Massive victory for Bank Charge reclaiming News Article Discussion

chris_spackman

Spoke to Abbey yesterday and they said ' Claims for charges are not going to be paid back as Abbey won their point that our fees for going overdrawn are fair and are not classed as a 'fine' If you do put in a claim Mr Spackman then we will ask you to clear you arranged overdraft straight away and their is a chance we may not want to do business with you. This may result in a poor credit file as we share information regarding this type of thing with the Credit Reference companies which may lead to toher Credit Searches returning a poor rating?

Er........is She right?

Orford

Spoke to Abbey yesterday and they said ' Claims for charges are not going to be paid back as Abbey won their point that our fees for going overdrawn are fair and are not classed as a 'fine' If you do put in a claim Mr Spackman then we will ask you to clear you arranged overdraft straight away and their is a chance we may not want to do business with you. This may result in a poor credit file as we share information regarding this type of thing with the Credit Reference companies which may lead to toher Credit Searches returning a poor rating?

Er........is She right?

Yes and no. Overdrafts can be recalled at any time and banks are free to choose with whom they do business. However they cannot close a/c's as a retalitory action as per the FSA waiver:

(18)
the firm must not close accounts or threaten closure of accounts of customers when it might reasonably appear that this is for the purpose (or with the intent) of penalising customers that have complained about unauthorised overdraft charges for having complained, or deterring future complaints from these customers or others. For the avoidance of doubt, the firm may close accounts or threaten to close accounts where there is good justification for doing so based on the circumstances of the particular case;

You could phone them again, tell them what you have been told. Then tell them you are recording the conversation and ask them to re-confirm what you had been told previously

chris_spackman

Orford wrote: »

Yes and no. Overdrafts can be recalled at any time and banks are free to choose with whom they do business. However they cannot close a/c's as a retalitory action as per the FSA waiver:



You could phone them again, tell them what you have been told. Then tell them you are recording the conversation and ask them to re-confirm what you had been told previously

Thank you for your reply.

Regarding the Bank Charges are Abbey not in the same position as the other banks and have the courts ruled that Abbey's charges are not unfair?

simon_templar_2

According to info on Abbeys intranet, the court ruled that the charges were not unfair.

Nathan_Spleen

simon_templar wrote: »

According to info on Abbeys intranet, the court ruled that the charges were not unfair.

You're kidding!

Do you have a link?

Orford

According to info on Abbeys intranet, the court ruled that the charges were not unfair.

Typical bank spin. The court ruled no such thing, the ruling wasn't whether the charges were fair or unfair, but whether the fairness of the charges could be assessed under the UTCCR



Full judgement here:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/abbey-judgment-260209.pdf

CONCLUSION

124.
For these reasons we conclude:

i) that an assessment of the fairness of the Relevant Charges is not precluded by regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations and that the appeal must be dismissed; and

ii) that the applications by Abbey and HBOS for permission to appeal on the basis that the judge was wrong to hold that some of their Relevant Terms imposing Relevant Charges were not in plain intelligible language should be refused.

21/09 26 February 2009 The Office of Fair Trading: OFT welcomes Court of Appeal judgment

The OFT welcomes the Court of Appeal's very clear confirmation today that the unarranged overdraft charging terms for personal current accounts can be assessed for fairness.

The Court found that these terms are not part of the core or essential bargain between a consumer and their bank, and therefore consumers do have protection under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCRs) for these terms.

This judgment confirms the OFT's long-held interpretation of this important aspect of consumer law, and is one that consumers themselves would identify with. It is also relevant to businesses across the whole economy.

We are now analysing the implications of the judgment for our ongoing investigation. The OFT has already written to the banks with its provisional view on the fairness of the terms, setting out its concerns that they may be unfair. We expect to reach a final decision on fairness later this year.

simon_templar_2

I dont have a link as it is the internal system. I will print it off and relay it on here tomorrow night.

ceonuse

tozer, you asked for an example of when a Law Lord got done for possible bias. check the pinochet case and the Lord Hoffman scenario.

i think that completely ruling out the possibility of bias in the house of lords is as ignorant as supposing that it is always going to rule on the side of the establishment. however, i have more sympathy for those that talk about an 'old boys club', as it is clear that the law lords DO come from a particular wealthy social background.

furthermore, you talk about application of the law as if its some kind of straightforward, uncontroversial process. i have read enough cases to know that a lot of the time controversial cases like these fall down to the discretion of judges (the law can be interpreted in various ways and come out with different outcomes) and this brings into play a hell of a lot of prejudices etc.

I really hope the banks aren't allowed to appeal this case. They have gotten away with this situation long enough.

thanks moneysavingexpert for all the work!

Sparrowhawk_2

Tozer wrote: »

Yes, but can some caution be urged?
Don't go sticking 2 fingers up to your bank. I've been shocked by how people on this thread are saying that judges are corrupt, bankers are "scum"...but don't seem to want to take responsibility for themselves.
The outcome of this seems to be that the OFT is ENTITLED to review the charges. They will NOT say "any charge is unlawful". What they will say (on the basis of credit card charges) is that £12 ish seems fair.

I agree with most of what you are saying Tozer, the point that many seem to have missed, is that charges are supposed to reflect the actual costs incurred.

Yes, People should behave responsibly, But this does not give any financial institution the "lawful right" to profit from it. There are plenty of automated mechanisms that can be put in place to prevent people from mis-managing their bank accounts, but I believe the biggest injustice is yet to come.

Unlike the opinion of many people (see below):

mlucyminx wrote: »

Barclays bank have reduced their bank charges to £8 per transaction and no more than 5 charges in one day. ...

swstevewil wrote: »

Personally I would have been prepared to pay £10 to £15 so that could be worthwile changing banks for.

"A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12"

It is simply the threshold for which the OFT will intervene. It is terribly unfortunate that this threshold now seems to have effectively "legitimised" some unlawful bank charges - and subsequently, some judges in lower courts are taking this line in their rulings.

Despite the overwhelming evidence from whistleblowers and other experts that the actual cost for MANUAL intervention is a maximum of around £2.00, and certainly not more than £2.50 (automated transactions and letters being far less than this. )

The OFT - after it wins, 'in it's (alleged) wisdom will make a similar decision in terms of bank account charges.

Thus effectively legitimising via common law and regulation that banks can indeed profit from the charges, just at a lower ratio and (disgustingly) freeing them from the "burden" of having to publish their actual costs.

If a smaller firm behaved in this manner, they would have their credit license restricted - or revoked and fined. Perhaps even put out of business.

swstevewil

chris spackman

below is link to abbeys page with latest update to test case
hope it works for you

I can only see banks saying its fair
cant find anything on this page where court agrees.

http://www.abbey.com/csgs/Satellite?appID=abbey.internet.Abbeycom&canal=CABBEYCOM&cid=1210608582881&empr=Abbeycom&leng=en_GB&pagename=Abbeycom/Page/WC_ACOM_TemplateA1