Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[Rhia]

I have started a complaint and refund request using these specific arguments against a well known name (saying no more for now). I was quite surprised when it was taken immediately high up the line of command.

 

Excellent work GLC!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Rhia]

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

Am in absolutely no hurry and quite prepared to wait this out. I did add an extensive list of incidents which establish the unfairness of their actionsin support of the legal bit. Obviously I won't add them here as the "target" will know who's who.

 

Poor Credit Borrower yes you can use this with Abbey but heed Dougal's advice before starting any court action. It doesn't hurt to send them a letter though and see how they respond.

 

Yep Bookworm my head hurt quite a bit too!

[Rhia]

I used both arguments Bookworm but the bank has ignored the CCA part in its answer.

[Rhia]

11th? That's this week. I will be standing by this thread awaiting the update.

[Rhia]

Oh I never get too excited at the thought that Judges may actually be on the consumer's side as have been let down too many times both personally and via others.

 

However we can but hope that this morning, in Glasgow Sherriff's court justice and fairness will actually prevail.

[Rhia]

JohnnyMitch is right. You can't spill your strategy into the public domain until it has been conclusively won.

We need to hold steady the law being an ass and all. It is a slow moving beast and my hunch is summat must not be going right for the banks as they would have been shouting it from the rooftops by now.