New blog: Radical Bank Charges Thoughts: Bigger and longer compensation?

Former_MSE_Lawrence

Martin's just written a new blog he thought might be of interest to you guys specifically:

Radical Bank Charges Thoughts: Bigger and longer compensation?

natweststaffmember

MSE_Lawrence wrote: »

Martin's just written a new blog he thought might be of interest to you guys specifically:

Radical Bank Charges Thoughts: Bigger and longer compensation?

Mr Marc Gander is preferring to simply listen to the press reports of the OFT test case than to read the OFT test case transcripts which are available on the Legal Beagles website. On Day 3 which does not seem to have been reported widely, was this little snippet:

p.95-97, day 3 House of Lords:
20 LORD MANCE: Just in this particular case, the consequences
21 are -- if you were to succeed in establishing that the
22 terms were unfair, that, at the very least, the terms
23 would be invalid, so that all the unpaid charges would
24 be refundable within the limitation --
25 MR CROW: That is assuming a lot. No, my Lord, that is
assuming a great deal. That was one of the points
2 I made at the very, very outset, that all the directive
3 says is that the term shall not be binding. European
4 law leaves to national law -- it may be convenient just
5 to draw you to the point where we make this point in our
6 case. It is picked up in --
7 LORD MANCE: It is a quantum meruit point, is it?
8 MR CROW: Essentially, yes. It is page 13 of our case, and
9 it is footnote 19 which is tied to paragraph 21. We
10 say:
11 "In this context, the banks are slightly coy about
12 the potential consequences of any finding that the
13 relevant charges are unfair. They rightly say in
14 paragraph 4 of their case that the stated effect of
15 regulation 8 is that the relevant terms would not be
16 binding. However, that leaves unanswered the question
17 whether the banks would be required to reimburse the
18 full amount of the relevant charges to their customers."
19 The reason why it leaves it unanswered is explained
20 in the footnote:
21 "Because where a provision of community law renders
22 a contract unenforceable, the consequence is a matter
23 for the domestic courts."
24 So the domestic courts are going to have to sort out
25 the answer to the question as to what the consequences
of the effect of regulation 8 are.
2 That question is not before the House on this
3 appeal. As a result, your Lordships should not proceed
4 on the assumption that the banks will necessarily have
5 to reimburse everything that they have charged and, read
6 carefully, the banks' case does not say that that is
7 what would happen"

The main thing is that it is for a National Court to decide which will be part of the OFT test case issues should they win the first part of the case. Let's not get people walking down a path where they lose money by claiming money they are not entitled to.