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

Sol00

ILW wrote: »

I dont think the price of Armani suits is fair, and I very much doubt they could justify the price on a labour and materials basis. So if I buy one should I then be able to claim most of the purchase price back?

A bank charge is to reflect the cost that the bank incurs for you going over your limit etc; an Armani suit is a product you decide to go out and pay for. I can't see the comparison.

Centium5000

PlasticMan wrote: »

I think Armani suits are perfectly fair. Overpriced for the tastes of some, but fair. You can see what you are getting and pay the money, or go to George at Asda and buy jeans and a T-shirt.

Likewise, I can read the charges leaflet on a current account, and choose to agree to them, or go to a different bank and...oh, wait a minute, they all have the same charges. And there's the rub.

Nice one PlasticMan, that's part of the anti-competitive behaviour / market abuse legal argument.

Chapter 2 of The Competition Act to be precise.

More info on it if you want further details:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=27365635#post27365635

A little further down the same thread Alpine Star highlights Lord Falconer's view that the banks are operating as a cartel.

Centium5000

Sol00 wrote: »

A bank charge is to reflect the cost that the bank incurs for you going over your limit etc; an Armani suit is a product you decide to go out and pay for. I can't see the comparison.

I'm afraid not, the charge is for services and as such doesn't have to reflect the banks' costs - that's as per the Supreme Court ruling.

The price can't be considered as excessive under normal consumer contract regulations, but can be considered if it's anti-competitive behaviour (see my post above).

You might also get a court to consider them unfair behaviour (exploitative?) under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 2006, s140A & s140B - an unfair relationship in favour of the banks would allow a judge to take remedial action. Thanks to kjetilniki for pointing that one out.

ProfessorX

How many people commenting here have read the so called 'Supreme Courts' decision? I've only gotten half way through it where Lord Walker sets out his/their judgement and even as a non lawyer/barrister I could shoot it down in flames, so why have the OFT not challenged it?

For example he says that, contrary to the decisions in the lower courts which were basically in support of 'consumers rights' [which is the whole point of the UTCCR's 1994 & 1999], the banks are essentially free to charge us what they like for any of their services as it is part of a 'package of services' which constitutes the 'main body (or subject matter) of the contract', to which regulation 6(2) applies!! However, he contradicts this conclusion when he states that "The Directive and the 1999 Regulations apply only to terms which have not been individually negotiated".

How many of us have ever been able to 'negotiate' with any Bank as to what we are prepared to pay for 'services' whether individually or as part of any 'alleged package'? That's clearly a wrong conclusion on his part in this ruling, so the whole of the UTCCR's must apply to all these charges for whatever services the Bankls claim to have provided. After all it is they who decide what those services are and when they have been provided, not us. That also makes them 'unfair' under the UTCCR's, so where's the Supreme Courts review of that?

In fact Lord Phillips in his comments at para 54 P23, starts off with a statement which also is contradictory to the UTCCR's. He says that "The customer rewards his Bank for the provision of these services in different ways, in accordance with standard terms agreed between the customer and the Bank". But that is the whole point of the UTCCR's which is to eliminate unfair 'non negotiated terms' from all consumer contracts in Standard Contracts used by every Supplier of Goods or Services. In simple terms it is to eliminate 'surprises, charges or otherwise' which were not agreed up front or subjected to real negotiation. How can our most Senior Judges not see this as relevant?


The OFT should also have demanded that they seek a reference to the European Court of Justice under Article 234 of the Treaty before this decision was issued and in the months between the first hearing and this stupid decision. Why do we tolerate such incompetence by our own Government? This ruling also violates Human Rights as the Banks will now try to have all cases which had been 'stayed', dismissed without any sort of hearing at all. !!!!!!!! to all these Judges I say, as they are clearly corrupt and making this ruling to protect the Banks because they have the State by the balls, or else they will threaten to collapse the economy.

They should be charged under the Terrorism Act, as I have already suggested to our corrupt Government, who simply bails them out of trouble no matter what they do.

This ruling does however imply, it is within our rights as consumers to negotiate with our banks on how much they charge us for these services, so why don't we offer to pay them only what it costs them to process the transactions, after taking into account interest which they're not paying customers who are/have been in credit for decades? Perhaps 10% of the amount overdrawn as a one off charge would be reasonably fair, rather than £30-40 for a single penny, which is compounded even when it's an error by the banks, or them delaying incoming credits whilst meeting direct debits due the same day.

These Judges also mention cheques, but how many stores will accept cheques these days? They all want credit or debit card payments, as that saves them time and trips to deposit cheques in 'night safes' like they used to, only for those to take 5-7 days to be processed. The banks still make money that way too as ingoing payments are not credited the day you pay it in by cheque, when it can be 'cleared' immediately in fact. The Court hasn't looked at the whole picture or even allowed any real 'consumers' the right to have their say at this 'hearing' so it fails to comply with Human Rights to a 'fair and impartial hearing'.

We still need a revolution to get all those rights and freedoms which were promised in the Universal Declaration of 1948.

pingchris

as i see it this whole case is a massive ball of string we are trying to untangle,the trouble is somebody keeps tieing knots in it to thwart our efforts,they know we are right but will not admit it as they do not want to pay out.that being the case it is likely that unless someone can wave a magic wand in the form of a water tight legal challenge that is a nailed on winner then maybe other avenues of bringing this to a consumer victory must be saught. the two examples below are just random ideas.

1.closure of bank accounts on mass. (the banks are doing a similar approach now with threats of resignations by r.b.s board members if they dont get there bonus money)
2.protest march.(extreme but possible)

the charges that are imposed on us are not fair,
the banks say they are fair. they are there to punish us and smack us on the wrist for missing a direct debit or going overdrawn.

myself personally i cannot see a win stuation for us,however i will keep fighting them,ive been doing it for over a year so ive invested a lot of time and effort,im not going back to accepting there well rehearsed and tangled up contracts that tie me into accepting there terms and conditions with no possibility of recompense if ther terms and conditions are again wrong and illegal and contribute to my financial downfall.

loan sharks adopt this stance and those sort of people are not tolerated so why are banks, the banks will not give out loans so now they are worse than loan sharks as they are just sharks with no use to anyone except themselves.

keep on fighting even though the battle for refunds is a pain in the !!!!.
there contracts are tied up well,they are using a worded smokescreen to stop any challenges to them,with the aid of the supreme court thats one hell of a wall to break down,i have a notion that there downfall may come from within there ranks,thats one weakness they cannot control,all it takes is one crack and the wall will eventually tumble,good luck to everyone and i hope you all have a peacefull and joyous christmas.

pingchris

PlasticMan wrote: »

I think Armani suits are perfectly fair. Overpriced for the tastes of some, but fair. You can see what you are getting and pay the money, or go to George at Asda and buy jeans and a T-shirt.

Likewise, I can read the charges leaflet on a current account, and choose to agree to them, or go to a different bank and...oh, wait a minute, they all have the same charges. And there's the rub.

yep its called a monopoly,something the mergers commision suppose to investigate,oh but wait they cant investigate them there the bank remember,there the ones that brought britain to its knees through irresponsible behavior and they have the cheek to say that we are irresponsible,

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

as i see it this whole case is a massive ball of string we are trying to untangle,the trouble is somebody keeps tieing knots in it to thwart our efforts,they know we are right but will not admit it as they do not want to pay out.that being the case it is likely that unless someone can wave a magic wand in the form of a water tight legal challenge that is a nailed on winner then maybe other avenues of bringing this to a consumer victory must be saught. the two examples below are just random ideas.
Have you read the judgement?
1.closure of bank accounts on mass. (the banks are doing a similar approach now with threats of resignations by r.b.s board members if they dont get there bonus money)
2.protest march.(extreme but possible)

the charges that are imposed on us are not fair,
the banks say they are fair. they are there to punish us and smack us on the wrist for missing a direct debit or going overdrawn.
Legally(that bit is important) they aren't. They are for a package of services.
myself personally i cannot see a win stuation for us,however i will keep fighting them,ive been doing it for over a year so ive invested a lot of time and effort,im not going back to accepting there well rehearsed and tangled up contracts that tie me into accepting there terms and conditions with no possibility of recompense if ther terms and conditions are again wrong and illegal and contribute to my financial downfall.

loan sharks adopt this stance and those sort of people are not tolerated so why are banks, the banks will not give out loans so now they are worse than loan sharks as they are just sharks with no use to anyone except themselves.

keep on fighting even though the battle for refunds is a pain in the !!!!.
there contracts are tied up well,they are using a worded smokescreen to stop any challenges to them,with the aid of the supreme court thats one hell of a wall to break down,i have a notion that there downfall may come from within there ranks,thats one weakness they cannot control,all it takes is one crack and the wall will eventually tumble,good luck to everyone and i hope you all have a peacefull and joyous christmas.

You aren't looking at the positives that the bank charges campaign has had. Lower charges is one, higher media coverage of the issue and even a test case and the story continues.

natweststaffmember

ProfessorX wrote: »

How many people commenting here have read the so called 'Supreme Courts' decision? I've only gotten half way through it where Lord Walker sets out his/their judgement and even as a non lawyer/barrister I could shoot it down in flames, so why have the OFT not challenged it?
Which part specifically?
For example he says that, contrary to the decisions in the lower courts which were basically in support of 'consumers rights' [which is the whole point of the UTCCR's 1994 & 1999], the banks are essentially free to charge us what they like for any of their services as it is part of a 'package of services' which constitutes the 'main body (or subject matter) of the contract', to which regulation 6(2) applies!! However, he contradicts this conclusion when he states that "The Directive and the 1999 Regulations apply only to terms which have not been individually negotiated".
The individually negotiated thing would cover bank terms to a degree. Lord Walker also gave another avenue as well which is regulation 5(1)
How many of us have ever been able to 'negotiate' with any Bank as to what we are prepared to pay for 'services' whether individually or as part of any 'alleged package'? That's clearly a wrong conclusion on his part in this ruling, so the whole of the UTCCR's must apply to all these charges for whatever services the Bankls claim to have provided. After all it is they who decide what those services are and when they have been provided, not us. That also makes them 'unfair' under the UTCCR's, so where's the Supreme Courts review of that?
The OFT are arguing price and that the bank terms are outside of regulation 6.2(b). The argument was very much an argument on very specific and specific points and not on the whole of UTCCR 1999.
In fact Lord Phillips in his comments at para 54 P23, starts off with a statement which also is contradictory to the UTCCR's. He says that "The customer rewards his Bank for the provision of these services in different ways, in accordance with standard terms agreed between the customer and the Bank". But that is the whole point of the UTCCR's which is to eliminate unfair 'non negotiated terms' from all consumer contracts in Standard Contracts used by every Supplier of Goods or Services. In simple terms it is to eliminate 'surprises, charges or otherwise' which were not agreed up front or subjected to real negotiation. How can our most Senior Judges not see this as relevant?
In the context of the judgement his summary also stated that those in credit forgo on interest as well.

The OFT should also have demanded that they seek a reference to the European Court of Justice under Article 234 of the Treaty before this decision was issued and in the months between the first hearing and this stupid decision. Why do we tolerate such incompetence by our own Government?
The Supreme Court are Law Lords not political Lords so their job is to interpret the law and not make political decisions.

This ruling also violates Human Rights as the Banks will now try to have all cases which had been 'stayed', dismissed without any sort of hearing at all. !!!!!!!! to all these Judges I say, as they are clearly corrupt and making this ruling to protect the Banks because they have the State by the balls, or else they will threaten to collapse the economy.
The Human Rights Act does not apply to bank charges cases.
They should be charged under the Terrorism Act, as I have already suggested to our corrupt Government, who simply bails them out of trouble no matter what they do.
Keep reading the judgement because you are going way off tack and you are starting to lose me with the arguments.
This ruling does however imply, it is within our rights as consumers to negotiate with our banks on how much they charge us for these services, so why don't we offer to pay them only what it costs them to process the transactions, after taking into account interest which they're not paying customers who are/have been in credit for decades?
Because Price is excluded under 6,2(b)
Perhaps 10% of the amount overdrawn as a one off charge would be reasonably fair, rather than £30-40 for a single penny, which is compounded even when it's an error by the banks, or them delaying incoming credits whilst meeting direct debits due the same day.
The point is irrelevant in this instance
These Judges also mention cheques, but how many stores will accept cheques these days?
The judgement was about historic charges as well so that is why it was mentioned.
They all want credit or debit card payments, as that saves them time and trips to deposit cheques in 'night safes' like they used to, only for those to take 5-7 days to be processed. The banks still make money that way too as ingoing payments are not credited the day you pay it in by cheque, when it can be 'cleared' immediately in fact.
They can't clear cheques immediately and there are only a few exceptions to that rule.
The Court hasn't looked at the whole picture or even allowed any real 'consumers' the right to have their say at this 'hearing' so it fails to comply with Human Rights to a 'fair and impartial hearing'.
It is not relevant to the case that was stated.
We still need a revolution to get all those rights and freedoms which were promised in the Universal Declaration of 1948.

Again, you lost me kinda half way down the page. Keep reading the judgment

willo65

PlasticMan wrote: »

Likewise, I can read the charges leaflet on a current account, and choose to agree to them, or go to a different bank and...oh, wait a minute, they all have the same charges. And there's the rub.

not true, maybe in the past but a lot has changed.

ILW

mesotrons wrote: »

I don't think you would be too happy if Armani charged you £1,000 for their clothes just so that they could sell the same thing to some-one else for a £1. That's exactly what the banks' are doing, using high fees on some accounts to subsidise free banking on others. Not very moral is it. Maybe you should offer to pay ten times the retail price for everything you buy, then maybe the shops will be able to reduce their prices to other people who they like the look of more than you!

You can buy suits made from the same cloths and by the same people in the same factory for much less, you make the choice to pay way over the odds for a label. My point is that, it is not illegal and people and companies should be able to charge whatever they like as long as they tell the customer before they buy.