Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[onestressedwoman]

Hi

I am affraid bank charges on a curent account are not unlawful. I would check out "Sequencies" posts and bloggs for advice on dealing with your charging order.

Peter

 

Peter sometimes I am so silly !

Charging order is re CC debt so appears my head is away with the fairies do same rules apply though

[Peterbard]

Peter sometimes I am so silly !

Charging order is re CC debt so appears my head is away with the fairies do same rules apply though

 

Hi

I believe the jury is still out regarding Credit Card charges.

 

To be honest i am not sure if credit card charges would be applicable to an order to set asside a CCJ at the moment, but i am sure someone on here will know.

 

I would start a thread over on the debt forum and post up some specifics about your case, there may be other factors that can be used to help in your situation.

 

Peter

[means2anend]

HI

Yes as Car says, the OFT cannot look into individual cases of unfairness and by definition the unfairness of something done or not done within the life of a contract would only be relevant to that individual case.

When the issue was to decide if terms in a contract(re charges) were unfair, the results of the investigations would have had implications for all agreements.

Peter

 

Yes

 

but what about standard contracts

[Peterbard]

Yes

 

but what about standard contracts

 

Hi

Sorry having a thick day, could you explain

Peter

[Guest]

Yes

 

but what about standard contracts

 

as have previously posted, it was held that it is beyond the (statutory) terms of reference for the oft to look into the 'unfairness' of bank charges. it would be for the individual to challenge their agreement, and thus, in the long run, for a ct to decide. each bank has its own 'standard' current account agreement relative to each particular type of account.

imo

Edited March 28, 2011 by Ford
typ

[Peterbard]

as previously posted, it was held that it is beyond the (statutory) terms of reference for the oft to look into the 'unfairness' of bank charges. it would be for the individual to challenge their agreement, and thus, in the long run, for a ct to decide. each bank has its own 'standard' current account agreement relative to each particular type of account.

imo

 

Hi

 

Yes this refers to an individual creditors T and Cs containing a term which the debtor may wish to chalenge regarding fairness. It says that it would be up to the court to decide depending on the creditors standard contract if the term was or was not a core term and thus actionable.

Peter

Edited March 28, 2011 by Dodgeball
clarity

[caro]

Peter sometimes I am so silly !

Charging order is re CC debt so appears my head is away with the fairies do same rules apply though

 

As Peter says start a thread but ........

 

Hi

I believe the jury is still out regarding Credit Card charges.

 

To be honest i am not sure if credit card charges would be applicable to an order to set asside a CCJ at the moment, but i am sure someone on here will know.

 

I would start a thread over on the debt forum and post up some specifics about your case, there may be other factors that can be used to help in your situation.

 

Peter

 

...... people are still successfully claiming CC charges, including old ones and those for £12.

[means2anend]

Hi

 

Yes this refers to an individual creditors T and Cs containing a term which the debtor may wish to chalenge regarding fairness. It says that it would be up to the court to decide depending on the creditors standard contract if the term was or was not a core term and thus actionable.

Peter

 

Thanks

[car2403]

Yes

 

but what about standard contracts

 

as have previously posted, it was held that it is beyond the (statutory) terms of reference for the oft to look into the 'unfairness' of bank charges. it would be for the individual to challenge their agreement, and thus, in the long run, for a ct to decide. each bank has its own 'standard' current account agreement relative to each particular type of account.

imo

 

The terms can't be unfair (well, for the OFT to investigate) only their application, but it's not until you challenge them in your individual case that the Court can decide.

 

The question is what has happened to the class action that the government bandied around as them 'helping' the consumer?

[Peterbard]

Hi

I think it must be possible for the actual terms on an agreement to be challengebe, if not on the core term issue then on the issue of either being or not being a default charge.

 

Can a default charge stil be a core term? personally i think so. Isnt this the case in running credit. I think that whislt it is true that the way the charge is applied is what matters when the agreement is being assesed for fairness, the actual term itself can still be challenged as to whether it is a default charge and thus a penalty or not. This will depend on the wording of the standard contract.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

Further to the last post.

What exactly is it that makes a credit card still challengeanble under the "default issue".

Is it that the account is already overdrawn so the charge cannot be regarded as an application for an overdraft, i dont think that stands up because it could be said it was an application for an extension to the facility.

Surely it is the fact that the repayment methods are stated in the contract, so failing to pay must be a breach and thus any charge for this must be a default charge.(and if disproportionate a penalty)

 

If this is the case then couldnt it be said that if a standard current account contract stated that a minimum monthly payment must be credited to the account or a charge would be raised must also be a breach.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

The High Court declared that, in the main, bank charges are not payable upon breach of contract and as such are not capable of being penalties.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11747016

 

Credit Card charges for late payment etc are default charges (at least in the OFT's view) and it was on that basis that the OFT told CC providers to reduce the charges to £12, which they did.

 

Hi

 

Yes and for a payment to be late , the payment schedule has to be stated in the agreement.

 

Peter

[rdm2006]

The High Court declared that, in the main, bank charges are not payable upon breach of contract and as such are not capable of being penalties.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11747016

 

Credit Card charges for late payment etc are default charges (at least in the OFT's view) and it was on that basis that the OFT told CC providers to reduce the charges to £12, which they did.

 

I thought that they said going overdrawn was not a breach of contract, therefore, the charges could not be penalties (bank charges, not credit card charges)

Edited March 30, 2011 by rdm2006

[Peterbard]

HI.

 

The reason i bring it up is , I remember some time ago i had a business account with the Nat West.

I seem to remember that part of the agreement was that i deposited a set amount each month into the account.

In other words the account was issued on the understanding that my business generated a certain income and that income was paid into my account.

If i didnt then i had to pay a fee for my banking.

 

Would this be cosidered a default chage or part of the contract?

 

Peter

Edited March 30, 2011 by Dodgeball

[car2403]

What's the class action that was banded around by the Government?

 

I can't find anything on it now, but I'm sure Gordy Broon was suggesting this?

[car2403]

That's an interesting point, maybe. There are accounts nowadays like Halifax where you have to deposit £1000 per month in order to get the £5 'reward' and although I'm not certain, I think there is a charge for not doing so (in addition to not getting the reward). But it might be that it isn't a default and the charge works the same way as bank charges do ie is triggered on an event, is provided for in the T&Cs and is in exchange for the package of banking services.

 

There's no charge if you don't, although, as you say you will lose the benefit of not getting the reward payment. I'd agree it's a moot point, as it's all included in the T&C's, so can't amount to a penalty for the same reasons as stated above.

[Peterbard]

oops

[Peterbard]

There's no charge if you don't, although, as you say you will lose the benefit of not getting the reward payment. I'd agree it's a moot point, as it's all included in the T&C's, so can't amount to a penalty for the same reasons as stated above.

 

Hi

 

I think it is more a matter of the way it is presented in the T and Cs. If they said "if you do not do this or your ballance does that then we can charge you £X" then that would not be a default charge and there would be no protection under common law. If it said " if you defafult your repayments " then you would.

I think this is the crux of the argument that the bank used to avoid the penalty issue.

Peter

[rdm2006]

They did - that's what I said.

 

 

The High Court declared that, in the main, bank charges are not payable upon breach of contract and as such are not capable of being penalties.

 

compared to

 

going overdrawn was not a breach of contract, therefore, the charges could not be penalties

 

 

Perhaps I read it wrongly

[bustthematrix]

There's no charge if you don't, although, as you say you will lose the benefit of not getting the reward payment. I'd agree it's a moot point, as it's all included in the T&C's, so can't amount to a penalty for the same reasons as stated above.

Car, can you please comment then, on why Loan and Credit card companies can't use the same argument (not that I want them to, just want to pick your brains if that's ok ) for their own default fees? It appears they still currently issue refunds to claimants whilst banks don't. Thanks

[Guest]

rdm. as you, and others, have alluded to, the focus should be on the 'fairness' of the o/d 'charges' (or whatever they want to call them). and not on whether the agreement says if you do/don't do this and that.... ie, are the actual o/d 'charges' fair/proportionate?

ps, as bustthematrix has also just alluded to?

imo

Edited March 31, 2011 by Ford
ps

[Peterbard]

Car, can you please comment then, on why Loan and Credit card companies can't use the same argument (not that I want them to, just want to pick your brains if that's ok ) for their own default fees? It appears they still currently issue refunds to claimants whilst banks don't. Thanks

 

Hi

Must be psychic just started a thread on that very subject here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?300503-Credit-Card-charges-vs-Bank-Charges&p=3354141#post3354141

I am sure Car will comment

 

Peter

Edited March 30, 2011 by Dodgeball
spell

[car2403]

Car, can you please comment then, on why Loan and Credit card companies can't use the same argument (not that I want them to, just want to pick your brains if that's ok ) for their own default fees? It appears they still currently issue refunds to claimants whilst banks don't. Thanks

 

There never has been a cross read from the Bank Charges judgment to these types of charges, though - this is why CAG and others still encourage these other (non-Bank) charges to be recovered like this.

 

The issue that most of these contracts have is that the charges are referred to as a 'default' situation, which is what Peter's point is above. It's not whether they are penalties or not, as any charge that isn't specifically allowed for in the contract would most likely be seen as a penalty. The problem these contracts have is that they can't refer to default fees, or even service fees for defaulting, as they are subject to the test of fairness in UTCCR even if they aren't deemed as penalties. This is why the Supreme Court's ruling on Bank Charges blew the whole thing open and scared folk off, IMHO. There's nothing to stop you using UTCCR to reclaim Bank Charges, but heed the SC's advice if you're doing so, as the Judgment severely limits the scope on which you can claim and therefore limits your chances of success somewhat as a result, also.

 

The swines!

 

Hi

Must be psychic just started a thread on that very subject here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?300503-Credit-Card-charges-vs-Bank-Charges&p=3354141#post3354141

I am sure Car will comment

 

Peter

 

And I did

 

[bustthematrix]

Cheers Car

[rdm2006]

rdm. as you, and others, have alluded to, the focus should be on the 'fairness' of the o/d 'charges' (or whatever they want to call them). and not on whether the agreement says if you do/don't do this and that. ie, are the actual o/d 'charges' fair/proportionate?

ps, as bustthematrix has also just alluded to?

imo

 

This was what OFT should have done and was invited to do so by the SC but they chose not to claiming that it was too narrow of a point ???