what is a "fair" unpaid Direct Debit charge?

posted_2

It is a matter of consumer choice whether you pay charges or not.

They do advertise it, you get the terms when you open an account, you get a leaflet with terms and conditions every time they change, it is on the website, they are available in branch.

proeleche

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

He didn't ''turn round'' and say they were because he wasn't in a position to, it was not in his remit. The banks asked him to make a declaration on whether the terms were capable of being penal and that is what he did.

The fact that the terms can be assessed for fairness renders the penalty argument superfluous.

I know it does - but I was just saying and giving my opinion of the situation.

natweststaffmember

proeleche wrote: »

Eh? January?,

Not to be rude or anything but it's a Sunday and I'm not in law school anymore so I won't be reading any cases today and reading judgements in huge amounts of detail :-P
Then why comment on something that you clearly haven't taken the time to read....and it isn't that big a judgement only 10 pages.
From memory, the OFT's initial look/investigation basically implied/stated that bank charges were probably penalties at common law. In addition, the basis for a lot of the original refunds before the freeze and court case was that they were unfair and penalties at common law.
Penalties in law argument has gone so again, you can read this stuff as well if you want.
If the first instance judge ruled that they were, I think all of this would be over a lot faster. Instead, it's all happening in a round about way where first, it has to be decided whether they can be governed under the unfair contract terms, then the oft will say they are unfair, and then that will be challenged.
The judge has ruled that bank charges are not penalties in law but can be assessed under UTCCR 1999. Natwest terms and conditions 2001-2003 were not incapable of being penal so he hasn't said that it cannot be tested in court.
I don't want a big debate with anyone, all I'm basically saying is that it's all happening in a round about way and the banks have been lucky that the courts have not just turned round and said they were penalties at common law - when in my mind they quite clearly are.

The penalty argument has gone, its dead in the water. UTCCR 1999. Apologies to you but feel free to bookmark this page so you can inform yourself of what is happening in the Bank Charges Test case and what the state of play is and the legal arguments involved.

Nathan_Spleen

proeleche wrote: »

Eh? January?,


From memory, the OFT's initial look/investigation basically implied/stated that bank charges were probably penalties at common law. In addition, the basis for a lot of the original refunds before the freeze and court case was that they were unfair and penalties at common law..

The OFT have never implied the charges were penalties, relied soley on UTCCR and should be credited for doing so.

The fact that successful laims included a penal element is not a basis for the charges amounting to penalties.

proeleche

posted wrote: »

It is a matter of consumer choice whether you pay charges or not.

They do advertise it, I get a leaflet with terms and conditions every time they change, it is on th e website.

Did you read the court of Appeal judgement. Again - as has been previously stated and the judge said - they do not advertise it in a fair and clear way to the consumer.

natweststaffmember

posted wrote: »

It is a matter of consumer choice whether you pay charges or not.

They do advertise it, you get the terms when you open an account, you get a leaflet with terms and conditions every time they change, it is on the website.

Are the terms fair in law and do you read every single solitary word of the terms and conditions and its subsequent amendments made over the years?

proeleche

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The penalty argument has gone, its dead in the water. UTCCR 1999. Apologies to you but feel free to bookmark this page so you can inform yourself of what is happening in the Bank Charges Test case and what the state of play is and the legal arguments involved.

I am aware of the legal arguments involved thank you.

I was merely expressing an opinion.

proeleche

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

The OFT have never implied the charges were penalties, relied soley on UTCCR and should be credited for doing so.

The fact that successful laims included a penal element is not a basis for the charges amounting to penalties.

Hnad on heart - do you think they are penalties? Regardless of whether you belive them to be common law penalties or unfair contract terms [roundabout way of saying they are penalties] - is their purpose to penalise the customer and generate profits?

Nathan_Spleen

proeleche wrote: »

I am aware of the legal arguments involved thank you..

Clearly you don't. It's difficult to understand if you haven't read the judgment.

proeleche

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The penalty argument has gone, its dead in the water. UTCCR 1999. Apologies to you but feel free to bookmark this page so you can inform yourself of what is happening in the Bank Charges Test case and what the state of play is and the legal arguments involved.

You're not a lawyer or beyond reproach merely because you have read a '10 page' judgement and are not an expert because you worked for a bank.

Thank you.