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

[robnfc]

thats the way im reading it seminole - this was never a decision on what is fair , its simply whether the oft can assess the charges ,although the judge did say "you agreed to the charges" he never actually ruled that these are fair, if you can convince a judge that they are unfair you should still get your money back

[emmasot]

but what can be done though?

[Bookworm]

So the ruling only has the effect of stopping the OFT from making a ruling. It doesn't say anything about fairness and doesn't strike out the Regulations (which are a statutory instrument). Personally I think it means that people can still make claims and have individual county court decisions on whether they're fair or not. If the claims are based on the Regulations rather than the penalties issue, there must still be a reasonable chance of success. Am I missing something here?

So what you're saying is all our claims got put on hold so that we could see if the OFT could assess for fairness.

The courts say no, the OFT can't assess for fairness.

But it doesn't mean the charges are fair.

Which takes us back to the OFT's statement on credit card when they said only the courts could decide what constitutes a fair charge.

So we have to go back individually to the courts for each individual judge to decide on fairness.

So, the last 2+ years have been a giant waste of time??? :-? :-? :-?

[georgieboy]

they all belong to the same club with the dodgy handshake and rolled up trousers.. A kick in the goolies for the working men and women of this country......

[Undercover-Elsa]

The banks were quick enough to get their smug comments on the ruling onto the BBC report, so where is the OFT representative?? Surely they should have had a statement ready for either eventuality.

[charley2212]

Come On You , Lot . Your Are Not Telling Me That Collectively We Have No Positive Answers And Replies For This Outcome , Try And Think Positive Becuase For Every Negative Their Is A Positive

[RGS1]

If your are in small claims court a draft order to reveal to the true cost of a bounce or unauthorised overdraft could help swing things our way.

Cant see them coming up with figures that show it was £25, especially now its dropped to around £5.

[robnfc]

carry on!!! this doesnt really change the facts of what is fair , this shouldnt effect what happens in local courts , just rule out trying to get the oft involved , just because the oft cant rule what is fair it doesnt mean we cant use the law to show that they are unfair in court

[whizzkid001]

OFT disappointed by Supreme Court judgment

 

137/09 25 November 2009

 

The OFT is disappointed by today's Supreme Court judgment, which overturns previous High Court and Court of Appeal rulings that unarranged overdraft charging terms can be assessed in full for fairness. It will also be disappointing for many consumers.

 

The OFT will now consider the detail of this judgment before it makes a decision on whether or not to continue its investigation into unarranged overdraft charging terms. It will also explore with others the implications for consumers and for existing and future legislation and regulation. The OFT expects to make a further announcement in December.

 

The OFT set out its concerns in relation to unarranged overdraft charges as part of its 2008 market study. This found that banks earn around a third of their retail revenues from unarranged overdraft charges that are difficult to understand, not transparent, and not subject to effective consumer control.

 

The OFT will be seeking discussions with banks, consumer organisations, the FSA and the Government in the light of this judgment

[Sammythebest]

I will be starting legal proceeedings today

[hsbcfiddled]

we may as well face facts here we gonna get naff all from um no matter how long this goes on for they cheat there way out of everything they dont care about there cutomers they care about there bonus's. and while they enjoying there selfs at xmas with there nice wage packet we are left with the dept they made for us!

 

I thought today was D-Day but now I am thinking its only Dunkirk!

[BaldyBaldwin]

If your case has been stayed pending the OFT case, how will the courts handle them now?

[BaldyBaldwin]

And following dunkirk we came back and kicked ass

[noomill060]

That is a very good question

[Bigredbus]

Check the following link... Santander launching new current account with no fees, no penalties (for mortgage holders though!)

 

Santander launches new current account that does not charge for going overdrawn | Mail Online

 

Is that the start of a revolution?

[Sammythebest]

If your case has been stayed pending the OFT case, how will the courts handle them now?

 

There is no reason not to handle them as a normal case. I think there is still a british law after 12 years of a communist government, but they cant stop you sueing somebody.

[elsinore]

So what you're saying is all our claims got put on hold so that we could see if the OFT could assess for fairness.

The courts say no, the OFT can't assess for fairness.

But it doesn't mean the charges are fair.

Which takes us back to the OFT's statement on credit card when they said only the courts could decide what constitutes a fair charge.

So we have to go back individually to the courts for each individual judge to decide on fairness.

So, the last 2+ years have been a giant waste of time??? :-? :-? :-?

 

Yup, that's how I read it, Bookie.

 

Els

[PGH7447]

For these reasons I have formed the conclusion that the Relevant Charges are, as

the Banks submit, charges that they require their customers to agree to pay as part of the

price or remuneration for the package of services that they agree to supply in exchange.

 

-------

So does that mean I can charge them for holding ny money, if I am in credit?

[Seminole]

So what you're saying is all our claims got put on hold so that we could see if the OFT could assess for fairness.

The courts say no, the OFT can't assess for fairness.

But it doesn't mean the charges are fair.

Which takes us back to the OFT's statement on credit card when they said only the courts could decide what constitutes a fair charge.

So we have to go back individually to the courts for each individual judge to decide on fairness.

So, the last 2+ years have been a giant waste of time??? :-? :-? :-?

 

Essentially yes, I think.

 

The original test case seems to have had two strands. The first considered whether the charges were penalties. The courts decided (quite inexplicably) that they weren't and the OFT didn't appeal. The second was whether the OFT could exercise their regulatory powers and the Supreme Court has decided that not only that they can't but that the OFT can't appeal to the European court.

 

My take is that everything after the penalties ruling has been a waste of time. The courts can decide whether the charges are penalties and whether they are fair. The penalties approach was dealt a heavy blow by the court ruling but no court has given a definitive ruling on whether they are fair or not. I'm no lawyer but I think that issue remains unresolved and individuals could still pursue claims. We are going to get an answer to this one way or another because I can't see any reason for the stays to remain in place now.

 

Bankfodder will have a view on this but personally I think we should swamp the courts with claims again, swamp the banks and the Financial Ombudsman Service with complaints and bury our MPs in letters.

[noomill060]

The last 2 1/2 years have simply been for the benefit of the Banks.

[PGH7447]

Lady Hale said

 

The banks may not be the most popular institutions in the

country at present, but that does not mean that their methods of charging for retail

banking services are necessarily unfair when viewed as a whole. As a very general

proposition, consumer law in this country aims to give the consumer an informed choice

rather than to protect the consumer from making an unwise choice

 

--------

wow how astute of her

-----------

 

Fortunately, however, that is for Parliament and not for this Court.

 

----------

 

now we are all doomed

[adamski]

opps

[tinytot]

Im more of a reader than a contributor - mainly through lack of detailed knowledge - BUT could one of those more knowledgable Caggers please explain how and why the credit card charges could be deemed unfair yet not the bank charges?

 

PS also watching the Banking Minister (who's she - not heard of her before) saying that the system can't be examined before, only forward. E.g. they're lowering charges going forward, but nothing will be done for the previous extortion

[noomill060]

tinytot- credit card charges are clearly penalties.

[HSBCrusher]

 

Bankfodder will have a view on this but personally I think we should swamp the courts with claims again, swamp the banks and the Financial Ombudsman Service with complaints and bury our MPs in letters.

 

I agree... I think we are back to square 1 on this.

 

Lets wait for the dust settle a bit... I am sure the politicians will have a lot to say on this in the next few hours.