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

[elsinore]

That's what I have been saying for 3 yrs.

 

But then who would subsidise the "always in credit" crowd?

.

 

Don't worry Bookie, they'll think of something. Their ingenuity for charge invention knows no bounds.

 

Turnstiles! Swipe your card and, as your account is debited, you're allowed into the bank.

 

Els

[InformedSearcher]

'kennyh' - hehe I thought someone would say what you said.

 

Well they charge me (or used to) £25 for the honour of the letters 'DR' by the £4 and I called then. They removed the £25 charge - Okay once only but they did it. Now if set in stone they'd never do that. The fact that pre 2007 they refunded bank charges forgetting the words 'goodwill' (that word used a bit too often for nothing) means they relented on strict T&C's does it not? So it goes on. I'm sure in certain current accounts probably in the 'private' area they have many T&C's adjusted too.

 

Michael

[Desperate Daniella]

Before the Barclays Reserve came in if I went overdrawn for a day for a few pounds I had only to ring and the manager I had then would hit a button and I wouldn't get a charge.

 

The problem is I NEED the Barclays Reserve, but according to them, whenever I ring up because for one day I have been, for example, £2.36 overdrawn the horrible people they have there now just say that is what I agreed to.

 

It actually isn't. I got a letter telling me I had a Barclays Reserve Account.

 

For years I knew about five of the managers in the business group. I had only to phone one of them and say funds were due in, whatever, and they would allow any payments to go through. I never lied about it - if I said the money would arrive it did. ALL OF THOSE MANAGERS AT BARCLAYS WHO WERE THERE FOR YEARS HAVE LEFT.

 

Last year I challenged three Barclays credit card agreements (two of which they had inherited). So now I can have a reserve which allows me up to £250 which can cost me £22 a week, but I have been told I cannot have a £250 overdraft.

 

DDx

[Aequitas]

Earlier by Aequitas

Certainly if that's how they are advertising it.

 

Individually negotiated as per UTCCR - don't think so

Never mind 'devil's advocate' are you related to AK?

 

But are (or more pertinently, were) banks advertising free banking?

 

There is no doubt that the terms for personal current accounts are not individually negotiated. I was not suggesting that if only a few people sign a form of contract that it is on that account individually negotiated.

 

Who is AK?

[Aequitas]

If you book into a hotel and the room you take is advertised at £750 per night, do you think that in the morning when you check out you should be allowed to pay less on the grounds that £750 per night is a rip off?

 

If you buy a jacket in a shop in St James's for £500 and then see the same jacket on sale in a shop in Oxford Street for £150 do you think you should be allowed to go back to the shop in St James's and get your money back on the grounds that you were ripped off?

 

If you sign a contract with a bank that says that if you conduct a transaction that takes you into the red you must pay a fee of £30 do you think you should be able to get the charge refunded on the grounds that you are being ripped off?

 

If your answer to the first two questions is “no”, but your answer to the last is “yes”, can you explain why?

 

My view is that in all three transactions you are being ripped off, but there is no qualitative difference between them that justifies objecting to one, but not the others.

[hacksaw]

"Consideration [for a contract] must be valuable and sufficient but need not be adequate" from one of my law books. Aequitas has a point.

[royboy68]

All this about negotiated contracts or T&Cs is what baffles me. I opened my account in the early 70s when there were no charges. In the early 90s when I got made redundant then got divorced I hit some financial trouble. After a meeting with my bank manager we agreed that they would control my wages from my new job and allow me a certain amount a week to live on. I was given a personal banker to sort it every week. The cost of this was absolutely nothing. Around the mid to late 90s was when they started to impose new T&Cs on me firstly with a small charge for going overdrawn. Now at this point I had the option to move banks but for some reason all the banks had started doing it. Slowly over the following years the charges started to creep up with imposed revised T&Cs until they hit the all time high a few years ago.

If my original contract/T&Cs did not specify anything like this then where is this negotiated reasoning coming from.

[Desperate Daniella]

I agree with you, Aequitas. My issue is this sudden move to a "Reserve" account with charges of £22 a week. If I had opted out when it came in I would never have incurred all the charges. Because I have cash problems I keep using it and it can cost up to £88 for four weeks, but if I don't use it I incur other charges from other people.

 

Actually I think I am going to take this up with the OFT.

 

This is exactly the kind of thing we all need to protest about and we are starting a list for the new year.

 

Yet Another Suicide through Debt. We're going to fight back NOW!!!

[InformedSearcher]

If you book into a hotel and the room you take is advertised at £750 per night, do you think that in the morning when you check out you should be allowed to pay less on the grounds that £750 per night is a rip off?

 

If you buy a jacket in a shop in St James's for £500 and then see the same jacket on sale in a shop in Oxford Street for £150 do you think you should be allowed to go back to the shop in St James's and get your money back on the grounds that you were ripped off?

 

If you sign a contract with a bank that says that if you conduct a transaction that takes you into the red you must pay a fee of £30 do you think you should be able to get the charge refunded on the grounds that you are being ripped off?

 

If your answer to the first two questions is “no”, but your answer to the last is “yes”, can you explain why?

 

My view is that in all three transactions you are being ripped off, but there is no qualitative difference between them that justifies objecting to one, but not the others.

 

 

Hmm, I'm none too sure about #1. I'd have pre booked the hotel and probably pre paid too to get a discount. Oh, my days staying in hotels have now gone! LOL Phew £750 a night, I was more thinking £75.

 

#2 is an informed 'choice' is it not? I would either 'shop around' for my 'single' purchase and if needed to, looked elsewhere and made a valued decision.

 

#3 is vastly different in every respect is it not? We are not entering into a single night at a hotel, a one off purchase but instead a service long term. We must at some time have to re-negotiate or occasionally be able to have exclusions or agreements from them.

 

Good job we all have different perpectives on things I guess!

 

Michael

[caro]

Also, just been informed by the Leeds Mercantile Courts that my claim hasn't been struck out and is in front of the Judge for re-listing on the 26th January 2010.

 

Have the court confirmed that it won't be struck out? This is very interesting. Leeds Mercantile has long been my favourite court.:grin:

[caro]

That's what I have been saying for 3 yrs.

 

But then who would subsidise the "always in credit" crowd?

 

Whatever money is saved from bonuses should cover it. If RBS give up their £1.6 billion that would be a start, and if the others banks followed suit then problem solved.

[Bookworm]

If you book into a hotel and the room you take is advertised at £750 per night, do you think that in the morning when you check out you should be allowed to pay less on the grounds that £750 per night is a rip off?

What if when I turn up at the hotel, they say "sorry, you're not coming in, but we are still going to charge you the £750"?

If you buy a jacket in a shop in St James's for £500 and then see the same jacket on sale in a shop in Oxford Street for £150 do you think you should be allowed to go back to the shop in St James's and get your money back on the grounds that you were ripped off?

Bad example, or maybe very good one. You ARE protected by law and you CAN return goods which have a problem with them. You can't return them because you have changed your mind or found them cheaper elsewhere.... Ah, but MOST shops have a policy where they will either match prices or allow you to return the goods for whatever reason on top of your statutory rights. Why? Because the know that if they don't, people will vote with their feet and never come back somewhere which is that intransigeant when there are plenty of other shops which will accomodate THEM, the consumer. Only in the banking sector do we find that inflexibility and reasoning that whether the customer is happy or unhappy makes no odds to them. They work on the principle that we need them more than they need us (there's imbalance for you) and that no matter how unhappy we are, even if we go elsewhere, we'll get the same treatment so in the end, very few people move.

If you sign a contract with a bank that says that if you conduct a transaction that takes you into the red you must pay a fee of £30 do you think you should be able to get the charge refunded on the grounds that you are being ripped off?

Again, depends on the "transaction". Are you saying that it is acceptable for the bank to refuse to pay the transaction, thereby not talking you into the red, then charge you a fee of £30+, which then takes you in the red? Is it acceptable for them to then charge you another fee because thanks to them you are now in the red?

My view is that in all three transactions you are being ripped off, but there is no qualitative difference between them that justifies objecting to one, but not the others.

See above.

[GuidoT]

You cannot really compare bank charges to anything else.

 

The banks are in a unique position in that most of us have to deposit our money there, the banks basically have unfettered access and first call on our money. This is exploited by the banks.

 

There is not real competition, the banks are all as bad as each other too, so there is no real choice.

 

They will pilfer from your account and you have the difficult process of trying to get your own money back from them if you consider they should not have taken.

 

Not sure where that came from, but thought it was about time I posted something here.

[kennyh]

Basically IF we signed up to an account which demands £30 for a transgression then, until recent years, we can (and should) argue that we resided in the belief that the bank operated with total integrity and that (£30) was how much it cost them as a 'liquidated loss' or whatever.

Since it has been shown that their costs are probably well below £3 then there MUST be a mechanism that will give us redress.

I doubt that there is a member of the forum which doesn't believe that a recompense figure to cover banks costs is justified - it really is a question of degree.

Incidentally I don't recall giving agreement for the bank to add insult to injury by charging a further 25-30% in interest ON the 'penalty', 'fee' or whatever. Does us USUROUS spring to the lips?

[barry_2008]

A charge in my view is acceptable per say. However a charge for £0.01 is totally not. please understand my point of view.

 

I am a can't pay won't pay customer.

[locutus]

A charge in my view is acceptable per say. However a charge for £0.01 is totally not. please understand my point of view.

 

I am a can't pay won't pay customer.

I don't think you get into this situation if you are just a "won't pay" customer. The reason I think the system is inherently unfair is that those hit hardest are those struggling most! If you get £5000 per week spare cash and accidentally overspend one week and incur a £35 charge, 1 it doesn't matter to you that much, and 2 if you don't like it you'll manage your finances better! When you live on the breadline with income and expenditure being equal, a charge just snowballs out of control and takes a long long time to recover from!

[srfrench]

Correct CARO....I've been told it won't be struck out.

 

I have a section in my POC's that refers to REG 5.

 

Anyone's guess or maybe, just maybe, the Court have a view of REG 5 following the SCoJ judgement?

[barry_2008]

When there are laws that get you out of contracts for nothing. Why pay money when you can give it to you're family.

[srfrench]

THis is one, more to the Mods than us mere mortals,....but can any site mods let the site know when approximately the new POC's that are being drafted by Ray Cox QC will be available?

 

Thanks

[yourbank]

MSE have quoted that they may be available by the end of the week or early next week.

[srfrench]

Thanks YB.....I can't stress how we are all chomping at the bit here through the kindness of the various site admins and the Govan Law Centre.

 

The OFT does not have the power to intervene in individual disputes between consumers and businesses, rather, it is the OFT's duty to consider any complaint that a consumer contract term is unfair and, if appropriate, apply for an injunction from the court to prevent the continued use of that, or a similar, term.

 

In July 2008, the OFT published a market study into the state of the personal current account market. It established a complete picture of the market. It found that personal current accounts in the UK have many positive features:

• high levels of customer satisfaction

• many day-to-day services don't incur a charge, and

• internet and telephone banking makes it easier to manage.

However it identified a number of concerns which the OFT believed needed addressing:

• low levels of transparency over unarranged overdraft charges and costs, coupled with a high proportion of banks' total revenues made on unarranged overdraft charges and costs

• the complexity of the charges makes it harder for consumers to control the costs they incur and some pay significant amounts (a significant group of consumers underestimate the level and

frequency of banks' charges, and 1.4 million consumers paid over £500 in charges), and

• a general perception among consumers, not completely unfounded, that switching is complex and risky, contributing to low levels of switching between banks.

 

The OFT continues to have concerns about unarranged overdraft charges. The OFT will therefore be seeking discussions with banks, consumer organisations, the FSA and the Government in light of the Supreme Court judgment.

Edited December 9, 2009 by srfrench
Bad Formatting

[ncf355]

What if when I turn up at the hotel, they say "sorry, you're not coming in, but we are still going to charge you the £750"? Bad example, or maybe very good one. You ARE protected by law and you CAN return goods which have a problem with them. You can't return them because you have changed your mind or found them cheaper elsewhere.... Ah, but MOST shops have a policy where they will either match prices or allow you to return the goods for whatever reason on top of your statutory rights. Why? Because the know that if they don't, people will vote with their feet and never come back somewhere which is that intransigeant when there are plenty of other shops which will accomodate THEM, the consumer. Only in the banking sector do we find that inflexibility and reasoning that whether the customer is happy or unhappy makes no odds to them. They work on the principle that we need them more than they need us (there's imbalance for you) and that no matter how unhappy we are, even if we go elsewhere, we'll get the same treatment so in the end, very few people move. Again, depends on the "transaction". Are you saying that it is acceptable for the bank to refuse to pay the transaction, thereby not talking you into the red, then charge you a fee of £30+, which then takes you in the red? Is it acceptable for them to then charge you another fee because thanks to them you are now in the red?

See above.

 

 

 

 

Excellent!

 

Some very good points well made Booky

 

[srfrench]

JUst gleaned from the Legal seagulls site...... (hope they don't mind reproduction?)

 

Earlier this week the OFT invited consumer campaigning groups to meet with them to discuss the ongoing UTCCR and Market Study investigations into the banks charging structures and fairness. Budgie and EXC from google attended the meeting this afternoon with the people from the OFT who are running the investigations.

 

Despite hoping for an announcement early in December, due to the complex issues involved a decision is not now expected until near, or beyond, Christmas. Although it will be as soon as possible. We are seeking clarity from the courts of the claims that are stayed and whether these can be held until such an announcement is made.

 

The OFT's counsel are working hard on progressing the arguments under regulation 5(1). There is a concern that it will be difficult to litigate on fairness of structure, good faith or cross subsidy under 5(1) without touching on the adequacy of price which has been ruled out by the Supreme Court under regulation 6(2).

 

Depending on counsels opinion, there is a possiblity of referring directly to the UTCCR greylist from EU directives and taking the case on consumers failing to fulfill an obligation under the contract to keep the account in credit or within an agreed limit. This would however need to go through the high court and be referred to the ECJ, so again would take a long time.

 

The OFT are committed to resolving the issues as quickly as possible and to achieveing certainty and clarity for consumers, but they have to get it right, and if that takes a little longer at this stage then we are behind them 100%.

 

We will be opening some discussions on the varying possible outcomes, which are just theoretical. The OFT would like to understand how consumer groups would react to them not taking any further action in litigation and what we would expect to happen, also what would we like to see happen should the OFT continue litigation.

 

Of course the litigation primarily affects historical charging and thus refunds. It shouldn't affect hardship cases, or the work the OFT and FSA and consumer groups are putting into the future of banking and the PCA market and making it fairer and more transparent for everyone.

 

We also have been asked to update our response to the Personal Current Account market study report consultation ( ~~~~~seagulls formal response to OFT PCA Market Study Consultation Nov 2008~~~~~~ - Legal seagulls ) to take into account the improvements (or not) since we first submitted it in November 2008.

 

Much has happened in the way of the financial services bill, new updated guidance, changes to banks terms, the post office bank and so on and so on, so we will be looking for some assistance with this.

 

Budgie and EXC will be posting further later with more detail and will correct any misconstructions I have made.

 

The OFT are due to meet with representatives from MoneySavingExpert tomorrow afternoon, counsel for the consumers in the morning, and Stephen Hone on Friday. The Consumer Action Group were unable to attend todays meeting but are hoping to hold a telephone conference later in the week. The groups will be pooling opinions and ideas and working together to take this forward and get your voice heard.

 

So its not positive, but its not negative either. The OFT WANT to know our opinions and they value consumers views on the way forward.

 

Look out for some discussion threads over the next day or two and get our voice heard

[d1cky]

Who represents CAG in these meetings?

[noomill060]

Marc Gander -bankfodder, I expect.

 

This is a first- the OFT asking for our views....

 

Maybe if this had happened 2 1/2 years ago?

 

 

Money Saving Martin attended a meeting at the OFT long before the test case, but was ignored/denied bitching rights, if my memory serves me.