MSE News: Bank charges update: the phoenix from the flames + full Q&A

Centium5000

mramra wrote: »

The beginning of the end for these claims I'm afraid...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8382289.stm


.....
However, the Supreme Court ruled this week that the OFT does not have the power to decide if they are fair.
....

Thanks for highlighting that mramra - I've just complained to the BBC for their factual error as a result.

This is what I said:

The following statement in relation to the Supreme Court judgement is factually incorrect and may be misleading to the detriment of your readers:

"However, the Supreme Court ruled this week that the OFT does not have the power to decide if they are fair."

The Supreme Court stated clearly in both its judgement and summary that this only applies to the narrow issue of whether the charges can be assessed as excessive under Regulation 6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1998. This is in paragraph 3 & 4 of the judgement.

The Law Lords clearly stated this was not a ruling that the OFT couldn't pursue the matter under other laws and regulations. This is in paragraphs 57 and 80 referencing Regulation 5(1).

As your statement is factually incorrect, please amend this and highlight the inaccuracy so that others are not mislead.

Thankyou

If anyone else would like to complain about the potentially misleading nature of the article, they can do so at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms

evanowen

OK then, the arguments about what is a fair and reasonable charge for non compliance with the bank's terms of business got me thinking and, I may never live this down, it is questionable whether a £30, £50 or £70 charge for being 10p overdrawn once in a month for one day or even one minute is fair or reasonable.

This decision was made by the Supreme Court, however the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is not bound by law, former Chief Ombudsman Walter Merricks boasted that they 'unashamedly make new law'.

The FOS decides what is 'fair and reasonable in all the circumstances', it doesn't cost anything to complain but the representations made must be convincing.

Will the FOS be inundated with claims?

What annoyed me this morning was Lloyds declaring that it will demand that lower courts retract all decisions already made in the favour of customers.

This has to be sorted one way or the other, the banks are ripping people off by increasing interest rates on credit cards without any discussion.

I would be happy to contribute on these forums using the experience my three decades of working in financial services has afforded me, if that isn't grammatically correct please forgive me for I am rather annoyed today even though I thought the judgement was the correct one based upon the shoddy legal work carried out by the OFT. :mad:

mramra

Centium5000 wrote: »

Thanks for highlighting that mramra - I've just complained to the BBC for their factual error as a result.

This is what I said:

If anyone else would like to complain about the potentially misleading nature of the article, they can do so at:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms

Hurrah! Another bandwagon to jump on. Come on people - down with the BBC, refund my licence fee, it's not fair, it's not fair! Complain! :rotfl:

Centium5000

mramra wrote: »

Hurrah! Another bandwagon to jump on. Come on people - down with the BBC, refund my licence fee, it's not fair, it's not fair! Complain! :rotfl:

Not quite.

The BBC has an excellent complaints procedure to highlight such misleading errors and correct them. If more people complain it will encourage the Beeb to publish a correction, which I believe is a worthwhile aim.

I'm glad to see you're consistent in the way you react to posts on here mramra :T

ILW

Don,t start me on the BBC and global warming.

nsabournemouth

I thank you, those that are putting ways forward on how to beat the banks at this. :T

Like many i am not an expert on law but i take a keen interst in what you are posting and i am on my way to getting a copy of my agreement i had with the bank when i opened my current account back in 2003.....if they can find it.

Centium5000

nsabournemouth wrote: »

I thank you, those that are putting ways forward on how to beat the banks at this. :T

Like many i am not an expert on law but i take a keen interst in what you are posting and i am on my way to getting a copy of my agreement i had with the bank when i opened my current account back in 2003.....if they can find it.

They've probably amended your terms countless times since then, but it might be worthwhile getting all their records of agreements with you, together with a record of any notifications they've made.

You might find they're missing a few agreements that they are holding you to without having the actual contract.

Worth it for a £10 Subject Access Request

One thing to be wary of is 'deemed acceptance' - if you opened an account and they notified you of new terms they could argue that you have affirmed the contract by continuing to operate the account even without a signature.

Good luck

MrLeeLee

mramra wrote: »

Hurrah! Another bandwagon to jump on. Come on people - down with the BBC, refund my licence fee, it's not fair, it's not fair! Complain! :rotfl:

Seriously, what is the point in you being on these part of the forums? Every time someone pops up saying that bank charges are fair, you thank them, every time someone says you shouldn't get charged and those who have are stupid, you thank them and now you post a link to a page which states incorrect information implying that no one will get bank charges back, in a smug 'awww what a shame' way.

You didn't post that link to be helpful, you posted it to try and rub salt into the open wounds of many users on here. Thankfully someone has put you (and the people who wrote that article) in their place.

Centium5000

Well said MrLeeLee

JohnDinton

Centium5000 wrote: »

There are so many ways to skin this cat as it is so clearly unfair - the OFT just chose the least likely means unfortunately, and the cat is still free to chase mice.

Has the OFT ever asked Martin or anyone else how this case should be presented? I am concerned that the OFT's case has not been well thought through, and as a result others may be estopped from pursuing arguments which ought to have been raised or appealed by the OFT. I have commented in an earlier post on the failure to appeal the penalty point.

Your suggestion about Sch 2 para 1(c) of UTCCR seems to me to be a good one. If the banks, as they claim, really are providing a service, at a large fee, of considering an application for an increased overdraft facility every time a payment over the agreed limit is presented, I ought to be able to opt out of the service. I ought to be able to tell my bank that I want it to reject any payments which would take me over the limit for a fee of whatever a few ms of processor time on its computer costs. If, as I suspect, the so-called requests nowadays never are considered by a human but are always rejected automatically by a computer I would not be losing anything.

If anyone has a copy of a bank's terms and conditions which prevent such an opt-out, he can complain to DFT under r10 that the term is unfair. DFT has to reply saying whether or not he will be applying for an injunction under r12.

As far as I am aware, s3 of UCTA is still in force. It may be arguable that the banks are claiming to be entitled to render a contractual performance substantially different from that which was reasonably expected of them, in which case the term has to satisfy the test of reasonableness.

It is regrettable that the Supreme Court did not refer r6(2) to the ECJ, although that would have introduced another long delay. I think they got it wrong. They considered the history of the regulation, and said it had been agreed that competition would regulate price, so it did not need to be considered in terms of fairness. It seems to me that is only valid when the issue is whether the price should be £2 or £5. If the fee is ten times what it should be that ought to be able to be considered unfair. The Supreme Court said the problem might be that there was no competition. Perhaps there ought to be an investigation as to why competition is not operating effectively, and whether the banks are operating an illegal cartel.