Legal Arguements And They Way Forward

[finlander]

Ok folks.. where are we........... some say screwed but i dont believe so....

Lets se what the judgement was all about as far as i can see it.

I think that technically the judgement was correct. The law lords tried to make everyone understand that this was all over a very narrow peice of law. They were almost apologetic about. They had to rule whether charges were a necessary core term of the bargin and contract. They ruled it was. Because if you offer a cross-subsidised bankIng system it had to be. Because of that they cannot rule if the price of the ‘service ‘ is now fair.

Therefore we lose... everyone shouts unfair...doom pestilance and plague..and the media predict the end of the show...

From my point of view thay had no choice. They knew that they were a probably a key term and that if they dismissed the appeal that the banks would appeal to the ECJ. Being powerful that would be granted and the judgement would probaly be struck down. I think that is probably accurate.

But they didn’t say that it was all over like the media and the banks have portrayed.

They went out of their way to stress an alternative route. They gave us..

1 the regulation to challenge on..reg 5

2 the arguement to challenge on... not the price which is now not allowed to be challenged... but the price structure. Is it fair and open. Did they tell you that your charges paid for free banking for others. Do they make it very easy to incurr charges etc...

3. and lastly a broad hint that they may already view them as unfair.

I think it would be helpful if we looked at these routes and ones through the cca and the enterprise act as well.

Lets not use this thread for arguements with bank flunkies or free banking parasites and stick to the legal issues..........and no great injustice posts or accusations of corruption against individuals. it wont help.

some could argue we have had the best legal advice in the country from the five most senior judges. lets use it.

Discuss.............. F x

[renegotiation]

Lets not use this thread for arguements with bank flunkies or free banking parasites

 

Well, for starters there is no such thing as 'free banking'. They make money by having our money. This is a hard fact, as banks existed before these charges existed. There's my tuppence worth.

[yourbank]

The term is "free if in credit".

[finlander]

ok... so a proper definition.........free if in credit....now was anyone told..written to or explained to that the reason for the charging system was to subsidise others at any time even now by their bank?

 

was it in the contract etc.........

[finlander]

by the way your bank was it right when i heard you lost your job?

[yourbank]

by the way your bank was it right when i heard you lost your job?

I was sacked yes so not sure if that is covered by the term "lost your job". Fairly dismissed is my term

 

Another tip: don't forget regulation 8 as well as 5

[yourbank]

"Effect of unfair term

8. - (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

 

(2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term."

[renegotiation]

The term is "free if in credit".

 

If it is never in credit you aren't using it and if it is in overdraft they are making money through a rate of interest.

[finlander]

sorry to here about that. hope everything is ok.

 

reg8 is ok but that just keeps the contract in place. the point would be do the proceeds from the unfaiir term become recoverable? I think they do. all it would mean is that the cross-sub would have to end or be fully explained in future.

 

the sums paid out on it would still be subject to recalim.

 

from my understanding the bank couldnt state customers knew this was the porpose of charges as it has only been their public arguement since the test case began. before it was

1 they are penalties..

2. then a service with the charge covering the cost

3...then a cross sub......

 

the FSA guidence on unfair terms is very clear....... anything that is of significant detriment to the consumer... any consumer not just the majority....

[yourbank]

If it is never in credit you aren't using it and if it is in overdraft they are making money through a rate of interest.

The "free if in credit" model was the term referred to by the banks' in the OFT test case which is why I have stated the term on this thread.

[the_freedom_trail]

Ok folks.. where are we........... some say screwed but i dont believe so....

 

Absolutely agree, we may have suffered a heavy blow but I think the war is still to be won. I also believe that CAG, Govan LC and Martin Lewis wouldn't go to the bother of hiring a QC if they thought we were out for the count. I am very much looking forward to any developments in the coming campaign.

 

TFT

[yourbank]

sorry to here about that. hope everything is ok.

 

reg8 is ok but that just keeps the contract in place. the point would be do the proceeds from the unfaiir term become recoverable? I think they do. all it would mean is that the cross-sub would have to end or be fully explained in future.

I think the total contract can still be in force, ie how you pay into an account which is not necessarily unfair. If the term is unbinding then surely from that funds would be recoverable on the term that has been struck out.

 

the sums paid out on it would still be subject to recalim.

 

from my understanding the bank couldnt state customers knew this was the porpose of charges as it has only been their public arguement since the test case began. before it was

1 they are penalties..

2. then a service with the charge covering the cost

3...then a cross sub......

 

the FSA guidence on unfair terms is very clear....... anything that is of significant detriment to the consumer... any consumer not just the majority....

 

Remember the actual UTCCR 1999 says:

"Unfair Terms

5. - (1) 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."

 

So that is where the Law Lords were kinda getting at in their assessment.

Furthermore

Regulation 5(4)

"(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was."

 

So the burden of proof is not on the consumer but the Bank itself to prove that it was.

[finlander]

Absolutely agree, we may have suffered a heavy blow but I think the war is still to be won. I also believe that CAG, Govan LC and Martin Lewis wouldn't go to the bother of hiring a QC if they thought we were out for the count. I am very much looking forward to any developments in the coming campaign.

 

TFT

 

 

i dont see that we have been struck a blow... we had the wrong bit of law... its bit like the police charging the man who stole your car with assault. they are bound to lose. still stole the car though and can still get charged with that............

[renegotiation]

The "free if in credit" model was the term referred to by the banks' in the OFT test case which is why I have stated the term on this thread.

 

Yes, but to be clear, there really is no such thing as free banking. Just in case anyone had any doubts.

[indebtstudent]

This:-

 

"1 they are penalties..

2. then a service with the charge covering the cost

3...then a cross sub......"

 

Old banking literature, including one print off I have from Nationwide states (and I quote)

 

Why do we charge our members

 

If a meber goes overdrawn without agreeing it with the Society first or has items returned, they will have to pay charges. This is because the Society incurs a number of costs - we will have to deal with the unpaid items, carry out extra administration and cover the higher risks associated with members being overdran without our agreement.

 

Nowhere in there does it state "oh and by the way this pays for the bloke next doors free if in credit banking too". I still believe they are on very dodgy ground, because what actually happens has not changed but thier T & C's have. So either the earlier T & C's are incorrect, or the one's they have now are.

 

Couple that with the fact thier CEO has admitted the cross-subsidy and they just seem to be making it up as they go along.

[renegotiation]

Couple that with the fact thier CEO has admitted the cross-subsidy and they just seem to be making it up as they go along.

 

Deceiving us? :eek:

[yourbank]

Yes, but to be clear, there really is no such thing as free banking. Just in case anyone had any doubts.

That is true, the interest foregone on credit balances did get the banks more money than "unauthorised overdraft charges" which was more or less admitted by the banks in the OFT test cases(incl. appeals).

[renegotiation]

That is true, the interest foregone on credit balances did get the banks more money than "unauthorised overdraft charges" which was more or less admitted by the banks in the OFT test cases(incl. appeals).

 

I think you got that the wrong way round and meant to say they get more money through the charges! Interest foregone? Furthermore, the 'Robin Hood in reverse' argument the Supreme Court came up with is nonsense. Well, in the sense of the poor subsidising the banking of the rich. They made all their profits quite well through interest without charges. The poor only subsidise 'greater' profits for the bankers with charges. Current account fees are simply not necessary for the bankers to make a profit. They could well make greater profits if they cut some of their own grossly inflated wages though...

Edited November 29, 2009 by renegotiation

[pompeyfaith]

YUP and xmas parties coming up I wonder how much they will waste on that its ok having a party but its the way they do it.

 

PF

[yourbank]

I think you got that the wrong way round and meant to say they get more money through the charges! Interest foregone? Furthermore, the 'Robin Hood in reverse' argument the Supreme Court came up with is nonsense. Well, in the sense of the poor subsidising the banking of the rich. They made all their profits quite well through interest and the poor just subsidise 'greater' profits for the bankers. Current account fees are simply not necessary for the bankers to make a profit. They could well make greater profits if they cut some of their own grossly inflated wages though...

 

Never put words into my mouth. Interest forgone on current accounts was more than bank charges.

I suspect you haven't googled OFT 1005c

It might show you where the FACTUAL information comes from cos it is a fascinating read.

 

Some of us read the media coverage and others look at the sources and read the evidence available. Don't be lazy and read the factual information.

[yourbank]

YUP and xmas parties coming up I wonder how much they will waste on that its ok having a party but its the way they do it.

 

PF

 

You do not want me to even comment on this do you? I don't think Finlander thought that legal arguments and the way forward had anything to do with this. If that's where you want to go then I guess we are done with this one.

[pompeyfaith]

No best not as I dont want to upset Finlander lol

 

PF

[renegotiation]

Never put words into my mouth. Interest forgone on current accounts was more than bank charges.

I suspect you haven't googled OFT 1005c

It might show you where the FACTUAL information comes from cos it is a fascinating read.

 

Some of us read the media coverage and others look at the sources and read the evidence available. Don't be lazy and read the factual information.

 

I don't need to google anything. If you are telling me the banks have foregone a business model to make less money and subsequently not returned to the more profitable business model at a high rate of knots I KNOW that's a big pile of stinking BULL****. How about you don't be lazy and exercise some basic common sense? Please!

 

 

 

No best not as I dont want to upset Finlander lol

 

PF

 

I heard he turns green and his biceps grow very big! :eek:

[indebtstudent]

Actually I can believe that, rightly or wrongly many people leave large balances in thier current account. Even people who are realtively organized are probably not going to be able to transfer the money instantly to a decent savings account.

 

Even if they do transfer is going to take days if its not with the same bank.

 

I personally cannot believe how many apparently sensible people have accepted the banks assertions that the status quo cannot exist without charges.

[yourbank]

I don't need to google anything. If you are telling me the banks have foregone a business model to make less money and subsequently not returned to the more profitable business model at a high rate of knots I KNOW that's a big pile of stinking BULL****. How about you don't be lazy and exercise some basic common sense? Please!

 

 

 

 

 

I heard he turns green and his biceps grow very big! :eek:

 

I haven't told you that a bank has forgone any business model but have tried to show you with EVIDENCE how the current Uk Banking model works. If you do google what I have suggested then you will find out how it works. Interest forgone on credit balances is basically offering low interest rates on current accounts while making money on your money. Now, the figures are from 2006 which is where we have got many figures on the amount of bank charges that the banks' got. Currently, the bank would make a lot less money on that interest forgone but it would be about 50% of the cost of current accounts as opposed to 30% which bank charges came from(that bit was from the House of Lords Appeal on Day 1--for reference).

As you can see, I'm not saying that any business model has been changed but that the current one in existance is not as your posts assume is the way it works. Common sense told me to read the evidence which is why it was important. I'm not really sure it helps Finlander's attempt to have a rational discussion but I do admire the fact that he/she tried to.