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

[tumble]

OK, thanks but if thats the case why have business accounts been stayed ?

 

Tumble

[tumble]

Im getting really confused now

[photoman]

OK, thanks but if thats the case why have business accounts been stayed ?

 

Tumble

 

 

Business claims (which were not reliant upon the UTCCR) should never have been stayed, as they evidently will not be influenced by the case, and so should not have been subject to the waiver.

However some Business cases were mistakenly stayed.

In such circumstances many business claimants then appealed against this, and successfully got the stays lifted (and often claims settled).

If you are a business claimant and have had a stay imposed, then there are some template letters and advise on the thread in my signature which hopefully should help in achieving this.

[Realist]

READ THE FINDINGS

 

Bank charges judgement [536KB]

 

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Download the reader here

 

Regards

[photoman]

See this and surrounding post:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1339567.html

[Realist]

Question:

 

Now the case has been won and some people like myself have been threatened to close my account if I claim again. Can the banks now do this! close an account if I claim again for more charges?

 

Regards and a great win indeed.

 

Shame I didnt claim from Abbey National whom from 1999 owe me £14,000 in charged.

[midge61]

this is from the BBA website announcement

 

The Banks are pleased that the Court has agreed that their current charges are not unenforceable penalties. The Banks believe that the same analysis will apply to charges under their historic terms.

In relation to the UTCCRs, the Court has emphasised in the judgment that the question of whether the Banks' charges satisfy the fairness requirement of the UTCCRs has not been determined by the Court. That is a question that can only ultimately be decided by the Court and not, for example, by the OFT.

 

It would seem that they won't accept capping by the OFT or have I read it wrong?

[photoman]

Question:

 

Now the case has been won and some people like myself have been threatened to close my account if I claim again. Can the banks now do this! close an account if I claim again for more charges?

 

Regards and a great win indeed.

 

Shame I didnt claim from Abbey National whom from 1999 owe me £14,000 in charged.

 

1/ The case has not yet been won. This ruling just paves the way to give the OFT the power to investigate matters and take further actions.

2/ Yes, they probably will try to close your account. But you could either try to take a further action or doing so, based upon the contention that their actions are retaliatory. But in all honesty, why bother, why stick with a bank that treats you in such a way? look into opening another account elsewhere.

3/ What's stopping you claiming against Abbey for the £14k ? Get you claim in now, so that it's in the system. If your concerned about it being prior to 6 years, then many claimants have already successfully claimed much further back (I myself got over 13 years worth). Do a site search for threads and info on the Statute of Limitations and especially section 32.

[Sparklez30]

Well I'm lost. Been plowing my way through the judgement and it looks like bad news not good news!

 

Are we not all claiming on the basis they are a penalty charge and therefore have to be at cost?

[mailmannz]

You can still argue that the charges bear no relationship to your infringment.

 

buried away in the ruling is a nice little fact that the banks have made around £3bil profits from a mere £.6bil of debt!

 

Mailman

[Sparklez30]

but doesnt it imply there is no infringement?

[pugsley]

Don't really know why the judge had to talk about the charges not being penalties now according to the terms which are now easier to understand, and not go into detail about historical terms being penalties and not easy to understand, seems like a job half done.

[Bookworm]

The Banks are pleased that the Court has agreed that their current charges are not unenforceable penalties. The Banks believe that the same analysis will apply to charges under their historic terms.

I'm sure they believe that, or rather that they are mightily relieved the judge fell for that one, but thankfully, what they believe or choose to believe is not necessarily what a judge would believe and therefore, nothing changed for charges pre-changes to T&Cs, except the bank will do its upmost to convince you that it applies.

 

In relation to the UTCCRs, the Court has emphasised in the judgment that the question of whether the Banks' charges satisfy the fairness requirement of the UTCCRs has not been determined by the Court. That is a question that can only ultimately be decided by the Court and not, for example, by the OFT.

Well, that's one way of spinning it. Of course, the OFT have never said that, nor that it could determine what would be a fair amount, and have always said that ultimately, it would be a court's decision.

 

It would seem that they won't accept capping by the OFT or have I read it wrong?

Maybe they will, maybe they won't... When the OFT set an intervention threshold for credit card charges (NOT a cap, although it ended beign a de facto cap, of course), they said the same, they all would appeal, they were being hard done by, oh, woe is us, we'll starve to death, so unfair, bla-di-bla... and then complied. Unless the OFT sets their intervention threshold at a - for us realistic, for the bank unconscionable - low level, it is likely they will knuckle down and will try to recoup their lost profits elsewhere.

[JonCris]

If you either bank with Lloyds or have a basic account with any bank the 1st of which clearly states their charges are a penalty & the 2nd of which states there is no overdraft facility then those charges may be recoverable without further ado

[JonCris]

BW where you bin girl?

 

The banks have already introduced many new charges to compensate for any loss of penalty charges:mad:

[UK26]

Maybe they will Charge you for withdrawing money out of your account, Paying money in (£0.70p per £100)

 

£0.50p for a direct Debt / Standing Order and £0.38 for using your debt card (Per item charge)

 

I noticed this has already happend to me with Natwest

[giantsf49er]

if the banks decide to charge a monthly fee so no longer free banking.

i will just close my account which will be about £50k real soon when i sell my home.

 

and put it all on my pre-paid credit car. it works like a bank there are no interest charges to be paid, just a one of monthly fee of £4.95 for using the service.

 

ok the money is still going to a finacial company. but it wont be the bank that ripped me off with its unlawful bank charges. they wont get zip.

 

plus no credit checks anyone can have one of the pre-paid credit cards. as long as you meet the requiremnets of proving you are who you say you are.

 

or just keep my money in my pocket and forget banks for ever more.

 

The only problem with this is that you cant set up direct debits or standing orders from prepaid cards, and getting cash from an ATM has a seperate charge associated with it. And with companies like Virgin Media charging an extra £5 per month for non-direct debit accounts things can start to get pretty expensive.

[giantsf49er]

Maybe they will Charge you for withdrawing money out of your account, Paying money in (£0.70p per £100)

 

£0.50p for a direct Debt / Standing Order and £0.38 for using your debt card (Per item charge)

 

I noticed this has already happend to me with NatWest

 

What type of account do you have? I have a basic step account with them and we arent getting charged per transaction.

[adamc6671]

You can still argue that the charges bear no relationship to your infringment.

 

buried away in the ruling is a nice little fact that the banks have made around £3bil profits from a mere £.6bil of debt!

 

Mailman

 

 

Hi mailmannz

 

If your figures are right, surely thats all the evidence we'll ever need that the banks have indeed being applying unfair terms to their contracts with consumers!

 

If the OFT now rule that the UTCCRs DO apply, we are surely home and dry as no Barrister could surely argue that £3 billion profit from £0.6 billion of debt (a return of 500%) is in any way fair.

 

All the best - Adam

[Bookworm]

BW where you bin girl?

 

The banks have already introduced many new charges to compensate for any loss of penalty charges:mad:

 

Maybe they will Charge you for withdrawing money out of your account, Paying money in (£0.70p per £100)

 

£0.50p for a direct Debt / Standing Order and £0.38 for using your debt card (Per item charge)

 

I noticed this has already happend to me with NatWest

That's the kind of thing I meant, JC, not the new fangled system, which let's face it, we must hope the OFT is going to stamp on with hobnailed boots once this is over. You tease.

[star_scream]

I think the Judge has already given them a route to go down for the future. I think this will be the end of penalty charges as we know it. ( Maybe?)

 

S395 of the judgement

1. If they had decided, for example, upon a structure of charges whereby there was a fee for each transaction or a periodic fee for operating a current account regardless of the number of transactions during the period, the fees would surely be by way of "the price or remuneration" for "services supplied in exchange" and Regulation 6(2)would preclude any assessment of the fairness of a term reflecting their "adequacy"

Prepare for new T&C's!!!!

[tumble]

Thanks photoman, just rang Cobbetts , re - business account, said they did nt realise that it was a business account and are writing to the court to have the stay lifted and requested I do the same. Cant believe I did not pick up on the fact that business accounts were being treated separately. This was stayed last October !!!!!!!!!!!! what a dope:o

[jclancy]

The judgment and case is clearly (as the bankers association says) about the banks' PRESENT terms and conditions.

 

Do you notice that they call them their 'current' terms. That is deliberately to spook customers into thinking that their 'current account' charges are in the clear. Typical.

 

With respect to stays - if cases are on old terms and conditions (which almost all are) then these outstanding cases have very little to do with the OFT Case and they should be decided on a case-by-case basis until a precedent is set for each set of terms. Which would put us back in the same position as before.

 

Lloyds are in trouble because they have called them penalty charges.

 

I say the OFT/FSA /HMRC arrange for a lift of all stays. If the banks didn't have the guts to put their historical terms and conditions before the court - another court should decide.

 

It's upto the OFT to have their investigation and then report on the fairness or not: that's not a court matter.

 

I say people should apply to the court to lift stays immediately.

[tumble]

Most Definatley !

[veester]

Sorry - i've read all of todays posts and am abit confused!

 

The OFT ruling means that potentially

 

A) £25 bounced check charges

B) £20 unauthorised OD bank charges

 

are unfair...

so??

 

Sorry if i am being a bit dim...

 

Though i joined this group late - WELL DONE!