Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[Bookworm]

just wish me luck.

 

TheyrCriminals

I do wish you luck, god knows we all need it!

 

Just a word of caution: Remember that if you had gone to a solicitor 5 yrs ago with the "penalties" argument, most would have patted you on the head patronisingly and told you to leave the law to them as you didn't know wat you were talking about... It took a tiny, tiny handful of believers to get things off the ground, and the banks' running scared to show they were on the right track.

 

I don't believe the banks intend to make the same mistake twice. They thought that by settling quietly, they would silence the few claimants, instead, the knowlege spread and spread. This time, I firmly believe they will throw everything they can at the 1st LIPs putting their heads over the parapet to try and finish this before it gets a chance to start.

 

Either way, the best of any nationality luck you wish for.

[Bookworm]

Basically the banks said earlier that the charges covered costs incurred by them, and they didn't make a dime in profit. Now it turns out they make billions in profit from charges and it's their core business, but they still can't give us a breakdown of how much it costs. As an example say it costs them £1.50, on £12 thats 700% profit. Thats excessive. I can't think of any other industry where you could get away with that. If the supermarkets increased a pint of milk by 700% the OFT would be all over them, this is pretty much the same.

But that's the thing, if it is part of their core business, then they don't have to give us a breakdown. They can increase it by however much they want, and I am sorry to disagree, but the OFT can't do anything about it, the SC judgment has made sure of that. Profits margins, however obscene, are not unlawful, indeed they are necessary for any business, and as we keep on being reminded, banks are a business, not a charity. The disreputable way in which that business mechanism functions, well, that's really the crux of the matter now... In other words, you can't contest the amount they charge, only the mechanism through which these charges occur. If the mechanism is unfair, then even a smaller amount would be unfair, and the mechanism is fair, then they can charge whatever they want. In some ways, this has opened a bigger can of worms, as if the mechanism is found to be faulty, it's the whole banking system which will need changing, and that would be a lot more far-reaching tham a "simple" lowering of the charges and/or rewriting of the T&Cs. It's the difference between valeting a car and having to change its engine if you will. ;-)

[means2anend]

Basically the banks said earlier that the charges covered costs incurred by them, and they didn't make a dime in profit. Now it turns out they make billions in profit from charges and it's their core business, but they still can't give us a breakdown of how much it costs. As an example say it costs them £1.50, on £12 thats 700% profit. Thats excessive. I can't think of any other industry where you could get away with that. If the supermarkets increased a pint of milk by 700% the OFT would be all over them, this is pretty much the same.

 

 

It was revealed a couple of weeks ago that some Civil Servants are receiving far more thatn the PM in wages...Guess what ....yes you guessed it the Chief Executive of the OFT John Fingleton is way out in front on well over £200,000.

 

I feel that he feels that he hasn't got the 'Moral Authority' to hunt down greedy bankers and banks in general...what a palava!

 

m2ae:evil:

[rebel11]

The Supreme Court, left the door open and they only looked at in a narrow review. That says a lot, not as black and white as some think.

 

But that's the thing, if it is part of their core business, then they don't have to give us a breakdown. They can increase it by however much they want, and I am sorry to disagree, but the OFT can't do anything about it, the SC judgment has made sure of that. Profits margins, however obscene, are not unlawful, indeed they are necessary for any business, and as we keep on being reminded, banks are a business, not a charity. The disreputable way in which that business mechanism functions, well, that's really the crux of the matter now... In other words, you can't contest the amount they charge, only the mechanism through which these charges occur. If the mechanism is unfair, then even a smaller amount would be unfair, and the mechanism is fair, then they can charge whatever they want. In some ways, this has opened a bigger can of worms, as if the mechanism is found to be faulty, it's the whole banking system which will need changing, and that would be a lot more far-reaching tham a "simple" lowering of the charges and/or rewriting of the T&Cs. It's the difference between valeting a car and having to change its engine if you will. ;-)

[vacma373]

Have I missed something the thread seems to have suddenly gone quiet?

[bertramr]

Update from GLC here...

 

Govan Law Centre: Bank charges update from GLC

[citizenB]

Pretty much what we expected. Thank you bert:)

[Bookworm]

Ok, hands up who's confused.

 

This is necessary because the banks defence to a s.140A Consumer Credit Act (CCA) claim is to argue that the banking contract was not a regulated credit agreement. The banks are also arguing that claims cannot go back before 6 April 2007.

 

*Bookie, hand up first*

 

How can they be unregulated?

And why on earth april 2007???

 

Answers on the back of RBS T&Cs, please. :-?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Bookie!

 

How can they be unregulated?

 

And why on earth april 2007???

They obviously meant 1st April.

 

The year not being important!

 

It's obviously a blurdy big joke at the Consumers' expense, as usual.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[elsinore]

 

How can they be unregulated?

 

Well, GLC sort of answer it in the next paragraph

 

Accordingly, if we can persuade the court that these lines of defence are irrelevant and wrong in law, this would leave claims to be determined on the facts as regards the unfair relationship test and the level of unfairness and consumer detriment.

 

 

And why on earth april 2007???

 

3 years limitation in Scotland?

 

....and it's Bank of Scotland, not RBS.

 

Els

[mystery1]

Probably when the change to the cca 74 - cca 2006 took effect regarding fairness.

 

 

M1

[Poor-Credit Borrower]

Does anyone have any progress/update with reclaiming bank charges from the Abbey, or should this be in a separate thread. If so, I wouldn't mind a link to that thread. Thanks!

[Bookworm]

Well, GLC sort of answer it in the next paragraph

You don't mean "basically, the bank is throwing all kinds of crap at the case hoping some of it will stick"?

3 years limitation in Scotland?

5, not 3, so can't be that.

 

....and it's Bank of Scotland, not RBS.

Woops. ... Och well... Different name, same crap.

[MondeoST24]

Sounds quite positive to me.

 

Bank tried to move it from small claims hoping the claimant would cry off, Govan said no problem they can get legal aid anyway

 

IMHO the banks defence arguments look like complete nonsense, as Govan say irrelevant and wrong in law.

 

I would say its looking good.

[bustthematrix]

Not sure I agree.

 

the banks defence to a s.140A Consumer Credit Act (CCA) claim is to argue that the banking contract was not a regulated credit agreement.

They may have a point here. Bank charges are part of a current account agreement or contract. The question here is whether such agreements come under the remit of the CCA. Personal Current Accounts aren't fixed sum, running credit or hire agreements. It may be argued that where an overdraft facility is provided, that portion of it may come under the CCA as a running credit type agreement but does that make the whole bank account agreement under the CCA?

 

Worth exploring isn't it?

[elsinore]

5, not 3, so can't be that.

 

Sorry Bookie, I should have put one of these after my comment!

 

They are just putting off the evil day.

 

Els

[lilly white]

Well to me, it looks game on................ WELL DONE GLC....

 

 

LILLY WHITE

[Bigdebtor]

Not sure I agree.

 

They may have a point here. Bank charges are part of a current account agreement or contract. The question here is whether such agreements come under the remit of the CCA. Personal Current Accounts aren't fixed sum, running credit or hire agreements. It may be argued that where an overdraft facility is provided, that portion of it may come under the CCA as a running credit type agreement but does that make the whole bank account agreement under the CCA?

 

Worth exploring isn't it?

 

Four points:

1. I have had letters about my overdraft where the Bank say they have had to write to me because of CCA 1974.

2. These unfair/illegal/exhorbitant/extortionate charges are related to the OVERDRAFT part of the account - not a monthly (or daily £1, £2 or £5) charge like HBOS now make instead.

3. The bank's letter used to say "to cover our costs" when inmposing the £35 charges. If they were making a profit from these charges at that time - then that was a lie - i.e. FRAUD. :mad:

4. They are truly despicable and all deserve to be JAILED (or is that GAOLED in UK?). :mad:

 

I have over £10k in bank charges and associated o/d interest going back to 1995 that I am desperate to reclaim.

 

I HATE THE LOT OF THEM. :mad::mad:

 

BD

 

PS - I'm a tad annoyed right now - but I think I'm hiding it well.

[rdm2006]

 

I HATE THE LOT OF THEM. :mad::mad:

 

PS - I'm a tad annoyed right now - but I think I'm hiding it well.

 

Really - We hadn't noticed

[kennyh]

PS - I'm a tad annoyed right now - but I think I'm hiding it well

Well I'll be dawgoned - never have guessed.

[rdm2006]

Well I'll be dawgoned - never have guessed.

 

Snap

[Bigdebtor]

I always found it best to hide my true feelings and just grin and bear it!

 

BTW - Good afternoon guests!

 

BD

[letsdothis]

I always found it best to hide my true feelings and just grin and bear it!

 

BTW - Good afternoon guests!

 

BD

 

I knew you weren't really annoyed.

[bustthematrix]

Four points:

1. I have had letters about my overdraft where the Bank say they have had to write to me because of CCA 1974.

Well that makes it easier in your case, they obviously can't use that plea for you then!

 

2. These unfair/illegal/exhorbitant/extortionate charges are related to the OVERDRAFT part of the account - not a monthly (or daily £1, £2 or £5) charge like HBOS now make instead.

Not always, what about bounced Cheques, Direct debits or Standing Orders

 

3. The bank's letter used to say "to cover our costs" when inmposing the £35 charges. If they were making a profit from these charges at that time - then that was a lie - i.e. FRAUD. :mad:

Great. You can probably use this in a 1-2-1 UTCCR argument!

 

4. They are truly despicable and all deserve to be JAILED (or is that GAOLED in UK?). :mad:

You don't say

 

I have over £10k in bank charges and associated o/d interest going back to 1995 that I am desperate to reclaim.

Bring it on big boy:cool:

I HATE THE LOT OF THEM. :mad::mad:

Steady. Stay on track and please try not to let this take over your life.

 

BD

 

PS - I'm a tad annoyed right now - but I think I'm hiding it well.

hmmmm, your post has more 'Mad' smilies than I've seen in a long time...

[johnnymitch]

by bustthematrix: It may be argued that where an overdraft facility is provided, that portion of it may come under the CCA as a running credit type agreement but does that make the whole bank account agreement under the CCA?

 

Worth exploring isn't it?

 

I'd say it's worth exploring as the charges were applied because the Overdraft limit was breached ...... surely it can be argued that that's the regulated part of the agreement ... ?

 

Just a thought ......