Okay, so turn the Supreme Court ruling against the banks

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.

bargainbetty

Could we organise a mass protest on these terms? Everyone who has submitted a claim should submit this instead....

Alpine_Star

SurlyBonds wrote: »

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.

Seriously, I would strongly advise nobody did this.

SurlyBonds

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Seriously, I would strongly advise nobody did this.

Any why is that exactly? Reasons please?

I've used in in 27 court cases, and it's worked... we converted all the Clause 6 cases over to this approach.

esmerellda

Surly, have you any examples of responses from banks following writing to them to negotiate the terms ? could be very useful, as you have said.

SurlyBonds

esmerellda wrote: »

Surly, have you any examples of responses from banks following writing to them to negotiate the terms ? could be very useful, as you have said.

Thansk Esm,

I would respond and post them but Alpine Star has posted on here and made some pretty rude name-calling in a PM to me, and 'told' me that she has reported my post as dangerous and could cost someone a fortune... he/she obviously doesn't understand the Small Claims Fast Track rules then, and the claim cost for an N1 General Order application. Ah well, guess some people like to play the policemen around here.

So, until I hear otherwise, or receive the latest 'orders' from the omnipotent Lord High Chief Justice Alpine Star of the Inner MSE Chamber, then I'll put anything further on hold... as he/she obviously knows better.

After all, I only have a Law Degree, and my uncle who works on these cases pro bono, is a QC, so what the !!!! do we know?

SurlyBonds

Correction... he/she has obviously gone into a little sulk as he/she has just PM'd me again and said that they are putiing me into 'Ignore Mode'.

Don't quite get what the point of that was, but I guess some people like to play children. A sort of "poke you back and no returns" churlish little rant before taking the football home.... if you will.

Ah well, c'est la vie.

esmerellda

SurlyBonds wrote: »

Thansk Esm,

I would respond and post them but Alpine Star has posted on here and made some pretty rude name-calling in a PM to me, and 'told' me that she has reported my post as dangerous and could cost someone a fortune... he/she obviously doesn't understand the Small Claims Fast Track rules then, and the claim cost for an N1 General Order application. Ah well, guess some people like to play the policemen around here.

So, until I hear otherwise, or receive the latest 'orders' from the omnipotent Lord High Chief Justice Alpine Star of the Inner MSE Chamber, then I'll put anything further on hold... as he/she obviously knows better.

After all, I only have a Law Degree, and my uncle who works on these cases pro bono, is a QC, so what the !!!! do we know?

Ok, thats your perogative Surly.

anyway, letters refusing negotiation of terms could be useful in the campaign as a whole, so long as the negotiation wasn't for free cheese from mars or anything.

and I'd appreciate it. (like that helps)

SurlyBonds

esmerellda wrote: »

Ok, thats your perogative Surly.

anyway, letters refusing negotiation of terms could be useful in the campaign as a whole, so long as the negotiation wasn't for free cheese from mars or anything.

and I'd appreciate it. (like that helps)

I will post them, but I'm not exactly enthralled at the 'welcome' to this forum thus far. Are all new members treated like lepers, or is Alpine Star just the local village idiot around here? :rolleyes:

Makes me consider sticking just to Steve Hone's site.

No, the terms are straightforward... identical to what they put in theirs. e.g. letter fees, incorrectly applied payments/deductions (in lieu of bounced payments)... an exact one-for one... that way they can't argue that you are trying anything over and above normality.

danm

or

d) Actually internally agree with you but instead decide to close your account meaning you no longer have a contract.

esmerellda

Thank you. Not sure about the one for one, but its the principle of negotiation am interested in for the moment.

If you can't post directly on here, I've never worked out how to, you can email me admin@legalbeagles.info . Cheers xx