MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

nellyboy

from the CAG forum:

NEW ROUTE FOR CHARGES CLAIMS



After further consideration of today's judgement, we consider that the door is now open for claims to be made under sections 5 and 8 of the UTCCR 1999.

We believe that the Charges term within your bank contract will not be binding under Regulation 8 as Regulation 5 points to terms being unfair if they are not individually negotiated if the cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. Once it is established that the term violates Regulation 5, then Regulation 8 negates that term and so the banks will be liable to return all charges.

Over the next couple of days new templates will be drawn up, but the most important thing is that claims are not allowed to be closed. If your bank notifies you that your claim has been closed please let us know.

Further details will be posted as things develop, including details of what to do next if your claim is already in the system.

MillaJoJo

It is the same. I was showing a similarity in tactis used by big business and authority to DIVIDE the population in order to turn people against eachother.

You were told that this may be an end to free banking and you started quaking in your boots, instead of demanding fairness for all and questioning why the banks are using this a profit making tactic of grotesque proportions. 1/3rd of retail revenue. You have to wonder how they managed to offer free banking before they started charging everyone.

You are being led to believe you have to defend yourself and your free banking against the complainers, and you do. You fell for it.

Let's hope those, who get charged, do indeed find a way to get in, and stay in, the black. I suspect you don't, if you think it's the be all and end all of a decision as to whether your banking stays free. You'd rather it all remain the way it is.

(This was in reply to a previous message that has since been deleted.)

ouija

Typical. Simple fact is... the banks were bailed out when they were in trouble before, and the last thing the government wants is the banks having to fork out billions more. With the state of the economy at the moment, the government is going to side with the banks.

And to the moron who is defending the banks, I switched to the Halifax who f**ked up my account transfer after FORGETTING to send the details onto the transfer team. They took two months to complete the transfer, causing me to go overdrawn. Subsequently took over £3000 from me in charges within 12 months. Fair? F**k right off.

And Lloyds TSB who I arranged a low interest loan to pay off my old overdraft while my case was on hold... FORGOT to process the loan, leaving me another £600 out of pocket on charges. Now they are phoning me twice daily for the money and they can FORGET that!

neverdespairgirl

j0nnyv wrote: »

Ibefore he made his lengthy ( 2 minute) judgement.

The judgment took months to write, is pretty long, and was "handed down" (copies given out) in 2 minutes.

jonpnash

Completely agree...
And as for the Judges saying that we should be able to "choose" which banking system we use through normal market forces, i.e. which financial contract we choose.
We don't have any choice when all the banks are using the same financial model. Well until very recently....

catinahat wrote: »

Having read the first part of the supreme court's ruling, it seems to me that this makes a mockery of the very existence of 'governing bodies'.

If the OFT is not allowed to 'officiate fair trading' then what is the point of there even being such governing bodies. Surely, its very title, FAIR, should allow it to undertake the tasks and responsibilities to which it is there for?

To me, this ruling by the supreme court (formerly, the house of Lords if i'm not mistaken...??) against a governing body and indeed, the consumers to which that body is responsible, smacks of being at best, Orwellian...

" All pigs are equal.... but some are more equal than others..."

We have the OFT and FSO to ensure 'fair play'. But.... that is, until and unless, the 'ruling minority' (Banks, CEO's, Corporations, Lords and financial bodies) in their positions of privelige and power, see that members of their peer group have screwed up (ie banks, massive corporations) and had a devastating effect on our economy( recession, downturn in the economy, credit crunch etc etc) therefore, the masses, who consist of the ordinary man/woman, must pay for their mistakes... and the ruling bodies must have their hands bound because they can only practice 'fairness' when it suits the higher echelons?
12,000,000 banking customers paying exorbitant charges are financing approx 42,000,000 non-fee paying customers... which is roughly what 30 per cent?
I truly think this ruling has little to do with 'fairness' or indeed the legalities of the British constitution, judiciary, or Social Policy as such, but on the ramifications that ruling against the banks would mean.... thats my opinion and I think it is a tragic day for not only individual consumers, but for the whole integrity of our legal (and moral or immoral) system!
This gives them licence to do what they want without redress... because what can the governing bodies do about it when they have there governing powers rendered impotent by the 'Lords' who wouldn't have a clue what personal hardship means...?

PROLIANT

Oh !!!!!!, you lot are really clutching at straws.

pmahonc

Nellyboy
wasn't this the argument that was first used right at the start of the reclaiming. namely that because all the banks used almost the same contract, that the consumer had no choice but to accept the contract whether it was fair or not?

river

HOW CAN SOMETHING BE EXEMPT FROM FAIRNESS?
Part 1

If that is the case, then there is no justice. Contemplate those words for a second, read it again. Does it wake you up? It should, because it’s about your nation, it’s about the common person being treated unfairly by a legal system which isn’t about granting fairness to its citizens, at least not in this, very BIG case of unfair treatment by the banks to its customers.

Just because you sign something does not mean you agree to be treated unfairly and does not give the contract creator (banks) the right to suddenly be unfair to you? I don’t care how many such contracts you sign, it cannot allow one party to use, abuse, unfairly treat and take advantage of the other party! Or does it? The law of the land apparently seems to think so...

This is a severe insult to the everyday population of this nation who aren’t linked to the banks or the government. The regular citizens who are made to suffer simply on account of being the last in the line of the consumer chain – the consumer, the everyday citizen, the one who picks up the tab at the end of it all. Banks can squander money as they see fit, while people will have to pick up the bill and be put into debt about something they had no hand in creating. Oh, maybe they did by electing their government...nah, it still doesn’t qualify. Just because the system says so, doesn’t mean it’s right or fair. This is very much the case with this legal ruling and thus it strips the legal system of its credibility. We live in a system that supports that which is unfair seems to be the clear message from this ruling, and thus, we live in an unfair system! Democracy? What about justice? Fairness? Anyone...?

Some commentators on this forum seem to say that it’s up to us to be “in the know”, to educate ourselves as regards financial matters. I understand that thinking and yes, the more we know the better it is for us to be able to protect ourselves. But...imagine being 73 years old or thereabouts, and being retired or maybe suffering from some illness (irregardless of age) and having far more pressing matters on your mind (such as taking your medication, injecting shots, visiting hospitals on a regular basis etc). If you’re in any of these categories you don’t have the time for these sorts of things. As a common citizen of any nation you have the right to expect to be treated decently and granted some amount of justice and certainly to be treated fairly. You don’t expect to be forced into debt or financial crisis based on the greed of an institution that supposedly cares about you (if you are to believe the phenomenally, but utterly inaccurate, compassionate adverts of the banks). Not to mention the government which is supposed to stand on your side. And believe me, there isn’t really much difference between any of the parties, they are concerned firstly about their own careers.

mramra

LATWTTB wrote: »

Actually you will find my comment more than you think. I am not rubbing anything in but I am allowed an opinion. But thanks for copying my comment again for me. Then you small minded idiots might get the message.

In this world you have to pay for things and amazingly you pay far more than what it cost. Just bought a case to protect my phone. It is a srelatively small piece of plastic yet it still cost me £16.99! Might take them to court, no the Supreme court for ripping me off!!!

Outrageous! What, you mean that they told you in advance that it would cost you £16.99 for the piece of plastic, then had the cheek to charge you £16.99 when you said "I'll take it"?! :rotfl:

Llogan1988

This is where all our charger are goin big back hander but i bet theres personal interest, funny how its been agreed by 2 other court systems, i think we should all quite banks while they get their xmas bonuses we get a rubbish year again, theifs, rediculus well im not giving up, even the pm was behind us, RETRIAL Our contry is so corupt man. Bull, now i bet they expect us to b ok with this lol no chance, draw!!!