MSE News: Bank charges fighting on: a new legal argument

Centium5000

LesD wrote: »

Why should the MILLIONS of account holders who manage their finances adequately have to cross-subsidise the FEW who run up ludicrous overdraft charges?

I'm afraid you're off topic LesD - this thread is for discussing the new legal argument.

There are a number of other forums where you might find an answer to your question, for example:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=454360

Good luck.

Centium5000

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The OFT have just updated their Q&As to include this:

3. What sections of the UTCCR was the case about?

The OFT has always argued that it could assess in full the fairness of unarranged overdraft terms under the fairness test set out in regulation 5 of the UTCCRs. The OFT’s current investigation on the fairness of the unarranged overdraft terms is based on whether they comply with regulation 5.

The banks argued in the test case that the terms were exempt from the fairness assessment under regulation 5 because of the exemption found in regulation 6(2) of the UTCCRs.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that unarranged overdraft charging terms were still assessable for fairness under regulation 5, but certain types of assessment are not possible. It found that the terms are exempt from certain types of assessment since they are part of the price paid in exchange for the package of banking services supplied.

However the Supreme Court stated that the OFT may be able to assess the terms for fairness under regulation 5 on a different basis.

Both the High Court and Court of Appeal had earlier ruled that unarranged overdraft charging terms could be fully assessed for fairness under regulation 5 of the UTCCR's and that the exemption in regulation 6(2) did not apply to the terms.

Glad they've cleared that one up!

Too many newspapers / TV programmes / radio stations misrepresenting the current state of play.

That'll have to be my new favourite quote when someone claims the Supreme Court ruled something it didn't...

Link to their statement:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/QandAs.pdf

Incidentally, do you know if the BBC has picked up on that yet? I haven't seen it come through on the RSS feed.

give-it-a-rest

Is it just me or is this getting boring?
Perhaps Martin should encourage people to live within their means.
Here`s an idea to start with; Don`t spend what you don`t have! There, that`s a nice simple rule for the cretins who go overdrawn mainly because they are thick halfwits who can`t budget.
And next time you see the latest `must have` phone/ipod/laptop/plasma etc.just ask yourself, `can I afford this with the money I have in my bank account?` If not perhaps you shouldn`t buy it. Is that simple enough for all you morons out there who decide instead to spend the banks` money, then bleat about being charged for going overdrawn?
As Martin seems to think this practice of spending other peoples (ie, the banks) money is ok, then why doesn`t he dig deep and simply offer a few handouts. He can then wait for an indefinite period of time before he gets his money back. And no interest of course. And no charge.

PROLIANT

give-it-a-rest wrote: »

Is it just me or is this getting boring?
Perhaps Martin should encourage people to live within their means.
Here`s an idea to start with; Don`t spend what you don`t have! There, that`s a nice simple rule for the cretins who go overdrawn mainly because they are thick halfwits who can`t budget.
And next time you see the latest `must have` phone/ipod/laptop/plasma etc.just ask yourself, `can I afford this with the money I have in my bank account?` If not perhaps you shouldn`t buy it. Is that simple enough for all you morons out there who decide instead to spend the banks` money, then bleat about being charged for going overdrawn?
As Martin seems to think this practice of spending other peoples (ie, the banks) money is ok, then why doesn`t he dig deep and simply offer a few handouts. He can then wait for an indefinite period of time before he gets his money back. And no interest of course. And no charge.

Ditto.....

Centium5000

I get bored too when I sit around reading a thread I have no interest in.

I don't post yawns in threads, but then I have more than 1 post to my name. Maybe I'll change my mind when I have a few thousand posts under my belt.

However, this thread - discussing the new legal argument - is something I'm here to read about and discuss.

Plenty of other threads to troll in guys - I don't need a response either thanks.

Centium5000

kjetilniki wrote: »

I agree that competition act may be a way forward. however, my response was aimed at the argument that reg 5(1) wld produce a result. I dont think so re the fact they they are charging money for unauthorised overdrafts.

in cases of overunning overdrafts I wonder if there may be scope under s140A & 140B Consumer credit act [as amended] to argue that the relationship is unfair to the debtor becos of [inter alia] the terms of the agreement agreement

Cheers for that kjetilniki, wasn't aware of s140A & B of the CCA - introduced in 2006 apparently.

You're right, it does look good as an individual basis to challenge the fairness of the charges.

Particularly of note is the fact the bank would have the onus of proof on them (to demonstrate fairness):

(9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.

Nice.

Alpine_Star

Centium5000 wrote: »

Cheers for that kjetilniki, wasn't aware of s140A & B of the CCA - introduced in 2006 apparently.

You're right, it does look good as an individual basis to challenge the fairness of the charges.

Particularly of note is the fact the bank would have the onus of proof on them (to demonstrate fairness):



Nice.

The general consensus is that there is little scope under CCA to challenge the charges.

UTCCR is certainly a basis on which individual challenges can be made and also that in any contested proceedings brought under UTCCR the burden of proof lies with the seller or supplier to prove that their terms are fair, rather than the claimant having to prove that they're unfair and that national courts have an obligation to assess their fairness.

Chrysalis

mramra wrote: »

It is fair that they are penalised, due to the terms and conditions of their account.

The fact that they do or do not pay for my bank account is irrelevant.

right so the fact you may subsidise them is also irrelevant, it seems you have a selfish view as I thought. It cant only be relevant one way.

If we forget subsidies for a second tho here is my view with that not in account.

What is fair is noone can be overdrawn without advance permission, any attempted payments blocked with no fees of course, if there is excessive blocked payments and someone is clearly in financial trouble the bank should call them in for an interview and offer advice. Not to sell them products or add spiralling charges, just advise on how to keep their account in good order.

If someone needs to be punished do so by removing direct debit facilities or something, not by charging someone £35 who hasnt the ability to pay.

Chrysalis

LesD wrote: »

Come on people. When will you realise that this is all just self-serving publicity???

Why should the MILLIONS of account holders who manage their finances adequately have to cross-subsidise the FEW who run up ludicrous overdraft charges?

This is not about the odd one or two who 'slip' into indebtedness, it's about those who deliberately go into debt and hope to get away with it.

The only reason this website promotes the challenge is to increase its own publicity (and make money for its proponents!).

Once upon a time this was place for savvy consumers to pick up good bargains, it's increasingly become a political and money-making tool!

have you read any comments?

1 - you assume these charges are only for unauthorised overdafts.
2 - you assume people are deliberatly overspending and hoping noone notices, there is some stupid people but I expect the majority hit with charges do not fall into this category.
3 - you assume its down to simple incompetance rather than circumstances that change someones fortunes and ability to pay bills.
4 - you have a problem with rich people subsidising poor people, but you have no problem with the fact these fees are been used to subsidise others not the other way round.

Dont want to subsidise and have a fair system? then I assume you would accept a flat fee that everyone pays and is the same right? I bet you wouldnt as you prefer to pay no fees and have someone paying these fees to subsidise your account. Am I wrong or right?

Chrysalis

LesD wrote: »

Thay may make 'profit' on the charges, but they sure as hell aren't making profit on the bad debts!

what about the charges for returned items? profit?