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

[andychurchill]

Does this ruling have any impact on credit card charges?

[adamski]

ii) This means that where the CHARGES ARE EXPLAINED IN CLEAR LANGUAGE, under consumer finance legislation, the level of an unarranged O/D charge can't be challenged to see if its fair or not.

 

Umm I thought the judge said it can't be challenged by the OFT he said nothing about individual customers challenging

[hsbcfiddled]

so that i can be ready for when abbey call me later, i would welcome any advice.....surely they are going to say...well miss.......unfortunately.....

 

 

Dont go through the security check with them- Stall them - like they have us.

[robnfc]

On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court said that the level of unarranged overdraft charges is not assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This means the banks have won their appeal and the test case has concluded.

This is a final judgment from the Supreme Court as they have decided it is not necessary and/or not in the public interest to make any reference to the European Court of Justice.

 

thats crap!!! the judge never said that , he indicated the agrument used by the OFT wasnt the correct part of the UTCCR to use , ie should have used clause 5.

[emmasot]

i just feel really let down here i am fed up of the banks getting things there own way all the time they would be nothing without us the customers so you would think they would really try to help us out not just rip us off and bleed us dry, and what use is the goverment to us they just the same con artists and ripoffs. theres my rant now i gonna go take the bit of money i have out of the bank.

[bgqs]

This sounds very much like an inside job...the Government have bailed out the banks already...they don't want to bail them out again and hence it is easier to put pressure on the House of Lords to hand down judgement in favour of the banks.

 

The whole process is flawed.

 

Looking at this from a macro perspective, we put in a claim to the banks, the banks pay us, the banks show deficit on end of year accounts, this reduces share price, government bails out bank, tax hikes to taxpayer to pay for bail out.

[fergal71]

am I missing something all stayed cases lifted and banks are asking for all cases to be dismissed.... do they know more than us....

 

let the storm die down bolster our defences and attack again... remember this was just one battle in the bigger war...

[robnfc]

hang on that crap that lloyds have put on their website simply says that the charges cannot be assesed for fairness, if the contract was never negotiated then the contract in its whole would be deemed unfair therefore all terms within would be seen as unfair.

[reallymadwoman]

This sounds very much like an inside job...the Government have bailed out the banks already...they don't want to bail them out again and hence it is easier to put pressure on the House of Lords to hand down judgement in favour of the banks.

 

The whole process is flawed.

 

Looking at this from a macro perspective, we put in a claim to the banks, the banks pay us, the banks show deficit on end of year accounts, this reduces share price, government bails out bank, tax hikes to taxpayer to pay for bail out.

 

Whether or not it was reasonable for the Supreme Court to reach the decision they did is entirely irrelevant - the decision is made and unless we want the delay involved in forcing this to Europe, it can't be changed. It is not the end. It merely means we have to find another line of attack.

Rather than ranting about the unfairness of this decision, let's work together to find a way past it. Don't get mad, get even.

[Sol]

This is a terrible day for British justice. The banks appealed twice and they won on the third occasion. Surely we can appeal?

 

I agree with some of the posters about showing the banks that without us, they would have no business in the first place. Rather than everyone taking their cash out of their accounts (which is less likely to have an effect), why don't we try and set up 1 day for each bank, just to show them how fragile they are without us. It would work by saying Lloyds 12th Dec, Barclays 15th Dec and so on. Obviously it would only work if it was made public, but due to the vast number of claims for bank charges, I think a very high number of people would do this.

[MATTYFEZ]

Why can't the OFT take this to Erope despite appeals being barred? after all, the banks did it at the lords...

 

Also, if that does not happen, will county courts be allowed to blanket dismiss cases based on todays ruling?

My case also includes Barclays additions fees which are charges for extra services that I did not ask for, nor agree to - surely they cant just thow the stayed cases out?

[emmasot]

sort of like a strike action? i recon thats a good idea!

[ukaviator]

The full Judgment here:

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV2.pdf

[pecky1]

Yes i am angry but the fight goes on, if a court can decide that there rates are fair then a court can tell me that i will have to pay the grand i owe barclays and why they are not paying the 3 grand they owe me. I am prepared to go to court and fight this one, waiting for the new templetes regarding clause 5 we have to fight on and i hope the OFT will as well.

Oh well wait for the new lot of DCA letters and telephone calls.

Pecky1

[reallymadwoman]

Make sure you've read this announcement:-

 

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum :

[Viano]

For an opinion listen to Paul Lewis's comments on Money Box Live on Radio 4.

 

Basically he said it ain't over yet.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Viano
Added sentence

[ukaviator]

That's right. The first battle is lost, but the war still goes on.

 

The court order from todays hearing :

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_coV2.pdf

[pompeyfaith]

Got a link please viano

[paulwlton]

CAG statement:

 

As we read further into today's judgement it has become clear that the OFT may have used the wrong part of the UTCCR. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used, and this may lead consumers to consider rewording their claims.

 

Clause 5(1) states that "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."

 

Any clause allowing a bank to impose repressive charges, and increase and change those charges at its own discretion would be extremely likely to put the bank in a dominant position - and therefore the term should not be allowed to stand.

 

Obviously the judgement is still being analysed, but it would seem that the fight is most certainly not lost.

 

It has also been confirmed today that the FSA Waiver has also been lifted - more information as we get it.

[adamski]

That's right. The first battle is lost, but the war still goes on.

 

The court order from todays hearing :

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_coV2.pdf

 

Does this order mean that we cannot use UTCCR 1999?

[emandcole]

After my initial disbelief I quickly realised that bankers are the holiest of holy and were never likely to be troubled by matters of legality and morality. It seems they are entitled to act as they see fit and we all have to take it, let's face it, the public will moan but not actually do anything so you kind of can't blame them for taking advantage of us, we let them do it to us.

 

However more importantly, the fight is far from lost, the supreme court ruled in the banks' favour on a technicality and it seems obvious that we simply need to re-word the argument using the knowledge we now have and start the attack once more. We need the OFT to do this, the bankers are simply hoping we'll do the British thing by having a bit of a moan and then go back to our lives letting them do whatever they want again.

 

Clause 5 offers a lot to us and we need to remember that credit card charges, PPI, and mortgage charges are nothing to do with this ruling today and can still be challenged. Quite how the banks would have been allowed to go to the European Courts if they'd lost (again) but now we've lost today we have no such right is beyond me, it smacks of unfairness, cannot be right and is a breach of equality.

 

We need to collectively work together and go again, this time we know more and have the insight of the Supreme Court to help us. It can't be right that banking has to be fair if you're in credit but is not subject to the same rules if you're not in credit. What is there then to stop a bank charging you £1,000,000 because you accidentally went £12.00 over? Fairness? Yeah right. This is far from over and 18 months to get back to a similar position is nothing. Let's support each other, press for further revised action and go from there.

[bornrich]

The court order says 'THAT, the bank charges levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts (including unpaid item charges and other related charges).

 

So it's the whole lot not just overdraft charges!

[reallymadwoman]

I believe that charges can still be challenged under regulation 5.

 

I also believe it may be possible to challenge them as irresponsible lending and indirectly discriminatory.

 

Explanations here:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/234732-where-next-bank-charge.html

[bgqs]

Hahahaha...check this. I just tried to open a petition to get the Prime Minister to overturn the decision...this is the response I got:

 

Hi,

 

I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.

 

Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:

 

* Outside the remit or powers of the Prime Minister and

Government

 

Further information: The Courts are independent of Government

 

You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your

petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.

 

Your petition reads:

 

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'Overturn

the Supreme Court's Judgement supporting High Street Bank's

Excessive "Penalty Charges"'

 

We would request that the Prime Minister and his Government

overturn the Supreme Court's Judgement regarding the lawfulness

of Bank Charges.

 

There are over one million bank charges claims currently

stayed. There is over £2.3 billion pounds of value claimed.

 

The Prime Minister needs to look into this and fully consider

the implications of the Judgement handed down by the House of

Lords.

 

-- the ePetitions team

What a load of boolocks !

[robnfc]

This does not accurately describe the issue raised by this appeal, which is very much

more narrow. That issue is whether the Relevant Charges constitute “the price or

remuneration, as against the services supplied in exchange” within the meaning of the

Regulation. If they do not, the attack on the fairness of the terms that is open to the OFT

will not be circumscribed by Regulation 6(2)(b). If they do, they will still be open to

attack by the OFT on the ground that they are “unfair” as defined by Regulation 5(1), but

that attack cannot be founded on an allegation that the Relevant Charges are excessive by

comparison with the services which they purchase, for that is forbidden by Regulation

6(2)(b).

 

ok so we challenge the charges be saying they are unfair , but we cant use the argument that they are unfair because they are excessive , so we challenge the fact that they are unfair because

 

"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.”

 

think thats right