Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[rdm2006]

Can we not write to the courts asking them to deal under EU/EC directive 93/13

[rdm2006]

Very interesting and I will follow forward. Well done GLC!

 

I know this is a Scottish case with repercussions (CCA etc.) However, I have been royally stitched up by Halifax who are part of Royal Bank of Scotland who now may or maynot be part of Lloyds Banking Group (Maybe as this weeks statement doesn't even mention LBG.

 

Bottom line, does the Scottish/English divide even matter as the business (I was going to call it a profession Lol) is so incestuous.

 

H

 

 

Halifax are part of HBOS - (Halifax bank of scotland) and nothing to do with RBS

 

Just For info

[rdm2006]

Sorry to correct your spelling Bigdebtor, shouldn't that be 'Willey'

 

 

Wily (pronounced whiley)= Crafty, Cunning, Sly, Guileful, Devious, Scheming and Sneaky

 

Sounds like a perfect description to me

 

Although willy may have suited the second option

[rdm2006]

Hi,

 

Great news but my friend has a hearing for a strikeout Order coming up and he doesn't know what to do. Is there any way anyone can come up with something because I think it may be best to have a go at a amendment of PoC than just do nothing and have the claim struck out.

 

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

Can your Friend not ask for more time in light of recent developments ?

[rdm2006]

I was thinking more of this part.

 

The aim of Article 6 of the Directive, which requires Member States to lay down that unfair terms are not binding on the consumer, would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfair nature of such terms. In disputes where the amounts involved are often limited, the lawyers' fees may be higher than the amount at stake, which may deter the consumer from contesting the application of an unfair term. While it is the case that, in a number of Member States, procedural rules enable individuals to defend themselves in such proceedings, there is a real risk that the consumer, particularly because of ignorance of the law, will not challenge the term pleaded against him on the grounds that it is unfair. It follows that effective protection of the consumer may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion.

 

i.e the court should raise this of its own motion at no risk of cost to the consumer.

 

In the case of Pannon v Gyorfi [2009] c-243/08

 

it was ruled by an ECJ that it was the courts duty even if the consumer had not raised an issue with unfairness

Edited February 22, 2010 by rdm2006

[rdm2006]

Posted by RDM2006

 

This looks pretty definitive and in our favour. How best do we present this obligation as a duty of the court ?

 

I am not a legally minded person but I am sure someone who is will check it out - perhaps GLC could ???

[rdm2006]

Where's this part from in the EC directive?

 

Links originally posted by M2AE on another thread here

[rdm2006]

I wonder how they will attempt to defend this one ?

 

Since they have stated in supreme court that the charges are cross subsidies they cannot now say they are administrative.... OOOPS

[rdm2006]

Hi Guys,

 

Something troubles me. Me and my friend are currently in the process of drafting a letter to the County Court, we are trying to stop HSBC's attempts to strikeout my friends bank charges claim by asking for permission for the Particluars of Claim to be amended so as to incorporate the two new legal arguments. There is one line in the letter however that is worrying and we don't know how to respond it states:

 

‘On the 25th November 2009 the Supreme Court ruled that it was not permissible to challenge the fairness of bank charges under Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR’s on the basis that they are too high because that form of challenge is precluded by Regulation 6(2)(b). Regulation 6(2)(b) provides that the assessment (under Regulation 5(1)) of the fairness of a term in a contract "shall not relate...to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as aagainst the goods or services supplied in exchange" In other words, the value for money equation is excluded.

 

Surely, even for a bank, this is a pretty bold 'lie'?

 

What is the best way to respond to this? I am assuming of course that the above position is not correct.

 

TheyrCriminals

 

Sorry you are missing the point. the above is correct and not a lie.

 

Think of the charges as a two pronged fork

 

prong 1. Is the amount of the charge fair - this has already been lost as stated above.

 

prong 2. The charge is used to supply free banking - is it fair that those who can least afford it are funding free banking for those who don't need it.

 

A robin hood in reverse if you like take from the poor and give to the rich

 

Does not matter if its a 1p, £1 or £38

Edited February 24, 2010 by rdm2006

[rdm2006]

Here is a link to the regulations.

 

Interesting schedule 2 is a list of things that are already classed as unfair

 

Item d

 

permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

 

if the same spirit or principle of this was applied to the charges then they would be automatically be unfair.

 

if it is already unfair to end a contract in this way then it should also be unfair to run it in this way ?????

 

can we not use this as an argument also

Edited February 24, 2010 by rdm2006

[rdm2006]

The charges exceeded the Defendant’s losses caused by such breaches.

 

If charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under Section 15 of Supply of Goods Act 1982

 

These need removing - you can no longer argue the level of charges.

 

I don't think that you can claim contractual and the 8% its one or the other

Edited March 15, 2010 by rdm2006

[rdm2006]

Disexylic

 

Surely one of life's ironies that it is such a difficult word to spell!

 

BD

 

Dyslexic - I think it was a deliberate mis-spelling but what a cunning stunt. (If ya know what I mean) LOL

[rdm2006]

Hi

on the faq you suggest a 7 day period before court action, what help is there available for amending a court case on stay with the new UTTR 5 or the 1975 credit agrrement act?

 

Please advise

 

I believe the general consensus at the moment is to ask for more time or leave it on stay (if you can) pending the result of the scottish case.

[rdm2006]

I have a hearing on Tuesday to defend a strike out application. I saw somewhere on cag that Govan had a transcript of their successful defence to a strike out application which has now enabled their claim to be heared 11 June.

 

Does anyone know where this transcript appears? I would like to have a bit more weaponry.

 

 

I think its on their website somewhere.

 

Heres a link to their site but you will have to search for it

[rdm2006]

Strange that these charges have suddenly become so "seriously out of order" to politicians just before an election isn't it.

[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 ?

[rdm2006]

That is if they don't settle out of court on the 10th

[rdm2006]

They wear black gowns like teachers - and over the last two centuries they have taught most of the British Empire how to set up a properly constituted and just legal system. The English have yet to learn this.

 

There must have been more criminals than there were in England lol

[rdm2006]

I understand the case has been put back at the banks request

 

Meaning?

 

Meaning they are playing for time

[rdm2006]

Also when a judge makes a "decision", it is the reasoning behind that decision which is far more effective than the decision itself, and therefore reaches further

[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

[rdm2006]

Well I'll be dawgoned - never have guessed.

 

Snap

[rdm2006]

my girlfriend has 2 kids and lives on benefits she has just had a letter telling her that she is being charged by lloyds £90 for being £145 over overdraft for 3 days...... we should be marching in the streets... the telephone number is 0845 to complain yet from overseas they give an 0207 number

 

Your GF needs to send them a LETTER OF APPROPRIATION.

 

When the bank apply charges it is because

 

A] There is not enough money in your account to cover the transaction

 

or

 

B] The transaction will exceed your overdraft limit

 

 

Therefore applying those charges either increases your overdraft or creates an unauthorised one - it is the very nature of the beast is it not ?

[rdm2006]

However, until fairly recently this same bank was telling its customers that bounced item and overdraft fees were there to cover it's costs, not as part of an overall package. These are from 2005:

 

"To cover our costs, we make a charge of £30 (maximum 1 charge per day) for any item we pay when your account is overdrawn in excess of any agreed limit. "

 

"To cover our costs, we make a charge of £35 (maximum three charges per day) for any item we can't pay."

 

 

Well thats no price hike is it from max £30 to max £105

 

No doubt they said the increase is just £5 from £30 to £35

[rdm2006]

Rule 1. The banks are always right

 

Rule 2. On the very rare (?) occasion where they may be wrong then even if you have the audacity to take them to task, or even to Court, then Rule 1 applies

 

Rule 3. If however you find that the bank has acted unlawfully, illegally, unethically, etc., then please feel free to take whatever action you feel suits, but remember Rule 1 applies.

 

Rule 4 - when all else fails rule 1 applies