Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[Bookworm]

The fact you have operated your account in such a way as to incur unarranged borrowing charges cannot give rise to the relationship being unfair. Any unfairness must be "because of" the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer."

Ah, that makes more sense with the sentence before.

 

But it doesn't make sense still. Turn things around, if the terms of the agreement and/or the conduct of the creditor create the unfairness, then they're unfair, regardless of what the customer does or doesn't do, like a sword of Damocles if you will.

 

On the other hand:

"All our current accounts operate under identical terms and conditions

seems to rather go against the "individually negoatiated" part, so that's good stuff IMO.

 

My head hurts.

[Poor-Credit Borrower]

Hiya, can I use this argument against the Abbey bank too? That the contract was not drawn out individually between the bank and the customer, i.e. s5(1) UTCCR ? Have posted on a couple of the Abbey threads too.

[Rhia]

We are still waiting for the new 'POCs' which should be with us soon - I hope!

 

Also it may be foolish to 'rush into' any action until the new info from Counsel is received.

 

Kind regards to all

 

Dougal

Am in absolutely no hurry and quite prepared to wait this out. I did add an extensive list of incidents which establish the unfairness of their actionsin support of the legal bit. Obviously I won't add them here as the "target" will know who's who.

 

Poor Credit Borrower yes you can use this with Abbey but heed Dougal's advice before starting any court action. It doesn't hurt to send them a letter though and see how they respond.

 

Yep Bookworm my head hurt quite a bit too!

[means2anend]

Guys n Gals

 

I know your heads hurt trying to reason that one out...so I am just gonna take it on face value and literally!!!

 

it appears as though it was meant to be read that way....dont appear to be any slip of the tongue but quite deliberate.

 

m2ae

[Bookworm]

I take that to mean:

 

Either the terms of the contract are fair or unfair; if they are fair there is nothing the customer can do that makes them unfair.

so it is really a non sequitur then.

 

I mean, we know that if they're fair, then the customer's actions can't make it unfair.

 

The argument is what when they are not fair, as we maintain? It remains that if we contend so, giving as Rhia as done multiple examples, then it is up to them to prove that they are fair, no?

[rdm2006]

reminds me of a nursery rhyme,

 

when YOU are good, WE are very very good but when YOU are bad, WE are horrid.

 

If "All our current accounts operate under identical t & c's"

 

Then they should be fair regardless of individual action - should they not ?

[Aequitas]

...then it is up to them to prove that they are fair, no?

 

The Regs say:

 

It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was

 

but are otherwise silent. When you think about it, it surely has to be the case that the consumer argues that a term is unfair - the Regs do after all set out examples of unfair terms, not fair ones. In practice when you are in court both sides put forward their argument. I cannot see a judge being happy with a consumer who turns up in court and simply says that a term is unfair and then sits down.

 

In any event, what the bank would have to show is not so much that a term is fair, but that it is not unfair within the meaning of the Regs.

[Bookworm]

The Regs say:

 

It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was

 

but are otherwise silent. When you think about it, it surely has to be the case that the consumer argues that a term is unfair - the Regs do after all set out examples of unfair terms, not fair ones. In practice when you are in court both sides put forward their argument. I cannot see a judge being happy with a consumer who turns up in court and simply says that a term is unfair and then sits down.

 

In any event, what the bank would have to show is not so much that a term is fair, but that it is not unfair within the meaning of the Regs.

Uh-uh. The fair/unfair argument is being presented under the CCA, I believe, not the UTCCR, where it is up to them to prove their case, although I am willing to get corrected by those who have actually used the argument, since I haven't paid close attention to the new arguments lately.

[Rhia]

I used both arguments Bookworm but the bank has ignored the CCA part in its answer.

[landy_alert]

Hi everyone:)

 

I too wrote to my bank (LTSB) using both the new arguments as per the GLC template, 'humanising' it with my own personal experiences so it was not just a template letter. After initially receiving the standard 'we hope to get back to you with a response in 4 weeks, but definitely no more than 8 weeks' type reply, followed by a 'we have passed a copy of your letter to our bank and card charges legal team who will respond shortly' letter, I'm still waiting 12 weeks on..............not sure if they've forgotten or just don't know how to respond to these arguments!

 

Landy x

[Bookworm]

I used both arguments Bookworm but the bank has ignored the CCA part in its answer.

Shocking.

[Bookworm]

Hi everyone:)

 

I too wrote to my bank (LTSB) using both the new arguments as per the GLC template, 'humanising' it with my own personal experiences so it was not just a template letter. After initially receiving the standard 'we hope to get back to you with a response in 4 weeks, but definitely no more than 8 weeks' type reply, followed by a 'we have passed a copy of your letter to our bank and card charges legal team who will respond shortly' letter, I'm still waiting 12 weeks on..............not sure if they've forgotten or just don't know how to respond to these arguments!

 

Landy x

Time to hone that pitchfork, don't you think?

[noomill060]

All across the land, pitchforks are being honed, scythes are being sharpend and torches are being lit by honest countryfolk gathering on village greens, ready for the cry to go out:

 

"To the castle!!"

 

(In the Hammer House of Horror idiom)

 

*noomill awards himself 10 points for knowing how to spell scythe*

[Bookworm]

*minus 5 for not spelling "sharpened" properly though.*

[noomill060]

doh!

 

(I knew it didnt look right!)

[fuzzybobble]

Hopefully before this year is over, I'll be able to send SH-Abbey Santandurr a postcard showing what I spent my charges refund+ interest on.

 

Just toying with the idea of also afterwards going after unlawful recission of the account, and compensation for the unlawful default that by then will have been on my credit file for most of 2010.

 

When it comes to the banks, I want to make them part with as much cash as possible.

[Aequitas]

Uh-uh. The fair/unfair argument is being presented under the CCA, I believe, not the UTCCR, where it is up to them to prove their case...

 

Noted.

[littlefatbudha]

subbing

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Do we know if the Scottish test case to hear the new legal arguments for bank charge reclaiming is still going to trial on June 11th?

 

TheyrCriminals

[means2anend]

Hi Guys,

 

Do we know if the Scottish test case to hear the new legal arguments for bank charge reclaiming is still going to trial on June 11th?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

I got an update from Mike Thomas at Debtwizard.com and it appears so!

[kennyh]

Holding me breath ain't in it!!

[means2anend]

check this out

 

Taxi driver with help of CAG wins late payment charges on POST 40 courtesy of

Bankfodder

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/246352-finance-company-claim-charges.html

[citizenB]

Hi Guys,

 

Do we know if the Scottish test case to hear the new legal arguments for bank charge reclaiming is still going to trial on June 11th?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

 

There has been nothing said to suggest that it isnt.

[Bookworm]

5 days and counting.

 

Do us proud.

[ncf355]

5 days and counting.

 

Do us proud.

 

+1!

 

Go GLC!!