Okay, so turn the Supreme Court ruling against the banks

[SurlyBonds]

Yesterday's judgement made it clear that contracts between banks and customers can be subjected to a charging structure which is not deemed as penalties for specific services, but for the all-round service of the contract. This now becomes a bit of an Achilles’ heel as these charges are now for the overall service... i.e. their delivery of the overall contract.... so they'd better jolly well deliver then.

 

BUT, the UTCC Regs also state that ALL contracts must be fair and equitable, i.e. all terms and conditions MUST apply to both parties. This part was the bit, I think, that Phillips hinted at... it's just now a case of will you go the next lap?

 

So, write a short letter to your bank:

1) asking if they agree with the Supreme Courts judgement (SC6, 2009) that charges and fees ARE applicable in the management of the contract;

2) Ask for a copy of their latest table of fees/charges for all events that your account(s) may be subject to;

 

When you get it, send them a recorded letter back, stating that as the laws allows for all Terms and Conditions to be individually negotiated, you are applying your own equitable terms to the contract and thus ensuring that the same rights to both parties to the contract are both met and fulfilled for future purposes.

e.g. £10 for each breach of contract, £5 for letters, etc. plus your own extras for their potential breaches e.g. actual liquidated losses for indirect consequences (e.g. they bounce a DD by error , and the payee then charges you a subsequent fee for late payment), telephone calls.

 

Quote something like "In light of the Supreme Court's judgment, it is only reasonable to now ensure that both parties adhere to the overall service 'package' in terms of delivery of the contract."

 

Quote "Office of Fair trading v Abbey National plc and Others, UKSC 6, 2009" as the precedent.

 

Make it clear that these will only be applied when the bank has breached the contract, made an error or fails to deal with a matter in accordance with their published timescales and the Banking Code.

 

Add that these terms will be applied in x days (however many days notice their own contract states - usually 30 days, sometime more).

 

They then have various options...

a) They might ignore you. However, keep the recorded delivery slip.

b) Write back and claim that these are agreed - hardly likely, but wonders will never cease!!

c) Write back contesting them... and that's your bingo card.

 

If the bank refuses to accept equitable terms, then you can write back and state that due to their refusal to accept reciprocal terms, their own terms of fee charging can only be considered one-sided and in contravention of Consumer Law. including parts of the UTCC Regs that the OFT didn't use so are not dissed by the SC judgement.

 

State that in consideration of their refusal, you will apply to have the term within the contract that allows for them to make charges deemed as unlawful. That you consider the contract to have been constructed since signing to have been one-sided and that you will apply to have the specific clause to be struck out and all charges made under that specific clause, since signing, to be null and void.

 

Then send that letter recorded giving them 14 days to respond.

 

After, apply to the County Count under a General N1 claim.

 

Even if the Court disagrees on retrospective charges... we had it in one case... they did also Order that the term should be removed unless the bank agreed to equal terms. The bank refused, so the Order was made to remove the Fees table clause. Result = no future bank charges, whatever the reason.

 

The Banks CANNOT have it both ways. so lets get at them with their own judgement that they like to crow about.

Edited November 26, 2009 by SurlyBonds
HTML screw up

[ICY]

I like your way of thinking

 

However a lot of claims are for accounts which are now closed, so the banks would obviously not negotiate terms for an account which is no longer running.

[sytra]

I like this idea, i have a couple of old accounts still open with charges applied and would love to give this a go. Is there a sample letter anywhere i could use and modify or have i got to try and write a letter from scratch (not my strongest point)

 

Sytra

[kog]

When you get it, send them a recorded letter back, stating that as the laws allows for all Terms and Conditions to be individually negotiated...

 

Is this a correct interpertation of UTCCR. I don't recall the law saying that you have to have a individually negotiated contract/terms; only that some contracts have terms that are individually negotiated. If the latter is true then the bank will not accept the contract terms you offer.

Edited November 27, 2009 by kog