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

[yourbank]

can someone PM what the edited bit was cos I am crap with hangman.....any chance of a first letter

[Aequitas]

It's relevance is in how much they put in their pocket.

 

Unauthorised use of the overdraft facility of £3 and a charge of £35 is not only unfair, but excessive as well. It's in the loan shark realms of over 1,000%. Even a £70 use claws in equal to 100%, far above any interest rates even in the hardest of times.

 

All this may be true, but how does it make the charge unfair within the meaning of the UTCCR?

 

You can use the UTTCR to determine if a contract term is unfair, but unfair is defined in Regulation 5 (1):

 

A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

Examples of such terms are set out in Schedule 2.

 

Regulation 6 (2) says:

 

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-

 

(a) -

 

(b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.

 

Next Regulation 8 (1) says:

 

An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

 

So, assuming the OFT win the last round in the current legal battle, if the OFT come to assess any particular term they will need to see if it produces a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations. To do this, they will have the examples set out in Schedule 2 to assist them, though they can go beyond the examples. However, what is clear is that they have to show that the terms is intrinsically unfair, not that it is unfair because the charge is high. Regulation 6 (2) seems to confirm that this is the correct approach, as does Regulation 8 (1) which does not allow a fairer provision to be introduced to replace the unfair one.

 

So with respect to any given service, the OFT will have to decide that it is unreasonable for any charge to be made before it can decide that it is unfair. Accordingly, the cost of providing the service is irrelevant and not a matter that the OFT needs to enquire into - at least not for the purposes of the UTCCR.

 

The UTCCR afford the consumer consderable protection, but the one thing they do not do, and expressly exclude from their ambit, is to allow any enquiry as to the price agreed for the service or goods offered.

[JonCris]

That's true but the service has to have been negotiated otherwise it's just an arbitrary term where only 1 party to the contract benefits - remember the banks are dealing with a captive market where's there's little real choice

[car2403]

can someone PM what the edited bit was cos I am crap with hangman.....any chance of a first letter

 

It was a "z"

 

Anyway, you're wise enough to insert your own answers.

 

Oh, bypassing the swear filter is in clear breach of forum rules, also.

[Aequitas]

That's true but the service has to have been negotiated otherwise it's just an arbitrary term where only 1 party to the contract benefits

 

But surely if it is in the terms it has been negotiated.

 

remember the banks are dealing with a captive market where's there's little real choice

 

Now that is what everyone should have been concentrating on to the exclusion of everything else.

[yourbank]

It was a "z"

 

Anyway, you're wise enough to insert your own answers.

 

Oh, bypassing the swear filter is in clear breach of forum rules, also.

how many letters?

Was the z the first letter?

 

apologies but no one is PM'ing me the answer.

[car2403]

how many letters?

Was the z the first letter?

 

apologies but no one is PM'ing me the answer.

 

Who do you think I am, Carol Vorderman?

 

Consonant... Vowel... Vowel... One from the top, please, Carol...

 

[yourbank]

Who do you think I am, Carol Vorderman?

 

Consonant... Vowel... Vowel... One from the top, please, Carol...

 

 

I have no idea what you do in the comfort of your own home:eek:

[kennyh]

Apart from dealing with inanimate objects eg. to negotiate the hazards on the road.... negotiation involves discussion with other concerned parties.

I don't necessarily accept that 'take it or leave it' is negotiation.

[Aequitas]

Apart from dealing with inanimate objects eg. to negotiate the hazards on the road.... negotiation involves discussion with other concerned parties.

I don't necessarily accept that 'take it or leave it' is negotiation.

 

You have a point, but in practice one does not negotiate every detail of every contract you enter into. That is why we have statutory protection such as the UTCCR. If you sign a contract everything in it is in a sense negotiated, just not individually negotiated. Even "take it or leave it" is still negotiation. Negotiation does not mean getting what you want.

 

Quite separately, if all suppliers are offering you a particular service on a "take it or leave it" basis and all the terms are the same, then you can ask if there is a cartel. Even if you find one, it will not necessarily follow that the terms are unfair within the meaning of the UTCCR.

[yourbank]

You have a point, but in practice one does not negotiate every detail of every contract you enter into. That is why we have statutory protection such as the UTCCR. If you sign a contract everything in it is in a sense negotiated, just not individually negotiated. Even "take it or leave it" is still negotiation. Negotiation does not mean getting what you want.

 

Quite separately, if all suppliers are offering you a particular service on a "take it or leave it" basis and all the terms are the same, then you can ask if there is a cartel. Even if you find one, it will not necessarily follow that the terms are unfair within the meaning of the UTCCR.

 

Does "sign here and here" class as negotiation? ie I want to open an account and they take down your details and print paperwork and say these words? Someone I know recently did just that. Not really negotiation but just instructions

[InformedSearcher]

Who do you think I am, Carol Vorderman?

 

Consonant... Vowel... Vowel... One from the top, please, Carol...

 

 

ROTFL - did your TV get reclaimed as Countdown has long since had new people in it! That'll be Rach(el) then - Clever (mathematician) girl too it seems. She might actually be some help here too!

Michael

[car2403]

ROTFL - did your TV get reclaimed as Countdown has long since had new people in it! That'll be Rach(el) then - Clever (mathematician) girl too it seems. She might actually be some help here too!

Michael

 

Really? I can't afford to turn my telly on until these Bank charges are repaid, see...

[yourbank]

Really? I can't afford to turn my telly on until these Bank charges are repaid, see...

Come off it car, have you not got internet

[Bookworm]

Shhhh, YB, no-one is supposed to know he is piggybacking off the neighbours' connection.

[JonCris]

But surely if it is in the terms it has been negotiated.

 

Hadrian's mate you do make me chuckle sometimes:lol:

 

 

Now that is what everyone should have been concentrating on to the exclusion of everything else.

 

Cartel perhaps?;-)

[Aequitas]

We are getting bogged down on what "negotiated" means. It is not really relevant for the point I was trying make. I will try and make the point again by posing it as a question:

 

How do people think that the UTCCR will help them in their fight to recover bank charges?

 

(Please try and avoid answers such as: Bank charges are unfair so they must be covered by the UTCCR.)

[car2403]

Come off it car, have you not got internet

 

Is that the same as t'internet, because I've got that. It has to be wound up daily to work, though.

[Conniff]

We are getting bogged down on what "negotiated" means. It is not really relevant for the point I was trying make. I will try and make the point again by posing it as a question:

 

How do people think that the UTCCR will help them in their fight to recover bank charges?

 

(Please try and avoid answers such as: Bank charges are unfair so they must be covered by the UTCCR.)

 

I don't believe they will until someone decides the charges are unfair. Yes I know about the judgement, but what is running at the moment is alongside the unfairness, one depends on the other.

[JonCris]

We are getting bogged down on what "negotiated" means. It is not really relevant for the point I was trying make. I will try and make the point again by posing it as a question:

 

How do people think that the UTCCR will help them in their fight to recover bank charges?

 

(Please try and avoid answers such as: Bank charges are unfair so they must be covered by the UTCCR.)

 

"To arrange or settle by discussion and mutual agreement: negotiate a contract". None of which applies between the consumer & the bank

 

As for the UTCCR I don't want to put the cat amongst the pigeons but would rather wait & see the outcome of the HoL - however even if that should fail there are a number of other avenues consumers can follow to seek redress against the lenders & their pernicious charges - However I suggest 1 fight at a time;)

[Aequitas]

I don't believe they will until someone decides the charges are unfair. Yes I know about the judgement, but what is running at the moment is alongside the unfairness, one depends on the other.

 

I am afraid I do not follow. Can you please expand?

[InformedSearcher]

"To arrange or settle by discussion and mutual agreement: negotiate a contract". None of which applies between the consumer & the bank

 

As for the UTCCR I don't want to put the cat amongst the pigeons but would rather wait & see the outcome of the HoL - however even if that should fail there are a number of other avenues consumers can follow to seek redress against the lenders & their pernicious charges - However I suggest 1 fight at a time;)

 

Well if the end result was in favour of the banks (and others) I think the old boxing gloves could be shelved. We would all have felt 'cheated' and it would show the old adage of 'law for one and law for others'. That alone would be quite shameful in this day and age.

 

Reminds me having read much from people here of my phone call with Barclaycard only this morning. Thank you so much sincerely for much input and knowledge otherwise I for one would have no hope! Apologies for this being off topic but to make us all smile with my humour included;

My call was simple as they charged me £12 for not making minimum payment and £12 for going over limit. The email I received to my online message was usual 'brush over tactics' so it deserved voice to voice chat. The lady was so nice till I asked her the constituents of the £12 charges. In the end she refused to talk further passing me to her supervisor - this was one of those days I felt 'on form'!

I started to ask her about the charges and she initially stated that the OFT had 'demanded' those charges. I replied that she was totally wrong and in fact the OFT had suggested a maximum of that charge but for terms of compeditiveness they should not all charge the same. She then apologised havig given me false information and decided to refund the minimum payment charge thinking wrongly that I'd go away. The fact that HSBC used to pay B/C within 2 hours has now changed I spotted to 'No guarantee when' so I asked her about this. Charging me £12 for £9.02 seemed rather unfair. As I plodded on I now realised I had the upper hand and all of a sudden she announced that that £12 charge would be refunded. Both chages being refunded 'this time only as a gesture of goodwill' which I also decided to question. I stated that I did not consider this to be 'one time only' and they should advise their customers that the amount left to spend is in fact false because it does not mention interest. This being false gave attempted to make people spend more to attract unfair penalties.I had to smile as further apologies came as we said goodbye.

Michael

[HSBCrusher]

LTSB refunded £150 a few days ago to me without even asking for it. Well, without having to "bash" it out of them anyway

 

the writing is on the wall.

[Aequitas]

...there are a number of other avenues consumers can follow to seek redress against the lenders & their pernicious charges

 

Are they dead certs?

[JonCris]

Well if the end result was in favour of the banks (and others) I think the old boxing gloves could be shelved. We would all have felt 'cheated' and it would show the old adage of 'law for one and law for others'. That alone would be quite shameful in this day and age.

 

Reminds me having read much from people here of my phone call with Barclaycard only this morning. Thank you so much sincerely for much input and knowledge otherwise I for one would have no hope! Apologies for this being off topic but to make us all smile with my humour included;

My call was simple as they charged me £12 for not making minimum payment and £12 for going over limit. The email I received to my online message was usual 'brush over tactics' so it deserved voice to voice chat. The lady was so nice till I asked her the constituents of the £12 charges. In the end she refused to talk further passing me to her supervisor - this was one of those days I felt 'on form'!

I started to ask her about the charges and she initially stated that the OFT had 'demanded' those charges. I replied that she was totally wrong and in fact the OFT had suggested a maximum of that charge but for terms of compeditiveness they should not all charge the same. She then apologised havig given me false information and decided to refund the minimum payment charge thinking wrongly that I'd go away. The fact that HSBC used to pay B/C within 2 hours has now changed I spotted to 'No guarantee when' so I asked her about this. Charging me £12 for £9.02 seemed rather unfair. As I plodded on I now realised I had the upper hand and all of a sudden she announced that that £12 charge would be refunded. Both chages being refunded 'this time only as a gesture of goodwill' which I also decided to question. I stated that I did not consider this to be 'one time only' and they should advise their customers that the amount left to spend is in fact false because it does not mention interest. This being false gave attempted to make people spend more to attract unfair penalties.I had to smile as further apologies came as we said goodbye.

Michael

 

 

There will be other avenues to follow should the consumer 'lose' this time around The fight would be far from over:)