Supreme court rules

[andyskiv]

Seeing as most of these banks were saved by the Labour party using voters money (i.e yours), and never helped us voters who just want what's fair returned back to them, I wonder if Labour actually want the votes of the tens of thousands of people affected by this? Obviously not, so let them know what you think come polling day...

[Crapstone]

I also agree, but 2 wrongs dont make a right. If account holders managed thei accounts better, this claiming back charges, issue would not be anywhere as big, and now the dissapointment that many are now facing as they wont get them back.......

 

We have and will continue to get the charges back. What we can't do is rebuild peoples lives that the banks destroyed by leading them into a spiral of debt.

[mickrick]

Nice offensive post, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

 

Well it seems to have gotten rid of this tw*t from the thread at least

[Crapstone]

FSA STATEMENT:

 

The waiver is now lifted. Firms are encouraged to process complaints.

 

FSA statement following the Supreme Court ruling on bank charges

 

Looks like they'll be very busy and the FOS will have their hands full

[renegotiation]

The solution to all this simple. Getting the solution is the problem! Unauthorised overdrafts need to be outlawed completely. No bank should allow any customer to go into an unauthorised overdraft! If a customer goes into an overdraft through a guaranteed cheque or Switch card payment etc., then the overdrawn amount should ONLY be treated as an authorised overdraft! If a bank wants to deny authorised overdrafts to certain customers they need to simply deny the customer the ability to do this by terminating their Switch card and not issuing new cheque books that are associated with such cards! All authorised overdrafts should only be subject to a rate of interest and no charges! There needs to be regulation on the cap of such an interest rate. THAT'S ALL FAIR. IT ISN'T HARD. HOWEVER, WE ARE BEING RULED BY BENT CROOKS!

[TenaciousC]

Firstly would people please stop insinuating that the members of the Supreme Court are corrupt, receiving backhanders (from the banks, government, their Aunt Molly), and so on. To do so does the reputation of this site no good at all.

 

The opinions of the people on this site are just that, their opinions.

I don't think people voicing their suspcions is a bad thing, it merely shows how many however rightly or wrongly think of the situation, not all, but many.

 

It certainly does not affect the reputation of this site as at it serves as a platform to communicate and discuss peoples opinions, not just to repeat the same information over without reply, retort or opinion. A forum where you cannot say what you think or feel whether it's right or wrong is not alot of use.

 

There might not be any proof that they are actually corrupt, but it is always a possibility and if you feel they might be, then definately stand up and say so, unless of course you are suggesting that they are above suspicion?

[lollipop73]

Couldn't agree with post 155 more, it is almost as if they knowingly allowed us to be overcharged...........what ??banks setting cutomers up for a fall??.......unheard of !!!

[mickrick]

Seeing as most of these banks were saved by the Labour party using voters money (i.e yours), and never helped us voters who just want what's fair returned back to them, I wonder if Labour actually want the votes of the tens of thousands of people affected by this? Obviously not, so let them know what you think come polling day...

 

And you think the Tories will be any better? We probably have a better chance of getting our money back under the BNP, God help us all.

[Conniff]

Hang on a minute!

 

The ruling is that the OFT cannot say waht is fair, it is not a ruling that you can't take your individual case to the court to decide.

 

I do believe that there was some political motivation in the decision.

[Crapstone]

Seems a strange coincidence that secret bank loans are also being justified today as essential. Are we meant to feel sorry for them?

[mcb1975]

It's pretty simple really, don't break the rules and there aren't any penalty charges.

 

What is it with you people ?

 

Ok – let me give you an example.

I was a self employed contractor for nine years, without the luxury of PAYE being paid in on a guaranteed date. If my clients didn’t pay me on time, I had no money to cover outgoings, and was subsequently charged for failing to honour direct debits. Please explain, in your own words, how you consider this fair?

As a footnote, my main concern is this; Given the ruling, what can stop the banks charging a customer £100 or £1000 every time they go overdrawn?

It’s myopic beyond belief.

[renegotiation]

Lord Phillips also noted that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able profitably to provide current account services without a fee (Para 88)

 

Lord Phillips is talking out of his arsehole.

[davydee]

what happens now to the 2 online small claims i have filed. Do i just cancel them and get refunded?

[100mel]

To my mind surely we need to access the best legal brains and attack this legally and collectively whilst running a concerted public campaign.Surely an action can be mounted whereby the banks have to expose and disclose their basis of costs and why they believe they can charge £35 for a missed direct debit repeatedly causing huge hardship? In Spain for example you pay a small amount of money - £1/month for maintaining an account - however you do not get charged for missed payments at this exhorbitant level - the payment is simply not made if there are insufficient funds in the account.

 

This government can legislate on just about everything - if they want to legislate on bankers bonuses why not start with the hard pressed customers and these charges first

 

The county courts may well produce a whole raft of varying judgements in individual cases

 

We need a concerted and unified approach to stand up to these institutions

[peterlucas]

And you think the Tories will be any better? We probably have a better chance of getting our money back under the BNP, God help us all.

 

Absolutely agree with this, the Tories are just as bad. That's why I support UKIP

[Crapstone]

what happens now to the 2 online small claims i have filed. Do i just cancel them and get refunded?

 

 

Carry on with them but you'll probably have to amend your particulars.

[davydee]

Carry on with them but you'll probably have to amend your particulars.

 

you think the courts will now start unfreezing them?

[Livto]

This ruling is yet another kick in the teeth to the UK public.

The political consequences for Gordon Brown at the next general election as a result of this ruling cannot be underestimated in my view.

[EricTheRed]

Dear Sirs,

　

I note the ambiguous outcome of the Supreme Court ruling regarding the OFT and bank charges. The Supreme Court did NOT say that charges are fair - just that the OFT cannot assess charges for fairness. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the UTCTA Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used.

 

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.

It is my view that County Court judges have been given the the right to decide what is fair and what is not. A draft order to reveal the true cost of unpaid cheques, unauthorised overdrafts etc would be sought. Also interest at 8% would be added to the amount owed.

I again request that you repay the unfair charges applied to my account in the sum of £XXXX. You have already agreed that I am in financial difficulty and First Direct have already repaid unfair charges to thousands of customers prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

 

 

I am trying to draft a letter to my bank after the ruling - what does anyone think? Dont know how to proceed or how to end the letter. Is it even worth bothering? Shall I make this my LBA?

Thanks

 

POST OF THE DAT FERNACK. Calm amidst confusion. Let the fight continue.

 

Just one point. will the banks ask for the county court cases to be struck out?

[onestressedwoman]

What I really want to know is : if a bank has agreed a refund then can they renege on there assurance

[peterlucas]

What I really want to know is : if a bank has agreed a refund then can they renege on there assurance

 

No, that's a compromise agreement and is regarded as a form of contract.

[Baggio]

everybody calm down, there has been a big opening left for us

 

clause 5(1) IS our friend

 

chill, this is not over by a long stretch, lets stop the moaning and groaning, pick ourselves up, dust ourselves down.... and attack, with renewed vigour and hope.

[Livto]

If every person in the UK refused to pay these charges, then there is nothing the banks could do.

This ruling may well backfire against them in terms of the levels of public anger and resentment it will cause.

People may well just end up closing down their current accounts altogether.

[peterlucas]

you think the courts will now start unfreezing them?

 

Yes they will, there is no longer a basis for stays.

[Guest Jason King]

Ok – let me give you an example.

 

I was a self employed contractor for nine years, without the luxury of PAYE being paid in on a guaranteed date. If my clients didn’t pay me on time, I had no money to cover outgoings, and was subsequently charged for failing to honour direct debits. Please explain, in your own words, how you consider this fair?

 

 

It is quite standard for the self employed in your previous position to simply include a clause in your terms of trade that unless you are paid on time by your clients then they are charged for what you would be charged for late payments by your bank for your clients failings.

 

Why didn't you do this?