Jump to content
Bookworm

OFT v Foxton - Discussion here!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4045 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

To save us hijacking the test case thread even further, I think this might be useful to start a different thread here.

 

First, the judgment itself:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1681.rtf

 

Read, digest, discuss. :-D

 

Personally, it worries me that the judge leant on the transparency + plain English side itself than on the intrinsic unfairness of the clauses, as it brings the possibility that all the banks would have to say "but we told you in detail about the charges" and we wouldn't have a recourse. PIL is all very well, but there is a lot more to it than that.

 

On the plus side, the fact that it was agreed that the OFT DOES have jurisprudence is good, although no doubt the banks will say that it is completely irrelevant to their business model and that they are nothing like estate agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, the judgment itself:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1681.rtf

 

Read, digest, discuss. :-D

 

Read it. A fine example of judicial sagacity.

 

Personally, it worries me that the judge leant on the transparency + plain English side itself than on the intrinsic unfairness of the clauses, as it brings the possibility that all the banks would have to say "but we told you in detail about the charges" and we wouldn't have a recourse. PIL is all very well, but there is a lot more to it than that.

 

I think, with respect, that the point you are missing is that, whilst the UTCCR (and indeed the law in general) affords the consumer significant protection it still allows a man to drive a hard bargain. What is required though is that the consumer knows he has agreed to a hard bargain. All this goes to the very heart of the question of whether the UTCCR will prove to be of assistance to the consumer in the matter of bank charges. As you are beginning to suspect, and as I have tried to point out, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will.

 

On the plus side, the fact that it was agreed that the OFT DOES have jurisprudence...

 

Think you meant jurisdiction. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did, thank you. Brain all over the place today, blame the DLA tribunal. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did, thank you. Brain all over the place today, blame the DLA tribunal. :-(

 

 

sub


You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ollie Gunnar Solskjaer ;)


.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think, with respect, that the point you are missing is that, whilst the UTCCR (and indeed the law in general) affords the consumer significant protection it still allows a man to drive a hard bargain. What is required though is that the consumer knows he has agreed to a hard bargain. All this goes to the very heart of the question of whether the UTCCR will prove to be of assistance to the consumer in the matter of bank charges. As you are beginning to suspect, and as I have tried to point out, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will.

We'll have to wait and see, but I still don't see how they could get past the not individually negotiated part. It's one thing to drive a hard bargain, it's another to be placed with a fait accompli, where you have a choice to sign on the dotted line or... sign on the dotted line elsewhere where they will impose virtually identical terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ollie Gunnar Solskjaer ;)
I had to google that to get it. :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to imaginative ;)


.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...