Law Lords update

[hilaryfrances]

read in the news that the lawyer or barrister working for the banks has said that the charges the banks levi onto customers do not have to be fair as they subsidise people who stay in the black! He must think this is a fair comment to come out with in court! What planet is he on. The poor keeping the rich, making the poor poorer and the rich richer, How can he justify this statement

Edited June 24, 2009 by hilaryfrances

[ukaviator]

They seem to be waffling Hilary, they do that when pushed into a corner.

[SOD'EM]

They are now threatening (if they lose the case) to charge for having a current account. They stated that the charges they have applied in the past was enabling them to give out free current accounts.

 

The lowest of the low.

[ukaviator]

The toys being thrown out already. . . let them charge, they will fight amongst themselves when one bank allows free banking.

[hilaryfrances]

yes I dont see why we should not pay, they will have to be competitve, and sharing the true cost of banking amonst everyone is a lot fairer

[dpick]

They started to apply charges for using ATM's. When people started to boycott those that charged in our area they very quickly went back to no charge on the ATM's.

 

dpick

[Dodgy Geezer]

There is no need to charge, its just PURE GREED.

[Sammythebest]

Banks face an "appalling prospect" if the Office of Trading is allowed to rule that overdraft charges are unfair, the House of Lords has been told. The banks would receive a deluge of litigation if the decision was made against them, the court has heard.

Five Law Lords are hearing an appeal by seven banks and one building society against judgements by two lower courts.

The lenders are challenging the right of the Office of Fair Trading to decide if overdraft charges are fair or not.

Prices

Jonathan Sumption QC, for the banks, said if the previous ruling in favour of the OFT was upheld, the banks would face a deluge of litigation with claims going back many years.

 

THE STORY SO FAR...

Nearly a million people have claimed for the return of their unauthorised overdraft charges but their cases are on hold

If the banks win this week's appeal, these people are unlikely to get any money back

If the banks lose, then the legal arguments should move on to a key stage - a case to determine whether these charges were fair or not

Only then will people have a clearer picture as to whether billions of pounds will be handed back to customers

 

 

Crunch time for bank charges case

 

 

"That prospect is appalling," he said.

He said if the courts upheld the right of the OFT to scrutinise bank charges, then the charges might be deemed unenforceable for a time period dating all the way back to the 1990s.

That was because European Union regulations on unfair terms in consumer contracts had been introduced into UK law during that decade.

Alternatively, Mr Sumption argued, all personal current account contracts might become unenforceable in total.

At the core of the arguments is whether bank charges are exempt from the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) and whether the OFT can scrutinise or regulate the charges.

Mr Sumption argued that the price being paid by bank customers for the use of their overdrawn accounts was not something that fell under the above regulations.

"Does our case allow extortionate prices? Yes," he said.

"The remedy for extortionate prices lies in the domain of competition regulations, not in the domain of contract regulations."

'Consumer categories'

Mr Geoffrey Vos QC, for the Nationwide Building Society, supported the arguments of the banks.

In particular, he said, the Court of Appeal had been wrong in law to analyse the impact of overdraft charges from the point of view of consumers who stayed in the black.

 

The banks have been outlining their case

 

 

He pointed out that of 54 million current account holders, 12.6 million paid overdraft fees in any one year.

That meant there were at least two categories of consumer - those who paid and those who did not pay overdraft fees.

"The typical consumer is one who pays, intends to pay, or expects to pay debit charges," said Mr Vos.

"The charges are clearly recognisable as the price for this service for the debit customers."

So, Mr Vos argued, the bank charges were necessarily exempt from the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) and the OFT could not scrutinise or regulate them.

The hearing is expected to continue until Thursday.

[hilaryfrances]

:mad:poor souls what about the appalling levels of worry and debt that they have caused Joe public.

[Castlebest]

so if I commit genocide and kill the half of the UK's population I will get away with it because there would be too many cases.

 

I think this argument is flawed

 

I have always said I would welcome banking with reasonable open charges, we do not have "free banking" now most people pay in one form or another and its the hidden charges I object to.

 

I'm sure Santandere for one would just introduce the european systems they run now and the rest of europe seems happy with that so it would be a good starting point.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Castlebest

[Sammythebest]

It is a big flaw. I cannot beleive a top barrister is coming out with such an argument, or am I missing the point.

 

'We have stolen off everyone for 15 years , please dont make us give it back'

[charleyfarley]

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks 'not Robin Hood in reverse'

 

 

So the charges exceeded the cost of dealing with an overdrawn customer because "the revenue stream is essential to the whole of the current account structure".

 

Don't we know it:mad::mad:

[hilaryfrances]

I cant believe he is using this as a serious argument to justify what the banks are doing, it seems mad.

[charleyfarley]

hf,

 

It does seem a very strange argument to use, but I suppose all the other arguments re charges have been found to be spurious, so it's a last resort.

 

I can't think of any other reason for them to be using this approach:confused:

[Sammythebest]

I cant believe he is using this as a serious argument to justify what the banks are doing, it seems mad.

 

Let us hope the Law Lords agree. The banks have been crooks for the past 10 years, better to pay everyone back than have the Criminal Prosecution Service involved.It is cheaper for the Taxpayer, us, who in fact pay these peoples salarys now.

[Sammythebest]

In fact its just come to me that we are paying for their Barrister Vos to act against us! Isn't life ironic:)

[Bookworm]

It is a big flaw. I cannot beleive a top barrister is coming out with such an argument, or am I missing the point.

 

'We have stolen off everyone for 15 years , please dont make us give it back'

[GuidoT]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/206248-bank-charges-oft-test.html

[Sammythebest]

[/center]

 

Hes not sorry though! Got a fat bonus at home! You can get money back now that has been criminally gained I think thats a road we can go down.

[jowalshy]

BBC NEWS | Business | 'Rewriting' claim on bank charges

[hilaryfrances]

I wonder how long they will take to come to to a descision?

[charleyfarley]

I wonder how long they will take to come to to a descision?

 

Law Lords are considering their verdict which could come before the end of July(recess for the court) or October in the new Supreme Court.

quoted from 'yourbank'

 

lets hope they can manage to come to a decision before they all go off on their summer hols:p

Edited June 29, 2009 by charleyfarley

[hilaryfrances]

;)lol, yes I agree. simples. banks wrong, cag right,

 

give us our money back.

[mr.ton]

The banks have already shown how guilty they are coz paying out right now...a couple of times this year, ive received refunds off them already

[hilaryfrances]

;)wow thats good news, how come they have paid you and which Bank?