MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

nellyboy

quote SurlyBonds:

Yesterday's judgement made it clear that contracts between banks and customers can be subjected to a charging structure which is not deemed as penalties for specific services, but for the all-round service of the contract. This now becomes a bit of an Achilles’ heel as these charges are now for the overall service... i.e. their delivery of the overall contract.... so they'd better jolly well deliver then.

BUT, the UTCC Regs also state that ALL contracts must be fair and equitable, i.e. all terms and conditions MUST apply to both parties. This part was the bit, I think, that Phillips hinted at... it's just now a case of will you go the next lap?

So, write a short letter to your bank:
1) asking if they agree with the Supreme Courts judgement (SC6, 2009) that charges and fees ARE applicable in the management of the contract;
2) Ask for a copy of their latest table of fees/charges for all events that your account(s) may be subject to;

When you get it, send them a recorded letter back, stating that as the laws allows for all Terms and Conditions to be individually negotiated, you are applying your own equitable terms to the contract and thus ensuring that the same rights to both parties to the contract are both met and fulfilled for future purposes.
e.g. £10 for each breach of contract, £5 for letters, etc. plus your own extras for their potential breaches e.g. actual liquidated losses for indirect consequences (e.g. they bounce a DD by error , and the payee then charges you a subsequent fee for late payment), telephone calls.

Quote something like "In light of the Supreme Court's judgment, it is only reasonable to now ensure that both parties adhere to the overall service 'package' in terms of delivery of the contract."

Quote "Office of Fair trading v Abbey National plc and Others, UKSC 6, 2009" as the precedent.

Make it clear that these will only be applied when the bank has breached the contract, made an error or fails to deal with a matter in accordance with their published timescales and the Banking Code.

Add that these terms will be applied in x days (however many days notice their own contract states - usually 30 days, sometime more).

They then have various options...
a) They might ignore you. However, keep the recorded delivery slip.
b) Write back and claim that these are agreed - hardly likely, but wonders will never cease!!
c) Write back contesting them... and that's your bingo card.

If the bank refuses to accept equitable terms, then you can write back and state that due to their refusal to accept reciprocal terms, their own terms of fee charging can only be considered one-sided and in contravention of Consumer Law. including parts of the UTCC Regs that the OFT didn't use so are not dissed by the SC judgement.

State that in consideration of their refusal, you will apply to have the term within the contract that allows for them to make charges deemed as unlawful. That you consider the contract to have been constructed since signing to have been one-sided and that you will apply to have the specific clause to be struck out and all charges made under that specific clause, since signing, to be null and void.

Then send that letter recorded giving them 14 days to respond.

After, apply to the County Count under a General N1 claim.

Even if the Court disagrees on retrospective charges... we had it in one case... they did also Order that the term should be removed unless the bank agreed to equal terms. The bank refused, so the Order was made to remove the Fees table clause. Result = no future bank charges, whatever the reason.

The Banks CANNOT have it both ways. so lets get at them with their own judgement that they like to crow about.

david_hellier

I am not a exactly lover of banks, particularly the way in which they have conducted their retail business in the past 10 years or so. I think their charges have been excessive in terms of value for money. For what banks actually do for their money, their charges are very high. But that's business.

As the late Sir John Harvey Jones once said, you have to charge what the market will bear, not what you think your product is worth.

Compared with other businesses, banks are amazingly transparent in their charges. Their profits, either in interest or charges, are in black and white in our statements. When you buy a cabbage from Sainsbury's you will find it quite difficult to find out how much they actually paid for it. I am surprised Angela Knight of the BBA doesn't use this argument in her statements to the press.

I am also surprised the banks settled the amounts they actually did. When people open accounts they enter into a legally binding contract which usually refers to any likely charges. To suggest that they are unfair is frankly ludicrous. Terminate the contract and go elsewhere.

A combination of overzealous marketing of credit combined with an appalling level of inumeracy in the general population are, in my view, largely to blame for the high levels of debt in this country and indeed a factor in the making of the recession.

Terry Leahey of Tesco recently criticised the educational standards of job applicants to his organisation. Terry, you can't have it both ways. Your inumerate applicants are a reflection of your inumerate customers. You and your competitors need these inumerates to be able to trick people into deals, to get them into your shops.

If the population was better educated, APRs of 30% plus would not survive. Bank accounts offering 6% on £2000 in the first year that charge a £10 monthly fee would be a waste of advertising budget. But it must be worth it.

We all need to read the small print and use our calculators.

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

who sent us down the wrong argument road,why didnt we argue this in the first place,???????

The OFT argued this:

"Assessment of unfair terms
6. - (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-

(a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange."

chuckl1es

fullfacility wrote: »

The Supreme Court ruling is excellent news. The 80% of us who manage their accounts properly were dreading having to subsidise the 20% who can't/don't.
One of the bigest problems facing the country is the refusal of people to face up to the consequences of their own actions. It's always somedody else's fault.
If they didn't like the terms and conditions they shouldn't have voluntarily asigned up to them. Instead they complain and now try to jump on the compensation culture bandwaggon and extort money out of someone. These people shouldn't be given any encouragement.

You are obvioulsy a very niave person, but I won't charge you a fee for being dumbb !

pie81

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The OFT argued this:

"Assessment of unfair terms
6. - (1) Without prejudice to regulation 12, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate-

• (a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or
  
  (b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange."

correct.

the court said that (b) means you can't argue a contract term is unfair just because the price is too high.

So Martin will now need to find another reason to argue that bank charges are unfair - NOT because they are too high, but for some other reason. Any ideas?

skintus_mcgintus

richc1981 wrote: »

What would you rather they did? Not lend the money and have the banking system collapse?

any other company in any other industry would go belly up.

they may have repaid the £62bn cash back (in Dec 08 and Jan 09) but the point is that they might not have. in any case, both are now state-controlled, so your point is irrelevant.

the wider point is that, on overdraft charges, they could show a little gratitude to taxpayers and fleeced customers, for saving the financial system.

but they didn't.

chuckl1es

I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE POINT. NOBODY MINDS GETTING CHARGED FOR a SERVICE BUT BEING RIPPED OFF IS TAKING THE P*SS, WHO DECIDES WHAT IS A FAIR CHARGE?

natweststaffmember

pie81 wrote: »

correct.

the court said that (b) means you can't argue a contract term is unfair just because the price is too high.

So Martin will now need to find another reason to argue that bank charges are unfair - NOT because they are too high, but for some other reason. Any ideas?

Yes SECTION 5 of the act.

jamespir

dlots wrote: »

however, reading your posts you are a throughly unpleasant individual. what i like about you is how only your opinions matter and anyone who disagrees is an ill-educated oaf. the fact you're unemployed comes as no surprise whatsoever

lol ill take that as a compliment and you ask anyone who knows me im the nicest person you could meet :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Honest_Banker

nellyboy wrote: »

quote SurlyBonds:

Yesterday's judgement made it clear that contracts between banks and customers can be subjected to a charging structure which is not deemed as penalties for specific services, but for the all-round service of the contract. This now becomes a bit of an Achilles’ heel as these charges are now for the overall service... i.e. their delivery of the overall contract.... so they'd better jolly well deliver then.

BUT, the UTCC Regs also state that ALL contracts must be fair and equitable, i.e. all terms and conditions MUST apply to both parties. This part was the bit, I think, that Phillips hinted at... it's just now a case of will you go the next lap?

So, write a short letter to your bank:
1) asking if they agree with the Supreme Courts judgement (SC6, 2009) that charges and fees ARE applicable in the management of the contract;
2) Ask for a copy of their latest table of fees/charges for all events that your account(s) may be subject to;

When you get it, send them a recorded letter back, stating that as the laws allows for all Terms and Conditions to be individually negotiated, you are applying your own equitable terms to the contract and thus ensuring that the same rights to both parties to the contract are both met and fulfilled for future purposes.
e.g. £10 for each breach of contract, £5 for letters, etc. plus your own extras for their potential breaches e.g. actual liquidated losses for indirect consequences (e.g. they bounce a DD by error , and the payee then charges you a subsequent fee for late payment), telephone calls.

Quote something like "In light of the Supreme Court's judgment, it is only reasonable to now ensure that both parties adhere to the overall service 'package' in terms of delivery of the contract."

Quote "Office of Fair trading v Abbey National plc and Others, UKSC 6, 2009" as the precedent.

Make it clear that these will only be applied when the bank has breached the contract, made an error or fails to deal with a matter in accordance with their published timescales and the Banking Code.

Add that these terms will be applied in x days (however many days notice their own contract states - usually 30 days, sometime more).

They then have various options...
a) They might ignore you. However, keep the recorded delivery slip.
b) Write back and claim that these are agreed - hardly likely, but wonders will never cease!!
c) Write back contesting them... and that's your bingo card.

If the bank refuses to accept equitable terms, then you can write back and state that due to their refusal to accept reciprocal terms, their own terms of fee charging can only be considered one-sided and in contravention of Consumer Law. including parts of the UTCC Regs that the OFT didn't use so are not dissed by the SC judgement.

State that in consideration of their refusal, you will apply to have the term within the contract that allows for them to make charges deemed as unlawful. That you consider the contract to have been constructed since signing to have been one-sided and that you will apply to have the specific clause to be struck out and all charges made under that specific clause, since signing, to be null and void.

Then send that letter recorded giving them 14 days to respond.

After, apply to the County Count under a General N1 claim.

Even if the Court disagrees on retrospective charges... we had it in one case... they did also Order that the term should be removed unless the bank agreed to equal terms. The bank refused, so the Order was made to remove the Fees table clause. Result = no future bank charges, whatever the reason.

The Banks CANNOT have it both ways. so lets get at them with their own judgement that they like to crow about.

You are having a laugh- get back in the real world!!!