Supreme court rules

[42man]

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the Consumer Forums

[Wethers82]

But surely if they already paid you back some money they have admitted something was amiss in a roundabout way.. it's all twisted isn't it.

 

 

That's right Tenac, This whole system is a mess and what applies is always at their convenience. Its clear that they are trying to pull a fast one by charging me that amount of interest after paying me back approximately 85% of my claim. I was only chasing £800, they offered me around £600 as settlement, I refused verbally and they went a head with it as if there were no refusal. This still left me £100 into my unauthorised overdraft.

 

Due to my limited knowledge of small claims; the case closed without having chance to gain back what was fully owed. 3 years later they are still writing to my old address and have charged me £1,500 in interest.

 

So no chance am I going to be the guinea pig for their rip-off attempts.

 

Am I right or wrong about the banks being 'Mollycoddled' ? ? ? You decide.

[42man]

CAG TEMPLATES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BASED ON CLAUSE 5

JUDGEMENT BACKS OUR APPROACH TO CLAIMS

STAY REMOVAL TEMPLATE

The Consumer Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the Consumer Forums

[EricTheRed]

1. Await new template from CAG site

2. Amend particulars of claim

3. Attend court

4. Ask bank to give disclose what the true costs are

5. Judge decides whether they are in breach of Regulation 5 or Regulation 8

6. Judge decides whether the costs are unfair

7. Bank makes an offer

8. Win case

[enoughisenough]

Most caggers will be getting paid on Friday. I suggest a mass withdrawal of your funds from the seven. A shot across their bows if you like. Nothing more.

 

Hit them where it hurts. It's your money.

[speedtrip]

Not sure if i am allowed to post this here but we are all on the same side

 

Bank charges Q&A: door reopened for reclaimers? - MoneySavingExpert News

 

ST

[TenaciousC]

Most caggers will be getting paid on Friday. I suggest a mass withdrawal of your funds from the seven. A shot across their bows if you like. Nothing more.

 

Hit them where it hurts. It's your money.

 

We should put together a little kit containing:

 

• A pair of scissors.
  
• A Needle and Thread.
  
• Some WonderWeb.
  
• A small bag made from fireblanket.
  
• A sew on zip with small padlock.
  

And call it the 'Money Matress Deluxe Kit'.

 

Then your money will be safe!

 

Bank charges Q&A: door reopened for reclaimers? - MoneySavingExpert News

 

That link reiterates pretty much what I and a few others said earlier this afternoon, the indication of other routes.. with effectively the same outcome, but potentially without the long long wait!

Edited November 25, 2009 by TenaciousC

[rebel11]

Hopefully we''ll see Martin Lewis and Angela Knight part two. Martin always wins.

[cajdad]

A major factor in the Supreme Court’s judgement was that the overdraft charges were not actually levied in exchange for the so called “services” that triggered them. Instead they were simply part of the payment made in exchange for a “global package” of services which the bank provided.

 

This is simply a lie that has been made up by the banks, or their lawyers, for the court case - but which has been accepted by the Supreme Court judges without a scrap of evidence.

 

Where, in any written agreement between bank and customer, or in any original terms and conditions published by the banks, is there even the slightest hint (let alone set out in “plain intelligible language”) that these charge were simply part of the payment for the overall package? Until this case went to court, the banks were telling claimants that these charges were, specifically, to cover the cost of the services they provided when someone went overdrawn!

 

Before this case came to court, did any bank customer ever realise that the overdraft charge was just a part of the overall package of charges? I thought not! So much for charges being transparent!

 

One of the judges did make the point that in some situations (eg where the bank simply bounced a direct debit without paying it) there was no real service provided at all. So what was the charge for? Could it actually have been a penalty? Surely not - that would have been unlawful and/or unfair! Oh, I know, let’s just call it part of an overall package of charges!

 

On the plus side, there are hints in the judgement that some of the judges thought the charges weren't fair - but they weren't being asked to rule on that. They also hinted that they there were still other ways of arguing fairness, and that ministers ought now to intervene and get this matter sorted.

[speedtrip]

Maybe I am being stupid but there are a limited range of ways that I can attract banks charges.

 

Surely, it would be easy to offer a matrix produced by the FSA/BBA and Consumer Groups that set out the charges that can be passed onto a customer which should be followed by all FSA regulated UK banks.

 

In most cases these charges should be small under £10 as they are computer generated anyway using a simple set of rules in programming logic.

 

I sense the banks are holding on by their fingertips and in due this will be overcome by pressure groups and consumer action.

 

Howver, this will mean the banks will have to find this revenue elsewhere.

 

Regards

 

ST

 

A major factor in the Supreme Court’s judgement was that the overdraft charges were not actually levied in exchange for the so called “services” that triggered them. Instead they were simply part of the payment made in exchange for a “global package” of services which the bank provided.

 

This is simply a lie that has been made up by the banks, or their lawyers, for the court case - but which has been accepted by the Supreme Court judges without a scrap of evidence.

 

Where, in any written agreement between bank and customer, or in any original terms and conditions published by the banks, is there even the slightest hint (let alone set out in “plain intelligible language”) that these charge were simply part of the payment for the overall package? Until this case went to court, the banks were telling claimants that these charges were, specifically, to cover the cost of the services they provided when someone went overdrawn!

 

Before this case came to court, did any bank customer ever realise that the overdraft charge was just a part of the overall package of charges? I thought not! So much for charges being transparent!

 

One of the judges did make the point that in some situations (eg where the bank simply bounced a direct debit without paying it) there was no real service provided at all. So what was the charge for? Could it actually have been a penalty? Surely not - that would have been unlawful and/or unfair! Oh, I know, let’s just call it part of an overall package of charges!

 

On the plus side, there are hints in the judgement that some of the judges thought the charges weren't fair - but they weren't being asked to rule on that. They also hinted that they there were still other ways of arguing fairness, and that ministers ought now to intervene and get this matter sorted.

[Conniff]

If they allow unauthorised overdrafts, then they are lending money. Shouldn't there be a credit agreement of some sort?

[42man]

You are very much on the ball Conniff...overdrafts are covered by the Consumer Credit Act....

[SurlyBonds]

Can we just calm down on this subject please... the banks have NOT 'won'... although, as usual, they will try the bullyboy tactic of dressing up the decision into a "The Courts have agreed with us and we will not be refunding your charges". which they have not... the ruling is that the OFT cannot investigate whether the charges are reasonable taking into account the 'whole package' argument.

 

I switched my cases last year to the UTCC Regs but under the 'reciprocal balance of rights in the contract' approach, and didn't have the cases stayed, and won them all... well, the banks didn't turn up and just paid up.

 

Yes, the judgement was clearly politically motivated... two higher courts are then trumped by a newly-founded (pouplated by Labour-luvvies) 'Supreme' Court, named to try and make Broon and The Straw Man sound all important by having something named after the USA system. Interesting how the Court has also said that no appeal can be made to Europe - the very source of the base legislation from which the UTCC Regs are derived?! (Work that one out when you have a spare decade!)

 

Just dust yourselves down, and then take on the banks with the simple attack of "any charges schedule is not fair - regardless - because there is no reciprocal clause that gives the consumer the equal right to charge the bank for any breach of terms, or failure in their side of the bargain."

 

You could also argue that bank is not acting reponsibly by contacting you first before putting you overdrawn, and they have a duty of care to ensure that you are not unnecessarily burdened with a breach of contract when you genuinely were not aware that such a breach may occur.

 

The banks have telephones... they should let you know that you are in possible danger of commiting a breach of contract.

 

Also, any change in terms and conditions that the banks try to impose are not applicable unless agreed to, in writing - the banks cannot apply a change solely on the basis that if "you didn't reply it is assumed you agree."

 

Let's face it, the OFT didn't really tackle this case on the right fronts, and just chose one slim thread on which to base it. Had they appproached on all clauses of the Regs, then the overwhelming balance would probably have dusted it on the initial case.

 

Stand by for the crowing letters from the banks, but don't be bullied by them... BTW, the Dunlop case is still case law... this ruling has not overturned that.

[42man]

This post could be very important - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/234701-supreme-court-case-not.html

[bigedd]

I switched my cases last year to the UTCC Regs but under the 'reciprocal balance of rights in the contract' approach, and didn't have the cases stayed, and won them all... well, the banks didn't turn up and just paid up.

 

I'm intrigued, could you possibly elaborate, or point me in the right direction of info please? (i've googled it but got University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce?! )

[dodger010]

We all know this is politically motivated we all need to email write or phone our mps and put the pressure on them .I am sure the party that supports our claims would gain the support of the majority of the nation and would win the next election but if a party refuses to look at this then they would not get my vote. This needs to be made into a major election pledge by one or all of the major parties and these bloody thievies stopped from robbing us.

[enoughisenough]

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

[bigedd]

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

Thanks

 

That link accompanied with this news story makes the whole thing a bit clearer.

 

The bank charges ruling explained - Spend & Save , Money - The Independent

[paulif]

I find it amazing that they keep on talking about "fees for unarranged over drafts"

 

I have a claim for nearly 2k and the vast majority of the charges I faced related to them refusing a payment. These charges frequently pushed me into overdraft triggering further fees

 

When I began my claim my bank, Northen Rock behaved with an extraodinarty amount of spite and malice

 

I hope I get to go back to court to argue the unfairness of these charged

 

This is so misrepesented it is insane

 

it is not the financially irresponsible vs the the good ones who never go overdrawn

 

any rational person looking at individual cases will see that the banks have behaved in a totally unreasonable thieving way for years

 

power to the people

[Conniff]

You are very much on the ball Conniff...overdrafts are covered by the Consumer Credit Act....

 

I'm not sue if that means doh or no. A bit more please 42 man.

[Crapstone]

Any thoughts on my post #22

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/234701-supreme-court-case-not-2.html

[kog]

I dont think its realistic that people withdraw their money from the banking system in protest, for too many people it is just not possible.

 

Why not instead find the bank/account with the least punitive charges and stick our money there.

 

If you are saving money you look for the best rate, well if you use regular overdraft faucilities look for the least punitive account.

[peterlucas]

We all know this is politically motivated we all need to email write or phone our mps and put the pressure on them .I am sure the party that supports our claims would gain the support of the majority of the nation and would win the next election but if a party refuses to look at this then they would not get my vote. This needs to be made into a major election pledge by one or all of the major parties and these bloody thievies stopped from robbing us.

 

MPs are in it for themselves and what they can get out of the job. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[enoughisenough]

Crapstone

 

Hi hope you're well and your close ones are too.

 

Looked at post 22 in this thread and doesn't seem to be yours?

 

Maybe I'm being thick here? :confused:Will try to answer or point in anyway I can. Best wishes... EiE.

[enoughisenough]

Aah... Now I'm with you... Doh (The link...)

 

Originally by Crapstone

 

Just wondering....

 

What would happen if every customer wrote to their bank and stated that should insufficient funds be available in their account then they are under strict instructions not to grant 'credit' in the form of an unauthorised overdraft? And if they should give unauthorised credit, it is strictly forbidden in the CAG religion to pay any charges when the customer has clearly stated their instructions.

 

Well. That is a thought. If it were in the form of a formally drawn contract it would certainly work. But of course both parties need to assent to the terms. This raises the interesting question of what the UTCCRs were trying to address 10 years or more ago. The imbalance of negotiating power.

Interesting point though. Perhaps we should all seek to individually negotiate our contracts. (Implausible from that end...but not from where Crapstone has started this).

 

Additional thoughts anyone?

 

PS. Not actually as difficult as it seems. Already succeeded in doing this on a very small scale.