Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[Peterbard]

I can't find anything in the Judgment that supports that contention, in fact, there's lots that say they are Core, including the fact that the T&C's include details on what the charges are, how they are applied and how to avoid them in the first place.

 

From MSE on the new challenges recommended;

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges#legal

 

Hi

Sorry C i found this which seems to support the contention as far as i can see

But, the Supreme Court suggested that the OFT could judge the fairness of the charges in relation to different criteria because, they said, the Court of Appeal was wrong to make a distinction between a core package and ancillary services. They found that Regulation 6 (2) (b) "contained no indication that only the ‘essential’ price or remuneration was relevant. In fact, any monetary price or remuneration payable under the contract would naturally fall within the language of Regulation 6 (2) (b)"17

It seems to be saying that the court says the supreme court considered the chartges as part of a package as said, and the fact that they were not core charges is not relevant. On the plus side it does tie in with the argument that an agreement can be challenged on the terms i mentioned earlier as it ha nothing to do with the price.

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi

So if this is true then the subsiduary prces even though being within the exclusion granted by section 6 would still be challengeable on the grounds that they where not core terms.

 

The core terms of the agreement would have been the ones that the customer would have used as comparison in order to get the best bargain, they would have been the terms that were controlled by commertial pressure, this is the only reason that a term like this can escape having to be individually negotiated, charges have no such escape route they are not a core term and they are not negotiated they are a breach. Maybee

 

Peter

[car2403]

Hi

Sorry C i found this which seems to support the contention as far as i can see

But, the Supreme Court suggested that the OFT could judge the fairness of the charges in relation to different criteria because, they said, the Court of Appeal was wrong to make a distinction between a core package and ancillary services. They found that Regulation 6 (2) (b) "contained no indication that only the ‘essential’ price or remuneration was relevant. In fact, any monetary price or remuneration payable under the contract would naturally fall within the language of Regulation 6 (2) (b)"17

It seems to be saying that the court says the supreme court considered the chartges as part of a package as said, and the fact that they were not core charges is not relevant. On the plus side it does tie in with the argument that an agreement can be challenged on the terms i mentioned earlier as it ha nothing to do with the price.

Peter

 

Fair enough. I'm putting a sticky together with all the Judgments, as it will get confusing not being able to directly refer to them. (Not that I'm making excuses for getting it wrong, of course )

[Peterbard]

Fair enough. I'm putting a sticky together with all the Judgments, as it will get confusing not being able to directly refer to them. (Not that I'm making excuses for getting it wrong, of course )

 

HI C

 

Nothing wrong with being wrong C we all do it all the time, i was wrong once, july 25 1974 3pm thought it was going to rain, didnt.

 

Peter

[car2403]

HI C

 

Nothing wrong with being wrong C we all do it all the time, i was wrong once, july 25 1974 3pm thought it was going to rain, didnt.

 

Peter

 

It has rained since though, so...

 

Wasn't wrong, was only playing Devil's advocate... remember...

[fireprism]

You can ask an independent company to set up direct debits on your behalf and they only charge 50p per transaction, and thats with a 3rd party doing the work. The banks automated systems must be even cheaper than that, and if the bank state higher figures in a court of law that they cannot prove, as far as i see it, thats called perjury. Please correct me if i am wrong. Even a manual system with a typist at a desk has been worked out at no more than £2.00 per transaction, but it hasnt been like that for decades now.

[fireprism]

I had to write to the court to ask for the stay to be lifted, my case was only on hold, not cancelled. I had paid my £50 and wanted my day in court, even if i lost. Judge granted permission to lift stay and submit revised claim.

[caro]

We had a Yorkshire Bank analyst on the site some time back who calculated the cost on their system, which was called CYNthesys. The cost was somewhere around £1.25 per returned item and that included the cost of overheads, staff time, postage etc. That would have been a few years ago now, but it's the nearest we've got to real evidence of what a returned item costs. I think 50p is being over-optimistic IMHO.

[fireprism]

Yes, i managed to keep it in the small claims court despite bank trying to have it moved up the food chain. I now have a court date set in june and have to supply evidence i am going to use in court. I am still fine tuning my arguments, but i know basically what i am going to say, but dont want to ruin the suprise for the bank just yet. The more time i give them, the better their attack on me will be. I suppose they read these comments too. Thanks for offer of support in court, but useful comments and references/links to documents that will stand up in court would be more useful at this point.

[fireprism]

yes, i submitted revised claim and judge agreed to hearing. Today i have been given a court date in june and i have to supply written evidence that i will use in court. Links to useful credible documents that will stand up in court would be useful if anyone has any.

[fireprism]

the advantage of CCA140 is that it is up to the bank to prove the actual cost in court. If i can set up an independent company today to do it for 50p per transaction, shouldnt the banks own automated system be cheaper? I dont think i am being unrealistic but its up to them to prove i am wrong.

[Peterbard]

the advantage of CCA140 is that it is up to the bank to prove the actual cost in court. If i can set up an independent company today to do it for 50p per transaction, shouldnt the banks own automated system be cheaper? I dont think i am being unrealistic but its up to them to prove i am wrong.

 

Hi

 

Doesent the bank just have to prove the charge s fair, i dont think that they have to justify making a profit on it under section 140.

I think that it has been established that a bank is enitled to make a profit on these charges.

 

Peter

 

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

It has rained since though, so...

 

Wasn't wrong, was only playing Devil's advocate... remember...

 

 

Hi

I prefer to say that. The salient assumptions which were generally perceived as being closer to the reality of the proposition seems to temporarily be out of synch with my own totally justifiable interpretation of the data available to me at the time.

Peter

[car2403]

the advantage of CCA140 is that it is up to the bank to prove the actual cost in court. If i can set up an independent company today to do it for 50p per transaction, shouldnt the banks own automated system be cheaper? I dont think i am being unrealistic but its up to them to prove i am wrong.

 

Automated? We are talking about Bank Account charges here, aren't we?

[rdm2006]

I can't find anything in the Judgment that supports that contention, in fact, there's lots that say they are Core, including the fact that the T&C's include details on what the charges are, how they are applied and how to avoid them in the first place.

 

From MSE on the new challenges recommended;

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges#legal

 

I believe they were considered ancillary as they were dependant on an event happening and, therefore, not applicable to everyone.

[car2403]

I believe they were considered ancillary as they were dependant on an event happening and, therefore, not applicable to everyone.

 

The problem with this approach is that you cannot compare the cost of the transaction to the price of any charges because the transaction is not what you are paying for and this is written in stone by the UK's highest authority, the Supreme Court.

 

''I agree with Andrew Smith J that a careful analysis of the transactions giving rise

to the obligation to pay the Relevant Charges leads to the conclusion that they are not the

prices paid in exchange for the transactions in question.............For these reasons I have

formed the conclusion that the Relevant Charges are, as the Banks submit, charges that

they require their customers to agree to pay as part of the price or remuneration for the

package of [general banking] services that they agree to supply in exchange.''

 

IMHO, this is probably the strongest argument under the UTCCR - that customers paying these fees for services are subsidising 'free, when in credit' Banking across the industry. From the new arguments on MSE;

 

Unfair cross subsidy

While it's accepted some cross subsidy is acceptable within business, here, the minority of customers are paying an excessive proportion of costs for the structure of banking. This creates a significant imbalance between the parties.

[bustthematrix]

Contador

You obviously know something about this and appear to have looked into it at quite some depth. However, imo, your posts do not seem to offer any ways forward??? Maybe it's just how I've read them but what are your thoughts on how this debate can be moved on, if at all, in the favour of the consumer?

[fireprism]

only the gov't could do that if they werent spineless. As it standy you have to argue your case on a personal basis so everybody has a different case at the moment. There is no one way forward, apart from not to give up.

[rdm2006]

what are your thoughts on how this debate can be moved on, if at all, in the favour of the consumer?

 

Remember people posting on here are giving an opinion and no matter how confident they may be, in that opinion, (my own included) until a case is raised which tests or disputes that theory then it is still inconclusive.

[fireprism]

my own opinion will be tested in the small claims very shortly, June this year, so i will be in a better position to offer genuine comments after i either win or lose. I have 4 weeks to submit all paperwork to the court for my revised case, so any information before then would be appreciated. If i lose, then it weakens other cases, so help me win.

 

thanks

fireprism

[rebel11]

Looks like august.

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2011/05/guest-comment-bank-charges-fight-still-alive

 

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/

[kennyh]

It's been many moons since I was on, or had notification about, this thread and so it's gonna take some time to assimilate the info I've missed. However I would not wish to miss the opportunity to wish fireprism fair winds and offer any help I can - though I can't imagine what that might be. If support is needed come the great day, then I'd do my damnedest to get there.

[Mr lex]

Good to see you around again Kenny 8-)

 

We have had a upgrade to the site recently, which might be the reason why you have lost some of your email alerts, you can check in your user CP.

 

Lex

[kennyh]

Many thanks MrL; I THOUGHT it was easier signing in!!

Now, so long as we can increase the degree of vigour shown by some participants and, hopefully, keep things relatively simple then we should, again hopefully, be able to overcome - and keep the OFT on the sidelines for heaven's sake. Pre SC levels would be great.

[fireprism]

Deadline has passed for bank to submit defence for hearing on 10 june, i will be writing to judge tomorrow to have their defence thrown out on the grounds of non-complaiance with court directives. They tried every dirty trick in the book to have my case thrown out or moved up to the fast track and a higher court so i would be liable for their costs if they won. They did not turn up to the last directional hearing, and have submitted no paperwork to me so it was all just a bluff. They have no defence and they know it. We are back to where we were 4 years ago, submit claims under revised regulation 5 and new CCA 140 and they will back down if your case is solid like mine, and you refuse to be intimidated.