Megatronman v HSBC

[megatronman]

Hi

I decided to start a new thread for my claim post "test case".

After DG applied to strike out my claim and requested my proposal for repayment of my overdraft, I sent a letter to DG and the court based on Pete Castlebest's letter, indicating my intention to change my POCs.

 

Here is the reply they sent:

 

We write further to your letter dated xxxx in connection with the above matter.

 

Please note we do not object to you amending your Particulars of Claim. We have considered the contents of your recent letter and the grounds which you seek to rely on in pursuing refund of your bank charges.

 

We do not accept that the charges are either (a) unfair under s.140A(1) of the CCA; or (b) contrary to the requirement of good faith and therefore unfair under Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCRs.

 

(a) Section 140A(1) of the CCA

We are confident that there is nothing inherently unfair about the relationship between the bank and our customers. Indeed the Office of Fair Trading (the OFT) has recognised, and we agree, that a generic challenge based on s.140A(1) of the CCA would not have good prospects of success.

 

(b) Regulation 5(1) UTCCRs

On 25 November 2009, the Supreme Court ruled ([2009] UKSC 6, [2009] 3 WLR 1215) that it was not permissible to challenge the fairness of bank charges under Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCRs 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 against the goods or services supplied in exchange". In other words, the 'value for money' equation is excluded. The banks argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the informal overdraft charges are part of the price for the personal current account services and that, therefore, the Regulation 6(2)(b) exception applies with the consequence that charges cannot be found to be unfair on the basis that they are too high.

 

On 22 December 2009, having spoken to and considered the views of a number of interested parties (including various consumer groups, the Financial Services Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Government), the OFT announced that in light of the Supreme Court's judgment, it would not be continuing its investigation under the UTCCRs into the fairness of unarranged overdraft charges.

The OFT stated that its decision was based on a careful consideration of the matter, which led the OFT to conclude that following the Supreme Court's judgment there were no other potential basis of challenge under Regulation 5(1) that stood a realistic prospect of success.

 

Should you wish to amend your Particulars of Claim and proceed to Hearing, we reserve the right to draw this letter and its contents to the court's attention. We also reserve the right to seek our costs in preparation and attendance at any future Hearing.

 

Yours faithfully

 

DG SOLICITORS

 

Does anyone know what the best approach would be in replying to this?

 

Thanks

[johnnymitch]

Have a look at this link megatronman , see if it helps .........

 

The Consumer Forums - Bank Charges : objection to strikeout

 

IMHO the letter you've got from DG is the usual biased half truths /...../ info which only benefits them not you ..

 

If you think you have a case under Regulation 6 then the decision to proceed has to be yours at the moment ..... I would say there's no harm in asking the court to conrtinue with the stay until you get revised POCs which will prove fruitful .....

 

But come back if you need more info ..... there may be someone more clued up than I am at the moment .....LOL .... in fact there must be ..