Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[bustthematrix]

Which may explain why counsel for the bank objected so strongly to the orders we sought, and hoped to get the case dismissed.

 

The court was taken through the new ss.140A-B CCA case, and the substantially revised reg.5 case, and full legal argument took place in light of same. The bank was ordained to lodge defences in light of the new and revised grounds of claim, and a full evidential hearing was fixed.

Any chance that BOS will withdraw their defence before trial date?

[means2anend]

Any chance that BOS will withdraw their defence before trial date?

 

IF they did that,that in itself would speak volumes (conspicous by their absence)

 

The effect would be just the same as if they had made a return to making goodwill gesture payments AND NO PRECEDENT ...I could see banks resorting to this fall back position once again..BUT hey GRRRREEEAATTT!!! so what.

 

However it would mean no automatic right to repayment but upon individual application by debtors.

Edited April 13, 2010 by means2anend

[bustthematrix]

At the end of the day, I guess they can be expected to do whatever is in their best interest!...which is what their lawyers will advise.

 

They were happy with this fall back initially but when it resulted in an avalanche of claimants, they decided to put up a fight.

 

It comes down to strength of argument and sadly, corruption of some members of the judiciary.

[kennyh]

Originally Posted by GLC

Which may explain why counsel for the bank objected so strongly to the orders we sought, and hoped to get the case dismissed.

 

The court was taken through the new ss.140A-B CCA case, and the substantially revised reg.5 case, and full legal argument took place in light of same. The bank was ordained to lodge defences in light of the new and revised grounds of claim, and a full evidential hearing was fixed.

Is this the one fixed for the June hearing?

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/251309-very-urgent-help.html

 

Halifax took this cagger back to court to have the original decision overturned. cagger now has to repay the monies awarded in respect of charges to Halifax

[Poor-Credit Borrower]

Lets face it!!! The Libs can say they will do this that and the other. They can make all the statements and promises they like. They will never be in government, so will never be put to the test on anything they say!!!

 

Good that this is actually being brought up though! Even if it is weeks from the Election!!!

 

Cheers,MARK

 

I hear what you say, but think the Lib Dems are the most honest party (out of the three) and have thought so over the last 20 years or so! One thing that does go against them being in government at any time soon is a lack of proportional representation in the present electoral system.

 

What have the 'main' two political parties, or their leaders, said about the current level of bank charges?

[mark1arby]

I hear what you say, but think the Lib Dems are the most honest party (out of the three) and have thought so over the last 20 years or so! One thing that does go against them being in government at any time soon is a lack of proportional representation in the present electoral system.

 

What have the 'main' two political parties, or their leaders, said about the current level of bank charges?

 

Hey PCB Hello! Only a Comment! This is a Forum on Dealing With Debt!!! And you are probably quite right about PR.

 

No offence intended M8!!!

 

Cheers, MARK

[teaboy2]

Subbing

[hsbcfiddled]

I watched the leaders debate last Thursday (yes I know I am sad!) but only to see if Banks and their charges were mentioned.

 

After reading what Nick Clegg said on April 9th I hoped he might put up a good performance- and he certainly did.

 

I hope that his good showing might encourage the other two parties to pinch some of his ideas- obviously the Bank charges.

 

I am not politically minded.

Anyone who knocks those thieving banks will get my vote.

[Fred Bassett]

The problem is that, like it or not, the Government needs the banks on their side. So far the banks haven't played ball and the Government appears to be very reluctant to make them. The main parties can't afford to upset the banks too much. Clegg can because he won't be Prime Minister after this election.

[HSBCrusher]

all the politic stuff removed.. keep it on topic please folks.

 

plenty of room for that on the BBC

[Rhia]

Took a while to get a reply but I challenged my bank re charges for the current account. I used the two new arguments s140 (1) a-e of the CCA 1974 and regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR.

They have replied that I am arguing that the relationship is unfair by reason of the way I have operated my account. All their accounts operate under identical terms and conditions and they claim the fact I have operated my account in such a way as to incur unarranged borrowing charges does not mean that the relationship was unfair. They go on to say that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.

They also say that The Supreme Court ruled that unarranged borrowing charges are part of the price a customer pays for a package of services under a current account agreement. The charges can be said to come within the exemption to regulation 5(1) that is contained in regulation 6(2b) and the amount of the charge is not assessable for fairness.

They add my argument is another way of saying the charges are too high and so, as far as the Supreme Court ruling is concerned, they cannot be challenged on that ruling.

They totally ignored the personal examples I gave of where their actions actually led to these charges being applied which proved they were unfair and gave rise to an imbalance/unfairness in the relationship.

Of course under the new CCA law change it is up to them to prove they are not unfair...not me.

I think they are waffling and hoping this will suffice as an answer. It won't.

[kennyh]

Hi Rhia - how did they get around the fact that contracts are usually pre-printed and thus not individually negotiated?

[Rhia]

Absolutely! There is so much wrong with their reply it is difficult to know where to start. But start I will. It needs taking apart line by line and chucking back at them. As I said before they are just waffling and hoping it will be OK as a fob off.

[luckysandpiper]

Absolutely! There is so much wrong with their reply it is difficult to know where to start. But start I will. It needs taking apart line by line and chucking back at them. As I said before they are just waffling and hoping it will be OK as a fob off.

 

Rhia

 

Can I ask which bank you are dealing with ? Sounds just like the guff I got from Sharkleys !

 

LSP

[prelude2a]

subbing

[Rhia]

Rhia

 

Can I ask which bank you are dealing with ? Sounds just like the guff I got from Sharkleys !

 

LSP

 

Rather not say for now but it's one of the main ones who were involved in the Supreme Court case.

[means2anend]

Took a while to get a reply but I challenged my bank re charges for the current account. I used the two new arguments s140 (1) a-e of the CCA 1974 and regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR.

They have replied that I am arguing that the relationship is unfair by reason of the way I have operated my account. All their accounts operate under identical terms and conditions and they claim the fact I have operated my account in such a way as to incur unarranged borrowing charges does not mean that the relationship was unfair. They go on to say that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.

They also say that The Supreme Court ruled that unarranged borrowing charges are part of the price a customer pays for a package of services under a current account agreement. The charges can be said to come within the exemption to regulation 5(1) that is contained in regulation 6(2b) and the amount of the charge is not assessable for fairness.

They add my argument is another way of saying the charges are too high and so, as far as the Supreme Court ruling is concerned, they cannot be challenged on that ruling.

They totally ignored the personal examples I gave of where their actions actually led to these charges being applied which proved they were unfair and gave rise to an imbalance/unfairness in the relationship.

Of course under the new CCA law change it is up to them to prove they are not unfair...not me.

I think they are waffling and hoping this will suffice as an answer. It won't.

 

 

YOU said THEY said;

''They go on to say'', ''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

...oh my what a statement to make:D

 

m2ae

[Bookworm]

YOU said THEY said;

''They go on to say'', ''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

 

...oh my what a statement to make:D

 

m2ae

In other words, it is YOUR conduct which creates the unfairness from which you suffer? They're not saying it's not unfair, they're saying that you create the unfairness. Oh my.

 

Is that what we're back to: "It's your own fault"? That the best they can do?

[Bigdebtor]

I read the OPPOSITE. It's the CREDITOR which causes the unfairnmess due to its terms or its conduct - NEVER the CUSTOMER.

 

Am I wrong (again)? Tell me... I can take it! I'm used to hearing it. Ive been married for over 35 years since I met "Miss Right all the time".

 

BD

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all,

 

This Cagger states:

 

''They go on to say'', ''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

In my own humble opinion, if this is accurate and exactly what is written down in their response, then for the Bank it is a case of ' Game over' = Customer - 1 Bank - 0....or have I misread this??

 

As always, best wishes to all,

 

Dougal.

[xp1]

Good morning all,

 

This Cagger states:

 

''They go on to say'', ''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

In my own humble opinion, if this is accurate and exactly what is written down in their response, then for the Bank it is a case of ' Game over' = Customer - 1 Bank - 0....or have I misread this??

 

As always, best wishes to all,

 

Dougal.

 

.............

Edited April 26, 2010 by xp1
re-read and understood correctly

[Rhia]

OK. I wrote one letter challenging them under s140 CCA and s5(1) UTCCR and apart from adding some personal evidence to support my stance I kept it brief but it's based on the GLC's letter. This is the EXACTLY what they said (my comments in blue):

 

"Your argument is that the relationship between you and NastyBank is unfair by reason of the way you have operated your account" (In other words it's my fault)

 

"All our current accounts operate under identical terms and conditions. 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."

(Now I thought the new s140 of the CCA puts the onus on the creditor to prove they are being fair NOT the other way around)

 

"The Supreme Court ruled that unarranged borrowing charges are part of a price customers pay for the entire package of services under the current account agreement. The charges come within the exemption to regulation 5 (1) that is contained in regulation 6(2b) and therefore the amount of the charge is not assessable for fairness. The Supreme Court has stated that the charges cannot be challenged on the basis that they are too high and your argument is just another way of saying they are too high."

 

As has been pointed out they have also ignored the fact that a term is deemed unfair unless it has been individually negotiated.

 

Over to you CAG...

[Dougal16T]

OK. I wrote one letter challenging them under s140 CCA and s5(1) UTCCR and apart from adding some personal evidence to support my stance I kept it brief but it's based on the GLC's letter. This is the EXACTLY what they said (my comments in blue):

 

"Your argument is that the relationship between you and NastyBank is unfair by reason of the way you have operated your account" (In other words it's my fault)

 

"All our current accounts operate under identical terms and conditions. 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."

(Now I thought the new s140 of the CCA puts the onus on the creditor to prove they are being fair NOT the other way around)

 

"The Supreme Court ruled that unarranged borrowing charges are part of a price customers pay for the entire package of services under the current account agreement. The charges come within the exemption to regulation 5 (1) that is contained in regulation 6(2b) and therefore the amount of the charge is not assessable for fairness. The Supreme Court has stated that the charges cannot be challenged on the basis that they are too high and your argument is just another way of saying they are too high."

 

As has been pointed out they have also ignored the fact that a term is deemed unfair unless it has been individually negotiated.

 

Over to you CAG...

 

Good morning again,

 

Yes you are 100% right Rhia, the onus of proof in a case for unfairness, ( Under CCA 2006) is on the Creditor and NOT on the debtor.

 

I think that the wording of the POC needs to be very accurate and detailed, with every 'unfair' action by the Creditor set out - this will minimise 'strike-out' applications by the Creditor

 

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

[Aequitas]

''that any unfairness arises because of the terms of the agreement or the conduct of the creditor, not the conduct of the customer.''

 

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.