Supreme court rules

[GRRRATPARKER]

180 people viewing!

[Sunshine54]

hi Bob

 

I agree with you to some extent about personal responsibility but I believe that there are real life, practical reasons why many people (myself included) can't be as controlled about their actual bank balance. For this reason I do use cash as much as possible and also check my balance on line almost daily.

 

I would much prefer a system where I can try to use my debit card (for convenience) and have it declined if I've not got enough money in the account rather than be penalised for them authorising me to spend more than I've got at that moment.

 

The issue of debits going out of an account before credits go in is a case in point. Despite checking with the bank beforehand my son found himself incurring £50 charges due to the process followed by the bank. Why on earth would they not apply credits to an account before the debits if they are all transactions for the same day? It seems to be nothing more than a money making exercise.

[42man]

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : General

[davefirewalker]

Excerpt.......

 

1. The members of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue 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 its 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 personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair.

 

 

GAME ON.....

 

My claims are going in very shortly

 

Dave

[slackda]

Ok I am not getting into any kind of debate here. I dont work for a bank, so am not on a bank's side in any way here. Its personal money management. I know what is on my account all the time as I check, I have not been charged for 2 years now, well once 18 months or so ago, it was my fault and I accept the £8 charge. Some people dont seem to care though. "I dont care what is in my account, I will use my card and if I get charged I will complain" This is where it starts to go wrong. Then its the banks fault etc... I agree £30 + is by far too excessive, but you know what the charges are, if you do not want to accept the charge, check your balance, or dont go to the shop that shuts in 2 mins..... Use cash only, there are loads of alternatives to getting charged.....

 

 

sorry bob it wasn;t a toll hunt, i im in total agreement, i don;t mind paying for what i have asked for/requested.

[lollipop73]

I for one will give the wonderful people on this site a few days to come to their conclusions.

 

 

 

It is not over by a long shot.

 

 

Doom and gloom is exactly the way the banks want us to feel, but I am not finished yet.

 

 

I await the clarion call, and I will be at downing street with my placard.

[bobsp]

Doesnt work like that......

 

I paid for something by debit card on the internet it cost me £2 and my balance was >£20 it was authorised and paid.......however come monday they decided to take out a previous months charges which then put me over and then charged me a "guarantee card payment" fee of £35 for the £2 which was paid and authorised with no problems.....

 

A prepaid debit card will NOT let you go overdrawn ..... why cant the banks do that.......A it would cost them money

 

If I went somewhere and paid by debit card it should know if I have money in the account...I have sometimes got the declined notice. BUT they engineer it so that they can make people go overdrawn and charge them.....

 

What makes it worse is that they charge you for NOT paying your d/d.

 

shouldnt respond to trolls....but couldnt help myself

 

Dave

 

You will have been told that they are going to charge you for the previous months charges on said day though, I used to get these letters, so I need to ensure an extra £35 in there, otherwise I will be charged again for spenfing £2

Not sure what you mean about Trolls, its plain and simple, people are blaming the banks for their own bad money management. Yes the banks make mistakes, and in most cases refund you, I know of some that have not been refunded, that is a different issue, but if account holders acted more responsibly over the handling of their own accounts charges would be few and far between...

[Crapstone]

You will have been told that they are going to charge you for the previous months charges on said day though, I used to get these letters, so I need to ensure an extra £35 in there, otherwise I will be charged again for spenfing £2

Not sure what you mean about Trolls, its plain and simple, people are blaming the banks for their own bad money management. Yes the banks make mistakes, and in most cases refund you, I know of some that have not been refunded, that is a different issue, but if account holders acted more responsibly over the handling of their own accounts charges would be few and far between...

 

That's a bit rich! If banks had behaved more responsibly with our money we wouldn't have had to bail the beggers out to the tune of billions.

 

Perhaps they should have checked their balances were financially sound.

[veester]

Surely you can now apply for the stay to be lifted and change the POC to state that the charges are quite clearly bias as the banks have all reduced charges and that you want the difference plus interet back....

[Keasby]

Do any caggers fancy standing as one issue independents in the next general election- you'll have at least one vote in newcastle!

[davefirewalker]

You will have been told that they are going to charge you for the previous months charges on said day though, I used to get these letters, so I need to ensure an extra £35 in there, otherwise I will be charged again for spenfing £2

Not sure what you mean about Trolls, its plain and simple, people are blaming the banks for their own bad money management. Yes the banks make mistakes, and in most cases refund you, I know of some that have not been refunded, that is a different issue, but if account holders acted more responsibly over the handling of their own accounts charges would be few and far between...

 

Debit card payment £2 on saturday...paid

 

bank took charges out on monday and then charged £35 for £2 which had already been paid ????

 

if they knew that there wouldnt be enough money why did they pay it .....

 

engineering debt

 

Last word on subject.... dont bother replying

 

Dave

[bobsp]

hi Bob

 

I agree with you to some extent about personal responsibility but I believe that there are real life, practical reasons why many people (myself included) can't be as controlled about their actual bank balance. For this reason I do use cash as much as possible and also check my balance on line almost daily.

 

I would much prefer a system where I can try to use my debit card (for convenience) and have it declined if I've not got enough money in the account rather than be penalised for them authorising me to spend more than I've got at that moment.

 

The issue of debits going out of an account before credits go in is a case in point. Despite checking with the bank beforehand my son found himself incurring £50 charges due to the process followed by the bank. Why on earth would they not apply credits to an account before the debits if they are all transactions for the same day? It seems to be nothing more than a money making exercise.

 

I dont suppose you are talking about Barclays? I have had the same issue, but do not get charges over this anymore, that is bad practice, and is a seperate issue that you need to address, I suggest you go into a branch that talk to the muppets on the phone...

[bobsp]

Debit card payment £2 on saturday...paid

 

bank took charges out on monday and then charged £35 for £2 which had already been paid ????

 

if they knew that there wouldnt be enough money why did they pay it .....

 

engineering debt

 

Last word on subject.... dont bother replying

 

Dave

 

Saturday is a weekend, counts as Monday for banking, always has, no change there, the £35 should have been in the account by COB Friday...

[davefirewalker]

Surely you can now apply for the stay to be lifted and change the POC to state that the charges are quite clearly bias as the banks have all reduced charges and that you want the difference plus interet back....

 

NOT the difference....if a charge is unfair....its unfair ...get the lot

 

Dave

[bobsp]

That's a bit rich! If banks had behaved more responsibly with our money we wouldn't have had to bail the beggers out to the tune of billions.

 

Perhaps they should have checked their balances were financially sound.

 

I agree with you completely. That does not mean you should not be responsible with your own money though..

[Crapstone]

I agree with you completely. That does not mean you should not be responsible with your own money though..

 

And neither does it mean that banks can break laws made to protect consumers.

[ICY]

I agree, but I can live with an £8 charge, not the £30 I was being charged, as I no longer go od, I check my balance alot more now, I can live with 1 £8 over 2 years....

 

Think yourself lucky, Abbey took a Direct Debit twice from my account, it was clear that the amount should only have been taken once, this resulted in them charging me for going overdrawn, charges broke down as follows

INSTANT OVERDRAFT REQUEST FEE - PAID ITEM - £35

UNAUTHORISED OVERDRFT/INSTANT OVERDRFT MONTHLY FEE - £25

 

So thats £60 in charges because they put me overdrawn by a total of £3.59

 

I rang them up to complain, they kept blaming me despite them taking a payment twice, they gratiously refunded me £35 they would not back down on refunding the full amount they had taken from me.

 

I would gladly pay £8 if of course it was my fault

Edited November 25, 2009 by ICY

[onestressedwoman]

i HAD THREE DIRECT DEBITS SENT BACK IN jUNE WHEN THE MONEY WAS IN MY ACCOUNT YET i STILL WAS ISSUED £75 CHARGES ?

 

must say peoples opinions seem to have changed somewhat since this ruling ?

[onestressedwoman]

FSA to issue statement within the hour

[bobsp]

Think yourself lucky, Abbey took a Direct Debit twice from my account, it was clear that the amount should only have been taken once, this resulted in them charging me for going overdrawn, charges broke down as follows

INSTANT OVERDRAFT REQUEST FEE - PAID ITEM - £35

UNAUTHORISED OVERDRFT/INSTANT OVERDRFT MONTHLY FEE - £25

 

So thats £60 in charges because they put me overdrawn by a total of £3.59

 

I rang them up to complain, they kept blaming me despite them taking a payment twice, they gratiously refunded me £35 they would not back down on refunding the full amount they had taken from me.

 

I would gladly pay £8 if of course it was my fault

INSTANT OVERDRAFT REQUEST FEE - PAID ITEM CARD PAYMENT TO SKY SUBSCRIPTION ON 2009-07-25 35.00

 

A direct debit is not taken by a bank, it is by the payee, IE SKY, they have claimed it twice, therefore you can claim under the direct debit guarantee.. and the charges associated with that should be refunded......

[heimdalls]

I've just had a read through the ruling chunky stuff. But one part of it infact this one sentence has summed up the whole thing for me i quote from Page 34 (section 88)

 

"

Whatever may have been theposition in the past, the Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part ofthe revenue that they generate from the current account services. If they did not receivethe Relevant Charges they would not be able profitably to provide current accountservices to their customers"

Edited November 25, 2009 by heimdalls
spelling

[ICY]

Sorry for confusion just checked and it was a monthly card payment not a DD

 

Sorry for straying off topic

[IainHL]

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. I do however find it a little surprising that Lord Phillips passed comment on the commercial aspects of bank account provision. To quote from the press release:

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).

 

Yes, this judgement is extremely disappointing, and I say this as someone who, with my partner, has around £9k in pending claims with 3 different banks. Perhaps our ire should be more directed at the OFT who have taken 2½ years to end up arguing on the wrong part of UTCCR1999.

 

To explain that last remark, again quoting from the press release:

The key issue was whether the charges constituted the ‘price and remuneration’ as against ‘the goods or services supplied in exchange’ within the meaning of the Regulations. The Supreme Court considered and decided a number of arguments as to whether the charges could be said to be ‘price or remuneration’ under Regulation 6 (2) (b):

and:

Lord Walker made clear that the scope of the appeal was limited – the court did not have the task of deciding whether or not the system of charging current account customers was fair, but whether the OFT could challenge the charges as being excessive in relation to the services supplied in exchange (Paragraph 3). As Lord Phillips stated, even if such a challenge was not possible, it might still be open for the OFT to assess the fairness of the charges according to other criteria (Para 61).

 

The "other criteria" referred to is Regulation 5 of UTCCR1999.

 

What I feel needs to happen is for the legal brains to come up with the appropriate wording for the Particulars of Claim and Skeleton Argument for people to use in making a County Court claim against the banks (for new claims), and how to amend cases already in the system, using Regulation 5 as the argument. As people above have stated, it seems appropriate to apply to the court to get a stay lifted now the judgement has been handed down and before another stitch-up waiver is put in place.

 

I notice fernack has put together what seems to me a very good letter to approach the bank with in the current situation:

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

Edited November 25, 2009 by IainHL
sorted out extra spaces in the press release quotes

[bobsp]

And neither does it mean that banks can break laws made to protect consumers.

 

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.......

[enoughisenough]

FSA STATEMENT:

 

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

 

FSA statement following the Supreme Court ruling on bank charges