Supreme court case not the end of the world

[Bookworm]

TT, have you contacted BF to suggest that alteration? ;-)

[tomterm8]

TT, have you contacted BF to suggest that alteration? ;-)

 

Not exactly sure I am persona grata with BF, Bookworm. Nevertheless, I think any court case where you just rely on the UTCCR you are shooting yourself in the foot. I think there is a strong possibility given the judgement that you will lose.

 

I have suggested it to the owners of certain other sites, however, and I think they are hiring barristers to thrash it out.

[einyuk]

Sorry! I'm just saying it how I see it. Like I said, we'll see soon enough. I'm sure everyone isn't going to go home because Baron Renog said so... I'm for a march myself.

 

No need for appologies my friend, all in a state of flux at mo.........will be a way through........going to dig out my POC's go through with me magnifying glass

[Crapstone]

Mr Lex found this, so I can't take the credit...well timed as we all need a bit of a smile today.

 

Video: Watch Strongbow viral video attacking bankers | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

Contains mild language, so don't let the little nippers listen over your shoulders.

[Crapstone]

Wouldn't it also be wise to use ..can't think of now but pretty sure it's 2. 1 ..stating that any penalty must be proportiate to the true cost? 10p overdrawn hardly warrants a charge of £39.

[tomterm8]

Um, the judgement today blew the penalty charges argument out of the water.

[einyuk]

great video

[SurlyBonds]

Um, the judgement today blew the penalty charges argument out of the water.

 

 

Not at all... totally disagree... the judgement today stated that the OFT has no jurisdiction to examine whether the relative high charge for each individual penalty imposed on an account can be tested as a true, fair and representative fee for that single transaction... i.e. is £39 charge fair for that one bounced cheque. The Court has ruled that this is up to the banks. I suggest that you read it... every page.

 

Because, the finding was that the Court decided that such fees form the overall 'package' of all the costs associated with managing and providing that account. They are not a separate fee for a separate provision of services... i.e. the £39 fee for a 2p transaction on a mainframe doesn't come into it... the banks can decide that the £39 goes towards the ''whole' package.

 

Therefore, the OFT cannot use the "disproportionate penalty" clause of the UTCC Regs, being that £39 is not a 'fair' charge for one service.

 

However, the president of the SC stated that the OFT can use other legal arguments as to whether this still stands other litmus tests... I think he was clearly hinting at that too.

 

Other clauses in the UTCC Regs state quite clearly that a contract MUST be reciprocal... i.e. what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

 

So, IF the banks want to include a schedule of fees/charges/tariffs/service charges (or however they want to name them), then there MUST be a reciprocal clause in the consumer's favour... otherwise such a clause can be struck out of the contract... i.e. that table of fees gets removed from the contract.

 

And how can the banks then apply a table of fees that has been removed?...

 

The ruling states nothing about the banks having the power to strike out claims - that is still up to the individual courts. Whilst the banks can apply to ahve them struck out, the consumers can still respond to those requests by stating that the ruling does not negate the other clauses within the UTCC Regs, i.e. reciprocal clause, individually negotiated terms, changes in the contract (i.e. upping fees over the years without written consent, etc.)

 

The banks might crow on their websites taht they have 'won'... but, in relaity, they have simply shielded away one of the many arrows that can be fired at them. There are plenty more in the quiver...

 

They are hoping that the majority will now give up... and then they would 'win' if everyone gives up.

[amber]

I've been giving this some thought (ain't we all) now I have no idea how the judicial system works myself and whether you have to go through all the different channels to get to the 'top' court i.e in the UK its this poncy 'Supreme Court'.

 

Now the Supreme Court has refused to allow permission for the OFT to appeal to the European Courts of Justice but my thoughts are, can't we, as a group of collective individuals fighting for our 'Human Rights' (

 

I'll shut up now, just waffling and thinking out loud. x

[SurlyBonds]

I've been giving this some thought (ain't we all) now I have no idea how the judicial system works myself and whether you have to go through all the different channels to get to the 'top' court i.e in the UK its this poncy 'Supreme Court'.

 

Now the Supreme Court has refused to allow permission for the OFT to appeal to the European Courts of Justice but my thoughts are, can't we, as a group of collective individuals fighting for our 'Human Rights' (

 

I'll shut up now, just waffling and thinking out loud. x

 

You don't need to go the Human Rights route... just re-pitch your canon (as they say) and use other clauses in consumer legislation.

 

why, oh why? is everyone so doom and gloom over this... as Bookworm has said on threads... how are the banks going to explain the other clauses.

 

Where's the reciprocity in the banks Table of Tariffs/Fees?

 

Send then a table of tarrifs stating that you intend to charge them the same fees should they fail on any part of the contract. e.g. you will charge them for letters, calls, etc. and if they refuse to accept your terms, then write back stating that their refusal to reciprocate is unfair under the 'equal terms' rule. And that is NOT covered by the SC's upholding of the appeal which covered totally different aspects.

 

Then use that as evidence to the court that their tariffs and penalty fees have therefore been unlawful all along and should be struck out the contract.

[Crapstone]

Um, the judgement today blew the penalty charges argument out of the water.

 

I also disagree. It's business as usual and the ruling only applies to the OFT and them being able to judge the fairness. Plenty more avenues to go down before we lie dead in the water. The lifting of the waiver is going to prove to be a tidal wave so they going to have to sit up and listen at some point.

 

Just because the OFT screwed up doesn't mean that the wise old owls here will. Every piece of legislation will be torn apart and we will get the revenge we well deserve.

[Crapstone]

If an overdraft is 'unauthorised' by name it's a joke. The banks authorise it and are giving credit without it being asked for yet blaming the account holder. It's like labelling you as stealing the money. If they haven't given permission they why pay it out, blame the account holder and then charge them?

 

Ever tried stopping transactions to prevent going overdrawn? Tried changing banks? Perhaps it's easier now, although choice is restricted with bad credit history, but when I did it it took months to put payments in place.

 

Regarding credit history that's another thing. Choice is limited to say the least so it's anti-competative and relies too much on the poor records kept by the CRAs..which you are forced to check at a cost. Then it takes months to sort any errors out and all that time you are in financial limbo.

 

I'm still waiting to see why I have an Abbey Mortgage application registered..why my arrears on my mortgage are showing as over 6months and why I have made an application to some Xmas Hamper Farepak lookalike.

 

Finance supports finance and nothing is truly independent, not even the judiciary and legislators. Perhaps I should change my name to Cash Cow and line up on a daily basis to be milked by these greedy &@*&$£%?

 

Remember the good old days when you missed CC payments or went overdrawn and were then in-undated with letters saying what a valued customer you were so you were worthy of more credit that you didn't want and didn't ask for.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Crapstone

[renegotiation]

If an overdraft is 'unauthorised' by name it's a joke. The banks authorise it and are giving credit without it being asked for yet blaming the account holder. It's like labelling you as stealing the money. If they haven't given permission they why pay it out, blame the account holder and then charge them?

 

That's the chestnut. It's exploitative bull**** and nothing less. They know it; the government knows it; I know it; I like to think that most folk here know it; yet we play this silly and puerile little legal game with them? It's a fraud and a farce. The High Court and Court OF Appeal got it right, but the Establishment has influenced a corrupt Supreme Court on this. Gordon Brown is ****. David Cameron is ****. Our so called Establishment can take us on illegal wars where over a million innocents perish, but they can't sort out a system of fair overdrafts? Ha ha ha. At the end of the day, it's only about banks making huge profits. Why do banks have an automatic right to make huge profits? They bloody well don't and I would like to know how they survived before this charges fiasco took off in the first place? I mean banks did exist pre-1990 right? And we even hear this pathetic argument that they will have to recoup their ill gotten games in other ways!!! You got to be ****ting me right? WTF! We just lie back and take it...

 

Lizard Woman - 'Hear ye, hear ye you stupid plebs. We used to make millions, but now we make billions through unfair practices. We don't wish to go back to making millions again and wish to continue making billions. Now you just be quiet and don't make a fuss because you are stupid plebs and haven't got a clue about any of this.'

 

That's honestly how I see it!

Edited November 26, 2009 by renegotiation

[suzieblooz]

For people who have complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service, this court ruling is pretty much irrelevant. The jurisdiction of the F.O.S. is based on different legislation, and the F.O.S. can quite explicitly consider all matters relating to the conduct of the banks, including their charges.

 

What will happen with Ombudsman claims. Mine is there and I have heard nothing from them in 2 years as they were awaiting the outcome of the court case. Will they persue the claims now, or will they roll over and give in. Would it better for all ombudsman claiments to file at court instead?

[bazaar]

Suzie, well now they have the case done and dusted theres no reason why they cant take up your case.

People can take the banks to court still, weve just got to get the wording and laws straightened out for a new attack

[nevos]

Guess there are many more threads on this though, I have not read them yet.

 

My opinion all along has been that of; There is no such thing as an unauthorised overdraft unless, you back a cheque with a card knowing you can't cover it. If your overdraft is 1000 then it's 1000 not 1029...

 

On the spread sheets it should say Bank Authorised Overdraft Charge not Unauthorised Overdraft charge.

 

Also, I don't see how having a bank account gives the Bank authority to keep switching terms and conditions including higher charges. If we are to accept this practise then, most loans, mortgages could have any amount of fees added.

 

The Supreme Court ruling has left the door open and IMO there are plenty of other options to try. More than one way to skin a cat as they say.

Edited November 26, 2009 by nevos
Seen latest announecment

[wishboneash]

i sennt a note to my claim compank jsk and said it wil press ahead from gmac over 4000 pounds in charges

[scared001]

what did it say? im not very good at wording so just want to make sure my email covers everything when i send it.

[bazaar]

I jus had a phone call from one of those nice claims company, 'its coming up to christmas, we can help to clear your debt blah blah'

So I pressed the number suggested,

When they told me their name, I said ' do you realise that the latest Supreme Court ruling has ma' the cheeky so and so hung up:eek:

[rickyd]

So far only one bank CEO has stood up and spoken out since the judgement - Stephen Hester of RBS said yesterday at the Scottish Parliament's Economy Committee that "We should understand there is not a free lunch here, that banks have certain costs of doing business and if you don't get paid those costs in one way then you have to find them in another way."

 

No I'm no expert in political doublespeak, but that doesn't sound like a man poised to refund millions of pounds in charges.

 

I can't imagine Lloyds, HBOS or Barclays taking the lead either so I reckon there's a very long slog ahead and no quick fixes.

 

Can anyone say they've ever seen a situation where a county court has ruled differently than a superior court? If you're going to progress, you need a totally different approach.

[Hugh Jeffort]

Sorry if this has been asked before but could someone explain something to me.....

 

The banks lost in the high court.......yes?

The banks lost in the court of appeal......yes?

The banks were told they could not go to the supreme court.....yes?

They did anyway and won....am I right so far?

The supreme court have said the OFT cant go to the European Comission.....yes?

Why dont they go anyway like the banks did (and would have if they lost yesterday)?

 

I'm sure its a very simple reason but to me it seems strange that the Banks fought all the way and the OFT is giving up as soon as they get a negative judgment!!

[rickyd]

If an overdraft is 'unauthorised' by name it's a joke. The banks authorise it and are giving credit without it being asked for yet blaming the account holder.

 

I'm not here to defend the banking system, but you're wrong in saying "without being asked for it". By the very nature of using your card, setting up a direct debit or standing order, you're issuing an instruction to make a payment on your behalf.

 

I agree that if an account reaches zero, the simplest thing would be to not pay out for you. No fees, no charges, just no payment. The problem is that the sheer volume of transactions each day makes this practically impossible.

 

Most banks employ an exceptions process that takes care of minor overspends based on your previous credit history with that bank. If you're a good guy who's salary comes in each month, they'll probably pay your mortgage even if your account can't cover it. Conversely, if you're not so financially astute, they will probably reject the payment.

 

The true cost of this process is totally irrelevant in all of this, and is probably impossible to calculate accurately. The point is that they decide what they will charge if you break their rules.

 

I can remember when we were charged for using our bank accounts if the balance fell below a certain level. IIRC it was 30p for every cheque, and 20p for each direct debit or standing order. In today's money that would probably be more like 50p or £1.00 a time.

 

If they went back to that system they would probably make a lot more money but the argument is why should those who live within their funds subsidise those who don't?

Edited November 26, 2009 by rickyd
typos

[rickyd]

Sorry if this has been asked before but could someone explain something to me.....

 

The banks lost in the high court.......yes?

The banks lost in the court of appeal......yes?

The banks were told they could not go to the supreme court.....yes?

They did anyway and won....am I right so far?

The supreme court have said the OFT cant go to the European Comission.....yes?

Why dont they go anyway like the banks did (and would have if they lost yesterday)?

 

I'm sure its a very simple reason but to me it seems strange that the Banks fought all the way and the OFT is giving up as soon as they get a negative judgment!!

 

The banks weren't told they couldn't go to the Supreme Court as it didn't exist at that time, it only came into being in October this year.

[Hugh Jeffort]

The banks weren't told they couldn't go to the Supreme Court as it didn't exist at that time, it only came into being in October this year.

 

Thanks for clearing that up Ricky, I was just going by what that Martin guy was saying on GMTV yesterday morning!

The Supreme court was set up just in time for the Banks then.......that was a stroke of luck!!

 

So what was happening between the ruling by the court of appeal and the setting up of the Supreme court. (Again sorry for these silly questions but all this court here and there stuff is confusing, it seems that if you dont like what one court has to say just pop accross to the next for a different judgment)

[renegotiation]

I agree that if an account reaches zero, the simplest thing would be to not pay out for you. No fees, no charges, just no payment. The problem is that the sheer volume of transactions each day makes this practically impossible.

 

That's not true. A direct debit could easily just be rejected and standing orders already are as a matter of course. In fact for people without overdrafts and terrible credit histories they reject direct debits anyway!

 

 

Most banks employ an exceptions process that takes care of minor overspends based on your previous credit history with that bank. If you're a good guy who's salary comes in each month, they'll probably pay your mortgage even if your account can't cover it. Conversely, if you're not so financially astute, they will probably reject the payment.

 

If you don't have an overdraft facility the bank has no right to give you one. Whether they call it 'authorised', 'unauthorised' or 'supercalifragailistic' it doesn't matter. It's none of their business.

 

 

The true cost of this process is totally irrelevant in all of this, and is probably impossible to calculate accurately. The point is that they decide what they will charge if you break their rules.

 

There is hardly any cost. This has already been looked at by a group of experts.

 

 

If they went back to that system they would probably make a lot more money but the argument is why should those who live within their funds subsidise those who don't?

 

That's why they are fighting tooth and nail to keep the present system then... They don't want to take more money from us. Are you having a bit of fun with us?

Edited November 26, 2009 by renegotiation