MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

putty71

giffy00 wrote: »

The judgement says:
[FONT=&quot]“However, the charges might still be open to assessment by the OFT on other grounds under[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regulation 5.”[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Reg 5[/FONT]


Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.


[FONT=&quot]I would say this applies as my contract was not INDIVIDUALLY NEGOTIATED[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]This ruling will allow banks to charge what they like and get away with it.[/FONT]

Good call - well Martin, is this the loophole?????

GerryS

I am raging at ths decision. I now firmly believe that we live in corrupt country where big business can shaft the ordinary person in the full knowledge that some corrupt supreme court member will make it legal.
Everybody was convinced that the banks would be taken to task on this issue but it just demonstrates that if you have money then you can buy a verdict. How can you lose in every single court and then get a result in the one that can't be appealed.
Shocking, truly shocking.

AndiB68

I have to say although I had hoped for our charges back, I think I knew that in the present climate there was no way that the Supreme Court would upset our financial institutions any further by asking them to repay these charges.

My bank charges came to just over £5600 in 18 months and strangely my mortgage arrears are exactly the same amount and I have to pay them back. The goodwill gesture for being a hardship case I was promised from the bank over three months ago of £516 still has not materialised even though I went through the Financial Ombudsman.

There is certainly no justice in a country where decisions are based not on the unfairness of the case but how our financial institutions will suffer. I bet the guys in positions of authority haven't had to give up their over indulged bonuses either.

I wasn't relying on these charges coming back as it leads to complete disappointment but our three kids will definately go without this Christmas because our money will continue to pay to try and keep a roof over our heads.

Well done the rich - AGAIN :mad:

pr00se

I am sure others will have noticed the following from the Supreme Court Press release:

"Lord Phillips also noted that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able
profitably to provide current account services without a fee."

My heart bleeds for the banks and the bankers' bonuses!

dirtydavey

davemoon wrote: »

I know this isnt going to go down with a lot of people but I have never been charged a penny by a bank because I manage my finances well. I imagine Martin Lewis too has never been charged a penny. If the banks were told that they had to refund ALL charges then people like me that always manage their account well will probably have suffered through the end of free banking in this country. How fare would that have been. I used to work in a bank and to be fare when an account is opened ALL people sign to say they agree to the charges. How can they then complain ?????? Sorry & i assure you I am not merely writing this to cause arguments but merely to give the other side of the argument.....

Its no fair when there is no choice, I work, so i need a bank account. They ALL charge. So I have to sign up.

If the banks said look it cost us £2.50 for you to go over, then fine. I will pay!

But I bet you its does not cost £35, and if it does how can RBS afford to cut theres by half.

Banking is not free, its being paid for by the poor.

Lets say some one only gets paid, 100 pounds. They have money taken from there account that they did not expect. They get charged £35 for this. next month they are £35 down.

And then the man with £1000000 in his bank is getting free banking. How is this fair?

Big_Daft_Lad

A disgraceful ruling but, deep down, I'm not surprised. All very incestuous.

Anyway, I've got a case already won in Northampton but with payment stayed pending the outcome of this ruling. Any ideas on the way forwards on that one? Yes, I've got a horrible feeling too!

liam8282

pinkcloudnine wrote: »

As for other op's saying they were on for £3k+, in reclaimed charges, how in g~ds name do you let charges get to that level.

Well look at the level the banks took there spending to and they were bailed out by us, the taxpayers.

As people have said it is quite easy to rack up a lot of charges very quickly and once you are caught in the trap, it becomes a very rapid downward spiral that is almost impossible to get out of.

If for example you get paid late one month, but all of your standing orders go out, you get charged for each and every standing order £35 each. Say you have 5 standing orders, that is £175. Some people do not have £175 of disposable cash, so from that one time of being charged, you are going to be continually charged every month or until you can miraculously find the cash to pay the bank.

Most people wanted to pay fair the fair price for these events, not penalty charges that are set by the banks at whatever level they like.

Harry_Powell

benjy50 wrote: »

"I'm obviously in the minority here but I'm glad of this decision.
No-one will win - if the banks lost they would just end free banking and we'd ALL have to pay for it.
As someone who hasn't paid a bank charge since being at uni in the 90's, I'm more than happy with my bank
If you go overdrawn without permission, you pay the fine! Simple!
Sorry - don't shout at me! I'm a big Martin Lewis fan but have always been against this campaign."

Be afraid - be very afraid. Don't be smug. Do not think for a minute that you are exempt. They will suck you dry with charges on credit cards, ppi and any other credit agreement you just happe to have.
The banks can and will do anything to screw everyone - even you![/QUOTE]

The banks can't touch you if you pay off your credit cards in full each month. You then wont need PPI and if you live within your means and budget properly you also wont need any other credit agreements.

If you lot who are disappointed with the judgement want to get back at the banks, then simply SAVE UP and don't use their credit. The banks make their money out of people who can't live within their means and have to have everything now. Don't be one of these people and you will beat the banks!!!!

ILW

santiago7 wrote: »

This is an outrage!!!! we are in a recession and they want us to spend ?? then give us back our money!!!

the judge must of got A VERY GOOD BACK HANDER!!!

i have a case on hold with courts what will happen to this ??

absolute rubbish!! i would like to meet the judge to see exactly how much he got paid to do this!!

I would suggest that one of the reasons we are in a recession is that !!!!less people kept on spending money that they did not have. Hopefully this may bit a bit of a wake up call to try living within our means and not expect to walk away from the consequences.

jinkssick

Were too menial to worry, their now Government backed so it was stupid to even think that would shoot themselves in the foot.

When you look around you its hard not to swallow if you want to blurt out, The Great Nation that is England.