

so wots happening with this case now?

[yourbank]

so wots happening with this case now?

Law Lords are considering their verdict which could come before the end of July(recess for the court) or October in the new Supreme Court.

[paulwlton]

He said if the courts upheld the right of the OFT to scrutinise bank charges, then the charges might be deemed unenforceable for a time period dating all the way back to the 1990s.

That was because European Union regulations on unfair terms in consumer contracts had been introduced into UK law during that decade.

 

 

 

I assume this would be because the charges are unfair as opposed to penalties?.

[Bookworm]

Yep. UTCCR started in 1995.

[paulwlton]

Yep. UTCCR started in 1995.

 

The customer must have entered into their banking contract after July 1st 1995 to fall under the scope of the regs........Just my luck.... March 1995.

[yourbank]

The customer must have entered into their banking contract after July 1st 1995 to fall under the scope of the regs........Just my luck.... March 1995.

But were your terms not amended during that period of time? Remember the terms being amended may come under UTCCR

[srfrench]

Sorry bud...incorrect.

 

The UTCCR is capable FROM 1995 regardless of whether you opened your account before or after that date.

 

So basically all charges and restitution can be claimed FROM 1995 onwards and not, say, 1994 or 1990?

 

Hope that clears that up.

[car2403]

The customer must have entered into their banking contract after July 1st 1995 to fall under the scope of the regs........Just my luck.... March 1995.

 

I don't think so. The regs aren't retrospective, (so don't apply prior to enactment) but they will apply from the day they came in to force, regardless of when you entered the contract.

 

In short, any charges that were unfair after enactment of the regs will be recoverable. Put it another way, the Banks should have made sure that they complied with the regs when they were enacted.

[emmasot]

so is it looking good for us then?

[yourbank]

so is it looking good for us then?

it's definitely interesting to understate the case, lol

[paulwlton]

I don't think so. The regs aren't retrospective, (so don't apply prior to enactment) but they will apply from the day they came in to force, regardless of when you entered the contract.

 

For protection under the regs the customer must have entered into the contract after 1st July 1995. I believe the customer isn't covered from the 1st July.

Edited June 27, 2009 by paulwlton