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

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Bookworm,This might sound strange but I have done a search but I cant locate him!! My browser is also playing up and my posts are posting a bit squashed! Could you message me with his details.Thank you.TheyrCriminals

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,Can someone tell me please what has happened to cidb. There also used to be a chatroom link from CAG but it appears to no longer be online. Does anybody know if the site has ceased working.Thanks.TheyrCriminals

Edited January 5, 2009 by TheyrCriminals

[yourbank]

YouComment Chat Room

That is the link you wanted. Just went into the chatroom

[yourbank]

Looks like it is part of Blueskies new forum. Coolio.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Just to let you know that my documentary research on bank charges and their impact on people's lives and the possible link between bank charges and suicide has now been moved to:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/effects-debt-health-lifestyle/176267-theyrcriminals-what-effect-has.html?highlight=TheyrCriminals

 

If any of you have stories of how these charges have affected your quality of life and any effects on your health I would like to hear from you.

 

TheyrCriminals

[SPROUTY]

COMMERCIAL COURT LIST

 

COURT 76

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Wednesday 21 January 2009

At 10:00

FOR JUDGMENT

2007-1186 Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC

 

I believe this to be the announcement re NatWests charges being able to be tested as a penalty.

 

STAND BY FOR THE FIREWORKS IF THEY DONT GET IT!

[SPROUTY]

FOUND THIS ON robertson-holbrook site

 

20 JANUARY 2009 16:00

 

Judge Andrew smith today announced his findings on the Bank's historic terms & conditions (T&Cs) in the matter of the high Court Test Case.

 

Although he was happy to give the majority of the banks pronouncemet they had requested on the ability of charges to be tested as a penalty NatWest failed to obtain the all encompassing statement they had hoped for and the Judge stated that he was not prepared to make any such statement regarding the NatWest T&Cs from 2001 but was prepared to make a declarationon July 2003 leaflet and T&C 2004.

 

This is a small piece of a big puzzle but to bank charge claimants it is gold dust.

 

More here later.

[Michael Browne]

Full judgement here:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/bank-charge-judgment3.pdf

[car2403]

The FSA waiver on complaints expires on 26th January

[thelightbrigade]

So what is the current situation? I had my Barclays case stayed ages ago, are we any closer to a resolution? could do with the cash!!

[noomill060]

we all could!

 

hang fire- this aint gonna be sorted till next year.

[Stornoway]

Noomill

 

I was kinda hoping for a resolution by the autumn - what makes you think it will be next year ?

 

Also can anyone tel me what comes next - it all seems to have gone very quiet.

 

Thanks

[InformedSearcher]

The FSA waiver on complaints expires on 26th January

 

 

LOL .... should we poor ones take side bets on if it'll be extended again? Maybe not eh?

Michael

[noomill060]

This will go to the House of Lords, no matter who wins.

 

Thats going to take many more months to sort out.

[Chromatix]

I've read the judgement very carefully just now. Since it is only ten pages, that was fortunately not too difficult!

 

The decision actually hinges upon whether or not the "leaflets" containing "terms and conditions" actually form part of the contract between the bank and the customer. In most cases they did not.

 

In which case, where *are* the contractual terms to which the customer and bank are subject in their business relationship? I don't seem to have been given any.

 

In the two cases where the decision was that the terms in the leaflet *did* apply to the contract, the precise terms considered in one of them was inappropriately specific. This is the OFT's fault - Mr. Justice Smith is not able to "show initiative" in this kind of case.

 

As such, he has not actually answered any substantive questions as far as we consumers are concerned. Instead, he has raised new questions. However, these new questions may turn out to be useful.

 

Here's a new avenue to consider: Ask the bank to clarify which *contractual* terms apply to the account, and to point out under which of them it was entitled to charge the fees.

[barry_2008]

The banks would say anything that relates to a charge is a fee for a service and our charges are clearly displayed in our leaflets. At least thats what abbey lloyds hsbc and northern rock are cean to point out.

[barry_2008]

what constitutes as a term ive done this before a judge nd he said wait until blah de blah

[Chromatix]

The banks would say anything that relates to a charge is a fee for a service and our charges are clearly displayed in our leaflets. At least thats what abbey lloyds hsbc and northern rock are cean to point out.

 

Yes, that is what they have been doing in the past. But Mr. Justice Smith has now given us a very big lever to suggest that the leaflets are not, in fact, sufficient to show that a contractual obligation exists.

 

By levying these charges, the banks are, by default, asserting that they have a contractual right to do so. What I'm suggesting is that we make them prove that contractual right by showing us the terms.

[barry_2008]

the banks say they have a right under the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed an aplication when you opened an account.

 

try asking them for a copy of the aplication form.

[barry_2008]

Firstly i'd like to say La illah illa-Allah

 

This judge has done a good thing by replying to every term which means each and every tocs hae to be commented on seperatley.

 

He answerd the issue of common law however it raises a question who is in breach us or them?

 

Them with there QC's? or us with our web interface? and N1 Forms

 

The judge has ruled yet there are asnwers I asked the test case did not cover.

 

 

[SPROUTY]

Just Heard

 

FSA WAIVER EXTENDED ANOTHER 6 MONTHS

[Fred_Funk]

Guys

 

I'm completely flummoxed now and, with that in mind, would be really grateful if someone with a better grasp than me of exactly what this latest judgement means in laymen's terms.

 

My understanding is that the judge has ruled most of the banks' terms and conditions - with the exception of NatWest's pre-2003 - preclude their charges from being looked upon as penalties. That being the case, this means most claims will now be reliant on the UTCCR argument, on which we await a further ruling, if they are to succeed.

 

Am I right so far... yes/no/to an extent?

 

Assuming I am, then where does that leave, for instance, a NatWest claim where all the charges are pre 2003 (assuming, that is, the Statute of Limitations doesn't apply because the claimant has only recently become aware that the charges were unlawful)? Does it mean that any such claim is now assured of success or is it, as I fear, a whole lot more complicated than that? And, if so, how?

 

And finally, for all those claims that are now, apparently, dependent on the UTCCR argument, what's the state of play, ie when can we expect a ruling from the judge, on this?!

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[millie cat]

Waiver extended

 

 

FSA extends waiver to firms on complaints handling

 

 

 

FSA/PN/014/2009

22 January 2009

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today extended its waiver from complaints handling rules regarding unauthorised overdraft charges, for up to six months. This is because the test case is ongoing, and it is not yet clear how the banks should be responding to complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges so that customers are treated consistently and fairly.

The waiver was due to expire on January 26. The extension has been offered to those firms who signed up to the July 2008 waiver. This represents approximately 98% of the market.

Whilst the waiver is in place, signatories will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges within the time limits set out in the Dispute Resolution manual.

Dan Waters, director of Retail Policy and Conduct Risk at the FSA, said:

"Our objectives continue to be certainty over this complex issue, and a fair and consistent resolution of consumer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges.

"The FSA has reviewed the prevailing circumstances and has decided to offer firms an extension to the waiver, to run for up to six months."

The FSA can revoke the waiver at any time if it considers a waiver is no longer appropriate, for example, if it no longer provides adequate consumer protection, or material progress is not being made in the test case, or a firm fails to comply with the conditions set out in the waiver.

The FSA first granted a waiver for 12 months from its complaints handling rules regarding unauthorised overdraft charges in July 2007. This was followed by a new waiver with a duration of six months in July 2008.

The waiver means that while it is in operation, any bank or building society granted the waiver will not be required to handle this type of complaint within the time limits set out in the FSA rules. The county courts have 'stayed' cases referred to them and the Financial Ombudsman Service has adopted a similar approach.

Back to top

Notes to editors

1. The waivers are available on the FSA website.
   
2. The waiver has been extended for up to six months. This is because the test case is ongoing and it is not yet clear how the banks should be responding to complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges so that customers are treated consistently and fairly.
   
3. The test case began in July 2007. There are two stages. The first explores the preliminary issues of banks’ terms and conditions and whether they are subject to Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and whether they are capable of being penalties at common law. Stage two will deal with whether the terms are actually unfair and are actually penalties at common law.
   
4. On current terms and conditions, the High Court decided that the current terms and conditions could be assessed for fairness under the Regulations; were not capable of being penalties at common law; and were in, or largely in, plain intelligible language.
   
5. The banks appealed the High Court’s decision that current terms and conditions can be assessed for fairness. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal from 28 October to 5 November 2008. The Court of Appeal’s judgment has yet to be handed down.
   
6. For more detail follow the link for Moneymadeclear.
   
7. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime.
   
8. The FSA aims to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets, help retail consumers achieve a fair deal and improve its business capability and effectiveness.
   
9. Posted by Amethyst on LB site
   

[InformedSearcher]

Just Heard

 

FSA WAIVER EXTENDED ANOTHER 6 MONTHS

 

 

Personally I'm yet to be shown that the financial institutions (albeit debt ridden and unprofessional) are not in cahoots with the FSA. There again I realise that courts operate on budgets and are simply not geared up to dealing with 'Penalty Charge' cases to the volume they began to experience.

 

I also keep feeling that glimmer of a successful outcome for consumers after hearing that little known case I believe in Nottingham just prior to the FSA desperate actions. I recall sitting in the car hearing a bit swiftly on the new where around 150 people were to appear against I'm not sure who. All of a sudden solicitors for the said FI's appeared and started to write cheques out to these people. Anyone else know or recall this?

 

To me, again personally I feel that all this is pure 'delaying' tactics entirely. I also believe that you'll be fobbed off with, if successful for the consumer, a lower limit that the 6 years (plus extra as 6 years plus since for those who claimed in the past) for a reflection period. I'd not be surprised if they allowed only a percentage too.

 

Oh, I'd like to share with everyone my failed hardship case with HSBC. They said because I spent cash (from some income in November) that 'You had the money but spent it', as their answer to a refusal. However now being almost £1k o/d with no agreement they have left me with some helpline number to call.

 

Just my views on what is appearing to be a sad case all in all.

 

Michael

[citizenB]

the banks say they have a right under the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed an aplication when you opened an account.

 

try asking them for a copy of the aplication form.

 

Hah, I did.. apparently they have "misfiled" it. !!.

 

I guess it was inevitable the waiver would be extended.