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

[rdm2006]

Hi Guys,

 

How can MSE state that the recent Supreme Court ruling in the bank charges test case doesn't impact on reclaiming credit card charges. It is precisely the same laws that are used for reclaiming credit card charges that is used for reclaiming bank charges, what's the difference?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

 

Credit card charges were found to be punitive bank charges were not.

[yourbank]

not really, they are punitive but it hasnt been tested in court (could be wrong so happy to be corrected with the case law) The OFT have said they believe them to be penalty charges, and also that they consider they would be found ''highly unfair'' under the UTCCR.

[emandcole]

What is interesting about such charges on CC accounts is that some T&C's state they have the right to apply reasonable charges to your account if you breach certain conditions, the usual etc.

 

Given the fact 'reasonable' is their choice of word that surely invites a challenge resulting in them having to detail how £20 for late payment on your CC is indeed a 'reasonable' sum.

[TheyrCriminals]

Credit card charges were found to be punitive bank charges were not.

 

Do you mean that the charges were found to be penalties under common law? And who found them to be penalties?

 

TheyrCriminals

[pompeyfaith]

Greetings All

 

Ok here is a Defence against Strike Out Application, this is from the Penalty Charges Forum.

 

The POC relating to this he says will be up in a couple of weeks.

 

Anyway not sure if its any good or any use but the link is below.

 

Penalty Charges Forum

 

Regards

 

PF

[rdm2006]

Do you mean that the charges were found to be penalties under common law? And who found them to be penalties?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

 

No they have not been tested in court, (as stated by yourbank above) it was OFT (probably because the creditcard companies couldn't think of a way to describe them as service charges)

[fergal71]

1700 guests 300 caggers..... are they scared of something??????????

[madmuffet]

i cant follow what you brainboxes are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there are too many pages to get lost on

how do we respond to these letters giving us 8 weeks?

[rdm2006]

i cant follow what you brainboxes are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!

there are too many pages to get lost on

how do we respond to these letters giving us 8 weeks?

 

Here is a link to the Govan Law Centre's Letter

[mcuth]

Here's a question...

 

In the High Court, the NatWest 2001-2003 Ts&Cs were found to possibly include penalty charges (BBC NEWS | Business | New NatWest bank charges ruling), and this was never appealed, right?

 

So, I'm helping a mate with a NatWest claim which dates back to then, but I haven't seen a right lot about continuing with the penalty aspect of those historic Ts&Cs. Anyone got any info on that?

 

Obviously he's now received the standard "We won" letter from NatWest (the court claim is still stayed), so am just trying to compose an appropriate reply....

 

Cheers

Michael

Edited January 28, 2010 by mcuth

[kennyh]

Hi mcuth,

I did raise this

So far as the NatWest anomoly is concerned, again whereever possible, do we formulate a fresh claim for the period in question

in #4622 on 20 Jan but never received any advice

[HomerJSimpson]

Here's a question...

 

In the High Court, the NatWest 2001-2003 Ts&Cs were found to possibly include penalty charges (BBC NEWS | Business | New NatWest bank charges ruling), and this was never appealed, right?

 

 

Cheers

Michael

 

 

Also the court action didn't consider basic bank accounts i think. Any difference on basic bank account claims post Supreme Court ruling?

[means2anend]

It's back up there now. no further news though as yet.

 

The QC obviously failed to read OR understand Lord Walker's introduction in the very first line:He was also the first Judge to speak and gave the main judgement.

 

In Paragraph 1

'The member's of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue with which we have to decide in this appeal.But many of the general public (who are understandably taking a close interest in the matter) are not so well aware of it's limited scope.It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the SYSTEM of charging personel current account customers adopted by UK banks is fair'.

 

The word system in my opinion (M2ae's opinion) therefore suggests issues WIDER than just an examination of Reg6(2).This interpretation is strengthened when one entails an analysis of what is said in paragraph 3 and 4 by the same Judge.

 

In Paragraph 3

' The question for the Court is much more limited and more technical.It is whether as a matter of law the fairness of bank charges (NOT THE SYSTEM)

levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts (including unpaid item charges and other related charges as described below) can be challenged by the respondent OFT as excessive in relation to the services supplied to the customers.'

 

Para 4

'That issue depends on the correct interpretation (in it's European context) and application of Regulation 6(2) UTCCR 1999 SI/2083'

 

The QC is taking advantage of the public's limited awareness of the scope of the issue just as Judge Walker mentioned.Either that or the QC is just plain wrong.

 

The SYSTEM is the sum of the elements.Reg 6(2) was just one element that was decided that day.

 

M2ae:D

Edited January 28, 2010 by means2anend

[means2anend]

Oh how they wish it were so...

 

I Agree as per post #4712

 

rgds

 

m2ae

[madmuffet]

thank you rdm2006,

that'll be in the post forthwith.

[battyman]

What do you do if your case is stayed in court but I have another 4 weeks before I need to do anything and the bank (Alliance & Leicester) put a default on your credit file? Is it best to ignore and try and get if off with amended poc? What I am worried about is if there isnt any way of getting the charges back and the banks have been adding charges on this account for over 6 months I will have to pay them back even more money?

[srfrench]

Basically the account is still in dispute therefore the Bank is not allowed to take any action on this account or the amount in question.

 

Just my opinion and hopefully someone a little more knowledgeable will either correct me or confirm then elaborate on what needs doing.

[means2anend]

BATTYMAN I think I misunderstood you and SRFrench.This is a Bank Charges Thread and I have given you information regarding to s78 consumer credit agreement.Pls ignore below if you were talking about BANK CHARGES

In Phillip McGuffick v RBS High Court before Justice Flaux much focus was on the meaning of 'enforcement'

Was 'enforcement' restricted to putting the agreement into dispute only or was it wide enough to cover the activities such as CRA reporting.This question was put on behalf of McGuffick in his defence by his counsel who argued that this amounted to enforcement and therefore the banks must refrain from all enforcement such as CRA reporting including pursuing the monies as well whilst the agreement was in dispute.

 

The Judge CRA reporting did not amount to enforcement and was done merely to promote responsible or to avoid irresponsible lending.

 

So to clarify it is settled law for the time being that whilst an agreement is in default because it is unenforceable.The reporting of the defaulter to CRA's is allowed as it does not 'amount' to enforceability.

 

Rgds

 

m2ae

Edited January 29, 2010 by means2anend
advice given on wrong thread warning inserted in red after advice given

[Ibsys]

What do you do if your case is stayed in court but I have another 4 weeks before I need to do anything and the bank (Alliance & Leicester) put a default on your credit file? Is it best to ignore and try and get if off with amended poc? What I am worried about is if there isnt any way of getting the charges back and the banks have been adding charges on this account for over 6 months I will have to pay them back even more money?

 

I am reliably told that it is an offence for a lender to put a negative entry on a credit reference agengy data base where there is a dispute. If the charges are returned, you can't have a negative entry for something where you won the case and so should be removed. All lenders/banks do it though. You can add a message to the appropriate part of the credit file. Ring Experian up or Equifax and they will tell you how to do this.

[popeye1]

[popeye1]

Please look at the above and let me know what you think ,many thanks

[The Phantom]

Not sure if it is of any use to anybody still pursuing their claim, but I was initially asked to pay £75.- to lift the stay by my local court, but sent them a letter which resulted in the fee for lifting the stay being waived.

I had a few members asking about this letter, so will post it here if anybody thinks they need it or have any use for it:

 

"As the case was stayed neither on application by the defendant nor on application by the claimant, but on the Court’s own initiative due to the High Court Test case between the OFT and seven High Street Banks, it would appear incorrect to now ask the claimant to pay a fee to lift this stay.

There really should be no fee involved for lifting this stay as the High Court case has now been concluded so I wonder whether this fee is likely to be reviewed by the Court

Having taken further legal advice on this matter, it is now likely that I will have to amend my Particulars of Claim, as well

I have informed the Defendant of my intentions and a copy of my letter is attached for the Court’s information

So once I have put together my new POCs I will submit these to the Court together with a request to have the stay set aside and the dispute listed for hearing

Could you please confirm whether the Court will insist on a fee from the claimant to set aside the stay put in place by the court itself "

 

This letter resulted in the fee for lifting the stay being waived and new orders being made for me to submit my new POCS etc

 

So if anybody needs it, feel free to use it or parts of it

[adamc6671]

Hmmmm...interestingly, I haven't heard of any Abbey Claimants getting any letters from Abbey? Has anyone or is this the only Bank that's keeping it's head down?

 

 

I haven't heard from Abbey, but I have had this from the Court, dated 22 January 2010 -

 

 

" Upon it appearing that this claim relates to bank charges, and it is or may be within the categories considered by the Supreme Court . . . . . .

 

It is ordered that

 

1. The claim be further stayed generally;

 

2. Either party may apply to remove the stay on application to the Court. Such an application may be made by way of a letter (accompanied by the appropriate court fee) and copied to the opposing party;

 

3. The application must state:

 

a. By reference to the decision of the Supreme Court the grounds upon which the application to remove the stay are based, and

 

b. Whether, and if so, what attempts have been made to settle the claim;

 

 

4. If no such application to remove the stay is made by 10 February 2010, the claim shall be struck out without further order.

 

This seems to me to be more or less the end of the road for this, and similar, claims!!!!!

 

Has anyone else recieved similar from the Court dealing with their claim? I'd be VERY grateful if anyone has any advice on what to do now.

 

Many thanks.

[srfrench]

Adam PM me and I'll talk you through bud.

[Ibsys]

Adam PM me and I'll talk you through bud.

 

Abbey are to lose their separate identity and being marketed under their parent company banner Santander. Re organisation taking up their time is would suggest.