Judge warns 'unreasonable' banks

[Talking Heads]

Thought this might be of interest, posted it earlier on the HSBC/First Direct section, good article, should encourage you to progress with your claim. Good luck.

 

Judge warns 'unreasonable' banks

 

The following is an adaptation of an article appearing in www.bbc.co.uk on 14th May, 2007.

High Court judge, David Mackie QC, has warned banks to stop behaving unreasonably when customers accuse them of levying unlawful overdraft charges. He said some banks were wasting the time of claimants and the courts by pretending they would defend claims when they had no intention of doing so. He added if banks continued to do this he might award damages against them.

Fantasy

In such cases banks have so far settled out of court, usually a few days before their case is due to be heard. Expressing some frustration at this situation, Judge Mackie said: "On the face of things each case raises serious issues which the court would permit to proceed to trial. "But this is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial."

Brian Capon, of the British Bankers Association, defended the stance taken by banks saying they were confident their fees are legal. "They take the court process very seriously, but ultimately they would prefer to settle disputes with their customers outside the court process," he said. The consumers association Which? rejected this. "It seems that the banks are deliberately dragging their feet in the hope that their customers will either give up or accept part of the money they are owed," said a spokeswoman.

Unreasonable behaviour

Judge Mackie pointed out that in some cases bank customers had tried to claim damages for stress and inconvenience. Such claims have been unsuccessful so far, but he warned he would award damages in future if banks and their lawyers continued to:

fail to respond to some claimants letters

fail to negotiate for months and until a hearing date is set

demand extra information from the claimants, knowing they had no intention letting a court hear the matter

settle the case without telling the claimants they need not attend court

fail to show up in court

"Looked at in the real world where there will be no trial these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour," said Judge Mackie. "From now on we will generally be treating such conduct as unreasonable behaviour thus enabling any claimant who has been put to unnecessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this."

Frustration

Last month, Leeds Mercantile Court listed 77 cases in one day, all of which were settled out of court. Afterwards, Judge Roger Kaye QC said "it would be helpful if there was a decision taken at High Court level to clarify the situation nationwide".

In Bristol County Court a successful claimant was recently awarded £84.41 in costs as the judge ruled Lloyds TSB wasted the court's time because it had had no intention of defending the claim. The latest warning from Judge Mackie left the banks with what sounded like a final warning. "There may be a need for a more radical approach if the number of cases continues to grow," he said.

[shagtastic]

thats very good news..thanks

[fidz]

Ditto.

three cheers !

hip hip horray !

hip hip horray !

hip hip horray !

[asdf54321]

Hi Bankfodder,

 

Any chance of you including the key points of this announcement by the judge and his name in the LBA template, it could deter the banks even further from submitting a false deffence if they are warned before hand so they can't continue playing dumb maybe? Just a thought.

[espana07]

Sorry if this post is in the wrong place. I have my statements and want to claim back my charges. I feel there is no point now though after the ruling in favour of Lloyds TSB the other day which I read about. Can someone "in the know" tell me if I've misinterpreted this ruling and that its still worth claiming? Or has the ship sailed now? Thanks.

[hughescorporation]

I have received notification, (17 May) that First Direct my bank are going to defend two actions I have initiated against them in the small claims court.

I doubt that they will turn up on the day and may settle by phone a day or so before the court hearings.

The point i am making is that if the bank wants to drag it's feet then that's fine by me. I have kept meticulous records of the time i have spent on the two claims and will continue you to so do until the hearings.

What I know for certain is that I will be seeking additional financial redress from the bank via the court at the rate of £9 per hour, so far I have put in 22 hours.

I come from the Erwin Rommel school of bank customer and treat the banks as the enemy, ( following Evan Davies view of them) and will fire at them with an 88mm howitzer until the battle is won.

[asdf54321]

Fair does, I guess it's a good thing if banks drag their heels as you end up with more money in your pocket in the end.

[Talking Heads]

Sorry if this post is in the wrong place. I have my statements and want to claim back my charges. I feel there is no point now though after the ruling in favour of Lloyds TSB the other day which I read about. Can someone "in the know" tell me if I've misinterpreted this ruling and that its still worth claiming? Or has the ship sailed now? Thanks.

Missed this ruling, has anyone any more information on this! if Lloyds TSB have defended and won a case it would have consequences all round.

[JOSH_IOU]

lol no point.

 

The charges are unlawful.

 

The laws of majority win.

[PPMAN159]

I think that the case was thrown out due to what was being claimed back from them.

 

Advice seen so far would be to say that anyone claiming from LTSB should continue wioth the claim-do not be put off but just make sure that what you are claiming back is actually allowed to be claimed back.

 

It would seem silly to get the case kicked out of court for not having prepared it properly.

 

If ion doubt read the other threads and FAQ's

[espana07]

ok, cheers, i guess i'll just carry on regardless then and see what happens.

[fidz]

espana07 it seems to me that the way it was initally reported was soully to put the hebgebes in to people that were wayning or had not even started to claim as the banks are fully aware there parctisce are illiegal and will have to return and pay out 'loads a money'

so good to hear you going on like business as usual,

 

First of all the case you reffuer to the judgement was made by a DISTRICT judge in a COUNTY court and does not have any bearing or affect on any other procedding in any other court or district. And was probably becase that judge and the leagal system in that area/district are getting feed up tired and bogged down by the number of claims and the banks addmiting paying what they owe just before any hearing date and wanted to escalte the matter to a higher court for some sort of one rulling covers all. also apparently the claim could have been presented a bit better so be paitance do your homework and here you will find 'loads a' encoragement and support and all the materials resources info you could ever need.

feel free to read the links at the foot of my signature for further clarifcation.

[nobodys fool]

There were 2 cases (I've read the full judgement) - 1 was under-prepared

On the other the judge decided the charges were for services and not breach of contract..... However, threats to close accounts for "misuse" due to exceeding overdraft limits would seem to disprove this.

 

The charges may also constitute a crminal offence of theft.

 

Iffy bank systems or erroneous information would potentially open up claims of negligence - and damages