MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

Alpine_Star

WestonDave wrote: »

Regulation 5 isn't easy to apply though. .

I think it is and the Supreme Court said as much

The judgment is very limited in it’s scope and only prevents the OFT from pursuing a specific area of fairness - that the charges simply don’t represent value for money for the services provided in return.

But the judgment was clear that it ‘’does not preclude’’ (does not rule out) the OFT from being able to make a fairness assessment (sec5) as to whether ’contrary to the requirement of good faith, the charges cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.’

In other words, to use an extreme example, although the charges could be £1000 a pop without actually being unfair in themselves, the charges are still capable of causing an unfair contractual balance overall, simply because they’re so high and this opens the possibility of covering all sorts of issues ie frequency of charging, charges necessarily leading to other charges etc.

euronorris

I have a feeling that the claim was rejected and pointed to another avenue for another reason.

The government couldn't have the banks automatically paying back all bank charges at this time. It would be too crippling for them (justified, but still).

So, they rule in their favour on this one, but point the OFT to another avenue. And, I'm sure the OFT will follow it.....and win. But probably not for another couple of years, thus allowing the banks sufficient time to get back in the black first.

After all, it seems pretty obvious that the government has put pressure on them to reduce the charges anyway. And that, in itself, speaks volumes.

Just a theory though. Could be totally wide of the mark.

MrLeeLee

euronorris wrote: »

So, they rule in their favour on this one, but point the OFT to another avenue. And, I'm sure the OFT will follow it.....and win. But probably not for another couple of years, thus allowing the banks sufficient time to get back in the black first.

Yeah but if you believe that, surely it would also be possible that if the OFT follow this new route, the banks will appeal ever stage again like they did this time, then when it gets to the supreme court, they'll favour on the banks side again?

You could be dead on the money, but I'm not so sure...

euronorris

MrLeeLee wrote: »

Yeah but if you believe that, surely it would also be possible that if the OFT follow this new route, the banks will appeal ever stage again like they did this time, then when it gets to the supreme court, they'll favour on the banks side again?

You could be dead on the money, but I'm not so sure...

There is that possibility, but then, if they were just going to do that why would they point them in another direction in the first place?

Time will tell I guess.

Man, I miss S&V crisps (off topic I know)!

MrLeeLee

euronorris wrote: »

There is that possibility, but then, if they were just going to do that why would they point them in another direction in the first place?

Time will tell I guess.

Man, I miss S&V crisps (off topic I know)!

After two previous decisions going against the banks, I'm not sure they could have come out and said, they are fair, those courts were wrong, go away!

To me it sounds like they said, they are fair, go away, but IF you REALLY want too, follow this route, come back after two years of more court action, we'll have a look at it and we'll tell you to go away again! (I've already admited I know nothing about how law works, so I fully expect this to be 100% wrong, it's just how I feel!)

MrLeeLee

alexjohnson wrote: »

We have to wait and see the OFT's response but I expect to see compromise which is that banks "agree" to lower fees or restructure them and in exchange for no further litigation by the OFT.

Surely if this is done though, it will still allow us to reclaim money? Or would they be able to word it in such a way so they don't admit anything in the past was unfair or excessive?

mr.brightside87

MrLeeLee wrote: »

Surely if this is done though, it will still allow us to reclaim money? Or would they be able to word it in such a way so they don't admit anything in the past was unfair or excessive?

It's the banks we are talking about here!!!

euronorris

alexjohnson wrote: »

And Chilli McCoy's rule.

Chilli??!! CHILLI??!! Blasphemous I tell you! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

It's all about S&V. And I was fortunate enough to receive some S&V McCoy's earlier this week from my OH's colleague. She likes me better than him! hahahaha. He asked for chocolate hob nobs, with no mention of the S&V crisps, and yet....she brings back S&V crisps. Good girl!

ILW

MrLeeLee wrote: »

Surely if this is done though, it will still allow us to reclaim money? Or would they be able to word it in such a way so they don't admit anything in the past was unfair or excessive?

Cannot see that working, if for example Tescos are selling beans at 30p this week, cannot see that as an admission that they wer overcharging at 35p last week and refunding all purchasers.

MrLeeLee

mr.brightside87 wrote: »

It's the banks we are talking about here!!!

Good point, noted

To be fair, while I was typing it I was thinking, of course they bloody will! lol