MSE News: Wait goes on for bank charges ruling

natweststaffmember

jonpnash wrote: »

Remember that some responsibility for the delay in an outcome lies at the door of the banks for it is the banks whom are choosing to appeal the case, after losing the last case. If they lose in the supreme court, they can choose to take it the European court of appeal.
"It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ."
If the Supreme Court does not refer it to the ECJ then it is the end of the matter.
We should be questioning the stance the bank is taking, i.e. fighting their case rather than sorting out an more ethical banking system which profits fairly from its customers. Especially when we as tax payers have helped them out.
Ultimately we should demand better ethical standards from our banks. They are probably quite aware that there is a flaw in their charging system, and that it is unfairly charging some people, especially those who are struggling with financial pressure. The financial model used in high street banking used in the UK, is very different from many other European countries which have much fairer and more transparent charging systems*.

Irrespective of the court case this comes down to an issue of ethics. Evident by the recent flurry of albeit inconsistent changes in charging structures we are seeing almost every week. What I find strange is that the banks are mostly continuing to operate a financial model based on this system, when they in up to 12 months time may be forced to pay back a large proportion of their profits and radically change the way they profit from high street banking.
The FSA Waiver prevents them from changing their terms materially without asking the FSA and they have to produce evidence as to the effect it would have on their customers.
My only explanation it that in the mean time, they can continue to make big profits from this system. Then when this moment arrives, they will ask us the taxpayers to sort them out again. Thus they get to keep their profits since most will have already been paid out in wages, dividends and bonuses.


* I lived in Belgium for several years and their banking system is completely different and based around a fairer payment for the services you use. The do not allow un-authorised overdraft. I.e. they don't use this method in their financial model.
And before I hear an outcry of that will be an end to free banking. Banking in the UK is one of the most expensive in Europe, even taking the bank charge issue out of the equation.

Just clarifying a few points.
There is no delay as this is a court process. There is speculation, more speculation and wrong speculation.

orc_2

I have to side with Nattie in this.

The whole issue of bank charges will not be resolved for a considerable period of time- 2/3 years perhaps, unfortunately. I really hope not, but it's possible. There are hoped for interventions, including possible injunction, but that can possibly be appealed also.

To make an informed opinion on this, a person needs to make themselves aware of what has happened to date and what the processes are, what laws of the land are involved, how they are understood, interpreted and argued and how that whole system operates.

It is tempting to pin our hopes on a particlular statement, that has been published on one of a number of bank charge web sites by someone that something could or should happen by July, October or December or whenever. We do that because its human nature and it is what we want to hear. That is entirely understandable and excusable.

There are reasons why people do that however and it is down to exasperation and frustration on everyone's part and pinning our hopes that a positive outcome is coming soon. It is also borne of the impact that the whole sorry issue has had on their lives due to poverty imposed on normal people because of the greed of the banks. Threatening letters dropping through the front door of a family home- normally a place of sanctuary but not when the bailiffs are potentially at the door or when the phone rings and you fear it is someone wanting your last £.

People are at breaking point.

Families are being torne apart by this whole sorry and sordid mess. Lives have been lost through it- I am not joking.

Unfortunately, the banks are very likely to appeal at every stage of the process, assuming they lose. They have the legal right to appeal. They aim to make a profit and will string it out as long as they can. Their lawyers make money out of it as well. The whole thing stinks.

But, what options are open? Because there are some. Perhaps that needs further debate.

jonpnash

Thanks for the clarifying the points. Especially the first point. Thanks.
On the second point, why should this stop banks changing their terms and conditions to a more fair system, if they should choose to do so? Surely if the FSA functions as it should, as a financial regulator it shouldn't get in the way of the banks providing a better fairer system. Or is the application process too complicated? Don't quite understand why this should stop banks taking some kind of lead. Why would the FSA object to new terms and conditions that might make the system more transparent and fair. Seems to me the banks are missing an opportunity to take a lead and offer better account charging systems.
I have this feeling that the FSA is firmly on the side of the banks. What is your feeling on the efficacy of the FSA ?

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Just clarifying a few points.
There is no delay as this is a court process. There is speculation, more speculation and wrong speculation.

natweststaffmember

jonpnash wrote: »

Thanks for the clarifying the points. Especially the first point. Thanks.
On the second point, why should this stop banks changing their terms and conditions to a more fair system, if they should choose to do so? Surely if the FSA functions as it should, as a financial regulator it shouldn't get in the way of the banks providing a better fairer system. Or is the application process too complicated? Don't quite understand why this should stop banks taking some kind of lead. Why would the FSA object to new terms and conditions that might make the system more transparent and fair. Seems to me the banks are missing an opportunity to take a lead and offer better account charging systems.
I have this feeling that the FSA is firmly on the side of the banks. What is your feeling on the efficacy of the FSA ?

Am not sure if I explained myself or read your post properly.
IF the banks' lose the appeal then the OFT can effectively look to take out an injunction against the charging terms which would in effect if allowed by the court to proceed halt the charges ie the banks' could not make charges for returning items unpaid or if you went over the limit UNTIL a court decided what a fair term could be. From that point, the charges would be legally fair or any charging structure introduced if tested in court would be legally fair.
Remember, on the default fees report for credit card in April 2006, the OFT did not say that the charges were fair but that they would not take action on amounts above a figure agreed. It said the ultimately, only a court could decide a fair charge. What that means is that if you have legally binding agreement rather than a regulatory agreement, you have absolute certainty that will last a long long time after this case is over.

*MF*

On the question of "delay".

The task at hand - in any of the stages involved - is to arrive at a judgement.

And yet, it seems impossible for those who will make those judgements, to assess and offer perhaps the simplest of all judgements - namely on how long it may take them to carry out the work.

Yes, it may be impossible to state a specific day, even perhaps a specific month, but with the experience we expect our judges to have - are we to believe, given their experience, that they could not specify which quarter of a year could be anticipated for them to have weighed the evidence, written their judgements, and brought the matter to a conclusion?

The phrase " a law unto themselves" springs to mind.

Alpine_Star

*MF* wrote: »

Yes, it may be impossible to state a specific day, even perhaps a specific month, but with the experience we expect our judges to have - are we to believe, given their experience, that they could not specify which quarter of a year could be anticipated for them to have weighed the evidence, written their judgements, and brought the matter to a conclusion?
.

To be fair, they have as per my post #6.

natweststaffmember

There is an article in the Sunday Mirror today that implies that they are deciding on refunds and the article is vastly wrong. The Supreme Court is deciding if bank charges are applicable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 for fairness.
There has been no discussion on refunds and it does not form part of the discussion. A few month ago a lot of posters said that the banks were saying January for a final decision in line with the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges. However the wording on the waiver is not exactly in agreement with this.

Point 9

9. (1) This direction takes effect on 27 July 2009.
(2) This direction ends on the earlier of:
(a)
26 January 2010; or
(b)
resolution of the test case. For this purpose, resolution occurs when judgment has been entered in relation to all issues in dispute in the test case (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any issues which the Court agrees should in future be introduced into the case by way of amendment or otherwise) and the resulting orders either cannot be the subject of appeal or have not been the subject of appeal in circumstances where the time for doing so has expired, or when proceedings are otherwise discontinued.
However, provisions of this direction that are expressed to continue beyond its termination continue in force in accordance with their terms"

What is should be said is that the waiver can be renewed again and again until such time as resolution is concluded.

*MF*

Alpine_Star wrote: »

To be fair, they have as per my post #6.

Fully accepted - and google as I did against your post, all the BBC reports I found said "judgement expected soon", legal beagles said "mid-November" - but all those are very recent - and I guess being recent (ie., we are near to a conclusion) can be trusted to that extent - we shall see.

It still does not seem to me that it is humanly impossible for those making the judgements to indicate - not at the near end of the processes - but at their commencement - how long those interested might have to wait before a judgement is made.

Too much to ask?

natweststaffmember

*MF* wrote: »

Fully accepted - and google as I did against your post, all the BBC reports I found said "judgement expected soon", legal beagles said "mid-November" - but all those are very recent - and I guess being recent (ie., we are near to a conclusion) can be trusted to that extent - we shall see.

It still does not seem to me that it is humanly impossible for those making the judgements to indicate - not at the near end of the processes - but at their commencement - how long those interested might have to wait before a judgement is made.

Too much to ask?

The banks are also awaiting because the consequences of them saying the terms can be assessed for fairness potentially could cost them millions(definitely in legal fees) and potentially billions(on the substantive issues still to be litigated on).

*MF*

^

I used the words "those interested" to encompass all parties to the issues involved, the OFT etc included.

My first post - was set against the use of "delay" - much as your opening post was - a delay to me is the time after something was meant to happen, and as in this case, unless those upon whom we are waiting tell us what timescale they are working to, we cannot ever have a so-called delay.

We may face, as you are clearly well aware, successive stages to this whole affair - I repeat is it too much to expect we have an indication at the commencement of each stage how long it might last?

Not least so we can use the word "delayed" when it happens?

*Pedantry" exhausted - exits stage left*