Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[photoman]

Who has to have breached the contract for the act to apply to the terms of the contract?

 

The consumer or the suplier?

 

Josh,

 

I sort of see what your saying, in that the latter half of the first paragraph of section 4 does not clarify whose breach of contract is required.

However, in circumstances such as dealing with a payment that would make an account in excess of its' limit, in what way could you claim that the bank have themselves broken the contract?

 

They claim they are just responding to a situation in a manner that they themselves have laid out in their contracts (but if such response as set out in the contract is deemed to have been triggered by a breach, they would be unlawfully doing so, according to UCTA), but I can't see how they're actually breaching any contract term themselves.

 

This is why the banks are so rapidly now trying to claim that it is not an indemnity (recuperation of costs) that they seek in such circumstances, but rather it is a service fee (but we now know what the courts think of that argument).

 

One possible scenario that I could perhaps see covered by this part, where their own breach or negligence could cause a loss to another (including yourself according to sec 2b), and so according to the statute you should not be expected to shoulder the cost:

You instruct the bank to stop a cheque or you cancel a DD.

They pay it out anyway.

In such circumstances, they were negligent in paying it.

If they are unable to recoup the funds, then the loss is theirs, they still have to refund the money into your account, as you cannot be expected to indemnify the bank for a loss arising from their own negligence.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Do we know if there are any developments from CAG on the legal basis for pursuing business claims yet. Many people don't really know what is going on, and I must admit it looks pretty tricky at the moment!

 

TheyrCriminals

[JOSH_IOU]

If your wanting a new account try Halifax.

 

Halifax has a Treasurers account and an easycash account which dose not have any credit checks.

 

Treasurers accounts can be opend at Lloyds TSb as well but this is at the discression of the Branch Manager. Ans must be done in branch.

 

The Easy Cash can be opend via post.

 

I normally charge £465 to handle such an aplication through my business as i visit the bank myself and have a coffee with the manager who makes a verry good cupa kenko lol. Wer normally laugh at the pictures on the passports to lol.

 

So heres a freebee for site members.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Josh,

 

Interesting post although slightly off topic! What is your business?

 

TheyrCriminals

[JOSH_IOU]

In short I am a Financial Rerferal service.

 

I have a full OFT Licence

 

Yes it is a little off topic But It might help a few people out.

 

People that are hit by these charges may not be able to aford my fees so I thought Instaed of starting another thread I'd just mention it here.

 

It is worrying though that my fees could be classed as extortion in court.

Though ive not yet had that problem.

 

I target people who have saved to start a business and have the funds already. And they simply cant get a business account because of bad credit.

[photoman]

Josh,

Funny you should mention that, as I too offer a referral service.

 

I specialise in arranging accounts that entail a trifling monthly account fee of around £45 (subject to raise at any point) ..... but they do have the added extra benefit of incorporating added insurance.

 

That insurance being (and limited to) a bic biro insurance service.

 

If you open one of these superb accounts, you will receive no greater service or benefits than with any of the free accounts on offer elsewhere

 

...... however, should you ever lose your 39p Bic biro whilst you have one of these accounts, we will replace it totally free of charge !!

 

.....excellent value for money, if I do say so myself (which of course I would say ..... as it pays for my yacht in St Tropez).

 

 

PM

[photoman]

Subject to any one claim in any 10 year period.

 

Subject to you account being in credit by at least £10,000.

 

Account fees subject to rise at our discretion, without any reference or notification to yourself.

 

Subject to a full biopsy to be conducted upon account holders regards the suitability of their organs for transplant.

 

 

 

No interest payable on credit balances.

 

 

The value of investments may rise, (in which case we shall take all such benefits), otherwise if we P@@s your money away on some high risk venture, we'll either send the bailiffs around to take your home, your children, your pets, and the clothes off your back...... otherwise we'll just get the government to bail us out.

 

You may wish to seek the advice of trained legal professionals' before agreeing to such terms (but it'll do you no good, as we'll fight you all the way to the feet of St Peter, before which time we'll hope you'll have just died or given up anyway).

[JOSH_IOU]

Lol are those your toc's pm

[lizzy40]

Hope you don't mind me joining your group on Business accounts. There doesn't seem to be much information anywhere regarding business accounts and what we should do. The news from OFT court case regarding business accounts has come at a crucial time with my claim!

 

I'm cutting it fine now as the bank has given me an offer this was on the 25 April 2008 but given me 28 days to accept. I'v been holding on just in case new information comes to light. I've got till this friday to get my acceptance form back. I don't want to accept as it well below what I was asking for. Has anyone got any information I can fight back with?

 

Or has the bank won!

 

I really thought Business accounts where safe, everyone said that the court case wasn't anything to do with Business accounts I'm still stuned by this news, I'm sure every other business claiment is!!!

 

Will anything change tomorrow when the case is back in court?

 

 

Lizzy

[lancasterchelsea]

I have a court appearance on 28th May. I am applying to have a stay lifted on a business claim against Lloyds Bank. Today I received a letter from their solicitor saying that because of OFT case/case management conference/common law/ not a penalty etc..... the court should continue to stay the case. Also all my claim is pre 6 years, so they say if not penalties then section 32 of limitation Act will not apply.

What is my best course of action. Should I ask for the stay to be continued

[JOSH_IOU]

Hi Lizzy

 

Nice to no the bank is still making offers on business accounts.

 

If they have made you an offer that means they no there is a problem and they dont want to go to court.

 

Can I ask what type of business you are and what type of account you have?

 

Could you tell us which bank it was as well it might help others looking at the thread.

 

Josh

[JOSH_IOU]

Chelsea

 

Your a business claimant.

 

As I understand the order I am sure people will correct me here. Only Personal accounts have been placed on hold

 

How big is your company?

[lancasterchelsea]

For whatever reason the case was put on hold many months ago. The local judge was putting most bank charges cases on hold, including business claims, which he "shouldn't"

I appealed and this meeting is to review that stay.

The charges relate to the late 1990's. We are a management consultancy established in 1985

[lizzy40]

Thanks Josh

 

I'm a sole trader small business and with Barclays!

 

I have got my own thread regarding my claim, it hasn't be straight forward, the FOS have been involved with my pursuit, but not sure they really know whats happening at present.

[JOSH_IOU]

Well the problem at the moment is the recent oft judgement.

 

It cant hurt to ask the judge to take a stay off. It sounds like he is ready to make a judgment on the penalty charges if he has granted a hearing to take place.

 

I cant see the judge making a date for the court hearing if he is ot serious about making a judgement on your claim.

 

But who knows the secret of the black box.

 

My personal suggestion would be to go for it but thats just me.

[lancasterchelsea]

I think the hearing is only about the stay. If my appeal is successful there would be a further hearing to make a judgement.

I think my best choice is to ask for a stay. At least that way I will live to fight again. I might well lose if the judge has to decide on OFT/not a penalty business claim.

[photoman]

Here are some of my own earlier posts on the issues regards Business claims post OFT judgement.

 

Remember, these are only my own views, and are not definitive.

 

 

 

Quote:

His judgement, stretching to 119 pages, dismisses the idea that anyone who goes overdrawn without permission is in breach of their current contract with their bank.

Therefore, he decided, overdraft fees could not be a penalty for breaking that contract, as no breach had occurred.

But what about old contracts?

Most of the banks have been busily re-writing their terms and conditions since customers in their tens of thousands started demanding that their charges be refunded.

"An initial reading of the judgement suggests that the issue of historic terms and conditions is still wide open," said Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group.

 

Also Quote:

 

The banks will be even more upset to see that some of their other central arguments were firmly rejected.

They had claimed that their charges were in fact fees for a service, and that their customers received a service even when their cheques were bounced.

"If a bank declines to pay upon a relevant instruction, it supplies no, or no relevant, services by way of considering, processing or otherwise dealing with it," the judge said.

 

 

So...

 

If their not penalties for a breach of contract...

And, their not charges for a service....

 

Then that only leaves the option that they must be Liquidated Damages.

 

In which case by such laws, they must not exceed the actual cost or remuneration involved in dealing with such. Which we all contend that they do, and the Banks continued lack of disclosure only adds weight to the likelihood that this is the case.

 

I believe the judge backs up this contention when he then says:

 

"I am unable to accept that either the paid item charges, and guaranteed paid item charges, or the overdraft excess charges, are the price or remuneration, or even a part of the price or remuneration, that the customer pays," he added.

 

I just wanted to post this in regards to my opinion on the recent OFT case judgement.

 

For Business claimants concerned as to how and if this may have any influence upon claiming upon a Business account at common law.

 

This is the statement in the judgement that may have raised some concerns:

 

From the judgement:

"As for the position at common law, I accept the Banks’ submission that none of the terms which I have considered (the terms now generally used by the Banks for personal current accounts other than basic accounts and also certain of the terms used until recently by Clydesdale and RBSG) could be unenforceable on the grounds that they are penal (paragraph 323 above)."

 

However, I do not see this as being the end for Business claims at Common law (or indeed those with personal accounts set up pre UTCR99):

 

Firstly, this is only the judges opinion, and I do not believe it sets any precedent. I think such issues would still need to be decided separately.

 

Secondly, this view only refers to "personal" accounts, and does not cite anything regards other type of (such as Business) accounts.

 

Thirdly apart from some Clydesdale and RBSG terms, this view is only taken with regards current terms (and even then only personal account terms), and ignores historical terms.

 

Lastly, it is also somewhat curios that during the period of the stays many Business claimants had stays lifted, due to their contention that their claims were not subject to the outcome of this case, and were instead based upon common law. In most circumstances they then quite quickly received offers and full refunds (often for very large sums).

 

This would all indicate that the Banks are really not very confident about winning a case brought upon the grounds of common law, particularly one with regards historical terms.

 

(This is why they they all so swiftly changed their T&C's prior to having them subjected to the scrutiny of this case).

 

PM

 

On balance, I feel I ought to add that any decision to now continue or pursue a Business account claim (ie; one not reliant upon UTCCR99, but instead purely upon common law grounds), must be taken carefully and with much thought.

 

Although I personally am still of the opinion that contesting such claims on common law grounds for Business claims is achievable (in line with my earlier post), that is perhaps an easy stance for me to take having settled my own Business account claims.

 

The way forward for Business claims could now be more difficult, and should only continued or be entered into after due consideration and with full preparation. One should make sure that any claim is watertight, and you have read and researched all applicable law. And be aware of the potential risks involved, particularly in fast or multi track.

 

I would suggest that for now before making any decision, you watch developments, watch the various discussions and news sites, and and speak to those in the know for advice.

 

Here is Zootscoots posting on the matter generally, which at the end suggests that Business claimants should hold back.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/139971-oft-abbey-others-april.html

 

This is perhaps good advice, as we are in unsure territory at the moment here.

 

There is speculation that the OFT may apply to have those sections of todays judgment referring to Common law revised, and this would change matters (hopefully more to our benefit) yet again. Although this is just speculation at the moment, and if it does turn out to be the case, who knows how long that could take ?

 

 

PM

[JOSH_IOU]

You can gamble the bank wont show up.

 

Cheers for the reminder pm

[photoman]

Here's what the BBC currently have to say regards what may happen tomorrow.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks may challenge charges case

 

 

IMHO,

 

If the OFT do appeal on the judges ruling regards the penalties at common law aspect........ then it may be all "game on" again for Business claimants?

 

Although, how this would then be dealt with practically is speculation at the moment.

The banks may decide to once more start dealing with and settling Business claims if they have some uncertainty as to the final outcome of this.

ie: if they think it may possibly be reversed, then they may decide it better to start to settle some business claims, rather than to let them continue to accumulate more interest, for what could possibly be quite some time.

Then again, they may be stubborn, and just drag things on, refusing to settle and hoping that the outcome may still be in their favour, or just thinking that by dragging things on some business claimants will get disheartened and drop their cases.

 

If the OFT do decide to appeal on the common law aspect, then it would be interesting and helpful to other Business claimants if anyone here with an ongoing Business claim could post any communications they then receive from the banks.

Edited May 21, 2008 by photoman
clarification of opinion

[JOSH_IOU]

It would be interesting to find out why they wouldnt apeal on the common law aspect as well if theydo not apeal.

[JOSH_IOU]

Ive just been speaking to BACS.

 

Apparently the bank dose not have to guarntee a direct debit when there is no money in the account.

[askl]

Hi photoman,

 

You have done a great job of summarising our position. I hope you don't mind if I use it in a defence I'm cobbling together against NatWest over excess overdraft charges they are claiming from me - as guarantor. My defence is due in about one week.

 

See a thread I've just started; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/145837-25-400-penalty-charges.html.

 

In the interesting points, the Judge has ordered NatWest to provide a breakdown of their charges for administering my cheques.

Also I have instances where the cost of administration is clearly disproportionate to the charge, like 2 cheques bouncing twice on the same day.

 

I'll keep you posted of developments.....

Cheers

[photoman]

Hi photoman,

 

You have done a great job of summarising our position. I hope you don't mind if I use it in a defence I'm cobbling together against NatWest over excess overdraft charges they are claiming from me - as guarantor. My defence is due in about one week.

 

See a thread I've just started; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/145837-25-400-penalty-charges.html.

 

In the interesting points, the Judge has ordered NatWest to provide a breakdown of their charges for administering my cheques.

Also I have instances where the cost of administration is clearly disproportionate to the charge, like 2 cheques bouncing twice on the same day.

 

I'll keep you posted of developments.....

Cheers

 

 

Feel free to use what I have posted if of any use (though do remember to look into it for yourself and verify it's applicability to your own case, and do also remember that it only represents my opinions rather than being a statement of law)

 

Had a look at your own thread, and subscribed. (recommend that you all do)

 

Looks like it could turn out to be an interesting case, particularly interested to see what the banks come up by way of providing info on costs. Could have some interesting implications for a lot of Business claimants.

 

If you do start to receive any offers, or any further correspondence then please post them up.

 

PM

[bank_hating_plumber]

Hi all newby here, i have just been charged £900 in charges for 1 month from the natwest on my business account, i have totaled up all my charges + interest for 7 months which comes to just short of £2000.

i have sent the 1st letter to the bank initially requesting my charges back and am prepared to fight for all the charges back.

has anyone had similar issues with the natwest???

[andrew1]

Hi all newby here, i have just been charged £900 in charges for 1 month from the NatWest on my business account, i have totaled up all my charges + interest for 7 months which comes to just short of £2000.

i have sent the 1st letter to the bank initially requesting my charges back and am prepared to fight for all the charges back.

has anyone had similar issues with the NatWest???

 

..about 50,000 of us !

 

Welcome to the forum. You should find the answers here. Start your own thread in the Natwest area and you'll be helped through. There's a whole lot going on and I wish you luck with your claim...

 

Sarah