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

orc_2

Glad thats resolved then.

Onwards and upwards!!!!!!!!!!

pingchris

the banks have a policy of financial fascism,adolf hitler was a fascist to people, to humans that did not fit the bill,he exterminated millions of them as we all know,hitler apparently believed in "survival of the fittest", banks are similar in there approach with there charges and makeup,if a customer falls behind with there finances and incurrs charges which get out of control he or she is left by the wayside,there finances can be ruined and as a result there life can become turbulent with worry and all the rest that comes with a personal financial collapse,the banks policy will in effect eject you from the system if you are struggling with your finances even though you are working hard to make it work,this is "survival of the fittest" an idea embraced by one of the worlds most hated men adolf hitler is now being used to great effect within financial institutions policy,maybe they see it maybe they dont.

am i wrong again.

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

the banks have a policy of financial fascism,adolf hitler was a fascist to people, to humans that did not fit the bill,he exterminated millions of them as we all know,hitler apparently believed in "survival of the fittest", banks are similar in there approach with there charges and makeup,if a customer falls behind with there finances and incurrs charges which get out of control he or she is left by the wayside,there finances can be ruined and as a result there life can become turbulent with worry and all the rest that comes with a personal financial collapse,the banks policy will in effect eject you from the system if you are struggling with your finances even though you are working hard to make it work,this is "survival of the fittest" an idea embraced by one of the worlds most hated men adolf hitler is now being used to great effect within financial institutions policy,maybe they see it maybe they dont.

am i wrong again.

As Orc has said, it is the season of goodwill and this is post number 10,000 so all I can say is that I hope the snow is not getting you down cos it is still laying on the ground where I am and that you are prepared for Christmas. Not sure if any of our posts are really on topic but who cares, other announcements have kinda taken over anyway in importance.
To Chris and anyone else reading this, I hope you all have a peaceful and relaxing Christmas Day and enjoy the New Year when the fight continues.....btw, I'm not going anywhere but needed an appropriate time to say this.....where are the santa smilies????

Centium5000

:santa2: Here you go Nattie!

pingchris

merry xmas to all of us,hope you all have a great time getting fat eating turkey dinners,:j

pingchris

p.s i got frustrated not being able to shout and have a hissy fit at bankers,i closed my account which was fun and helped vent my disgust,i got a freebie website template so ive built my site to vent my anger at the bankers in my own way,bank.moonfruit.com,its great therapy

pingchris

p.s i got frustrated not being able to shout and have a hissy fit at bankers,i closed my account which was fun and helped vent my disgust,i got a freebie website template so ive built my site to vent my anger at the bankers in my own way,bank.moonfruit.com,its good therapy,i know many do not agree with my arguments and i tend to not stick to the lawfull facts of the case,but there are many aspects of this case to cover and wanted to show banking policy for what it is in my own way,banks are now scrooge,quite apt really as this case has in a way became a xmas carrol for me,the test case has rumbled to a slow pace in legal terms and its apt also that the timing is exactly to xmas 2009,scrooge is in control of many thousands if not millions of peoples xmas,

Chrysalis

pingchris wrote: »

who classed them as a service,the supreme court ?

does it say in my agreement that charges of £39.00 are a service ?

thats the first time ive heard of a service that allows a charge also,oh lovely im getting a service ,the banks say you can take the service they provide but if you dont take it then they,ll charge you £39.00 for it anyway,it gets odder and odder,is it coming that they will be charging us entry to the bank via a swipe card,better not put ideas into ther heads.

oops they already do that,well sort of, way ahead of me there.

yep they have, I agree its a joke but they decided to interpret the charges as a fee for a service.

I would suggest to anyone still going ahead with individual cases to take their old signed agreement with them that will state it is a penalty fee. I have been told individual cases can still be ruled in favour, but some judges may of course now take an easy way out and use the supreme court case as a reason to rule in favour of the banks but its still worth persuing.

I just cannot believe how stupid both the OFT and media have been over this. The OFT should have either just left people to keep claiming and getting the payouts or got the government to change the law so they wouldnt need to go to court, how silly is it that a regulator has to use a court to regulate.

The media continously keep misleading people by saying these are only charges for been overdrawn. I wonder if its deliberate to give the banks more public support.

sunsorrow

MillaJoJo wrote: »

Yes at the detriment of others.

What do you think would happen if we all managed our banking affairs without problems? Who would pay for your free banking then?

Do you hope people stay in financial difficulties so that you can carry on with your free banking service, because this is in effect what you're saying.

Not one person has answered this, a question I have asked several times.

As stated in another thread here people who pay charges are subsidising 4 other people to have free banking. Do you think this is a fair way for the banks to run their business? Counting on those who find themselves with money problems for one reason or another, to fall under and get charged somewhere around £200 a month?

I'm paying £50 a month for your *free* banking. So in actuality, your banking costs ME £600 a year.

You would have a case for this being the terms and conditions are not balanced and FAIR for all customers, this has been taken to court in the business world already and this is the line im looking down now, the other option is did i accept tese terms when i opened the account as a child?? and have i been sent the change of terms and conditions through the years? the answer would be no !
But in my thought the OFT and the gordon brown have said it needs sorting and laws will come to deal with this - so thats clear the system/charges used by banks are UNFAIR.


the joke for me is when i entered into a DMP my debt with my old Lloyds account was £300 now its over £600 !!

ProfessorX

natweststaffmember wrote: »

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

I'm sorry that natweststaffmember got lost in my last post but perhaps it would be better for us to concentrate on the decision versus the European Directive 93/13/EEC of the 5th April 1993 on which the decision ought to have been based, to prove where they went wrong.

Let's start with the the second paragraph of Lord Walker's explanation of "The limited nature of the issue" where he said:-

"Some would regard the United Kingdom system as being, in some sense at least, obviously unfair, though Mr Sumption QC (for the banks) vigorously disputed Lord Mance’s suggestion that his clients were engaged in a sort of “reverse Robin Hood exercise”. That is an imponderable question which depends partly on whether one’s perception of the average customer who incurs unauthorised overdraft charges is that he is spendthrift and improvident, or that she is disadvantaged and finding it hard to make ends meet. But it is not the question for the Court.".

Why not, as I think it is very ponderable and deserved to be so by the court as it goes to the heart of the question they were deciding on? He then went on to say in the next 2 paragraphs that:-

"The question for the Court is much more limited, and more technical. It is whether as a matter of law the fairness of bank charges levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts (including unpaid item charges and other related charges as described below) can be challenged by the respondent the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) as excessive in relation to the services supplied to the customers.
That issue depends on the correct interpretation (in its European context) and application of Regulation 6(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 SI 1999/2083 (“the 1999 Regulations”)."

So having admitted that some (whereas it should be the majority) consider the UK system is unfair, these Supreme idiots then went on to limit their review of the matter to a limited interpretation of one section of the UK 1999 Regulation which itself replaced one of 1994. Both of these ought however to comply with the original EEC Directive as should every Court decision on such contracts, or they fail to be compatible with Article 6 of the Convention and create a violation of Article 17 too.

The first thing to consider from that is this quote:-
"Whereas the laws of Member States relating to the terms of contract between the seller of goods or supplier of services, on the one hand, and the consumer of them, on the other hand, show many disparities, with the result that the national markets for the sale of goods and services to consumers differ from each other and that distortions of competition may arise amongst the sellers and suppliers, notably when they sell and supply in other Member States;

Whereas, in particular, the laws of Member States relating to unfair terms in consumer contracts show marked divergences;
Whereas it is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that contracts concluded with consumers do not contain unfair terms;
Whereas, generally speaking, consumers do not know the rules of law which, in Member States other than their own, govern contracts for the sale of goods or services; whereas this lack of awareness may deter them from direct transactions for the purchase of goods or services in another Member State;
Whereas, in order to facilitate the establishment of the internal market and to safeguard the citizen in his role as consumer when acquiring goods and services under contracts which are governed by the laws of Member States other than his own, it is essential to remove unfair terms from those contracts;
Whereas sellers of goods and suppliers of services will thereby be helped in their task of selling goods and supplying services, both at home and throughout the internal market; whereas competition will thus be stimulated, so contributing to increased choice for Community citizens as consumers.".

It seems that this Directive is aimed at improving competition among EU states to provide 'goods and services' but it makes a wrong assumption that everyone knows the rules of contract in their own countries, but nevertheless it states that it is for Member States "to ensure that contracts concluded with consumers do not contain unfair terms".

So surely that means that no consumer should be required to accept any unfair terms in any contract which has never been subject to negotiation? That is why it also says later that "it is essential to remove unfair terms from those contracts". How does the Supreme Courts decision achieve this aim?

Under that Directive's Article 2(a) 'unfair terms' means the terms defined in Article 3 which states:-

1. A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
2. A term shall always be regarded as not individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term, particularly in the context of a pre-formulated standard contract.
The fact that certain aspects of a term or one specific term have been individually negotiated shall not exclude the application of this Article to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of the contract indicates that it is nevertheless a pre-formulated standard contract.
Where any seller or supplier claims that a standard term has been individually negotiated, the burden of proof in this respect shall be incumbent on him.
3. The Annex shall contain an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

The Supreme Court decision however, has allowed the QC's representing the Banks to argue that Regultion 6(2) of the UK Regulations apply to bank charges without any apparent definition of what services are provided to incurr these 'penalties', which is actually what they are contrary to the banks arguments against that.

The Court stated that REG 6(2) closely follwed the English version of Reg 4(2) of the 1993 EEC Directive and even quoted it. But they also said that "The Court has had available the texts of Article 4(2) in French, German and some other languages, but they cast little light on the interpretation of the English text.".

Surely that was justification for the Supreme Court to seek additional guidance from the European Court of Justice before they came to their decision, which I suggested in my last post? If they don't understand the meaning of the text how can they make any judgements on it?

But the Supreme Court then went on to say that "The Directive in its final form applies only to contractual terms which have not been individually negotiated. That is the effect of Article 3, which sets a fairly high threshold for meeting that test.", yet that is what bank charges are, i.e non negotiated as I also said in my last post. so how can they reach this decision? It is illogical and irrational.

They are also fundamentally wrong to take Article 4(2) out of context of the Directive as it ought to be read in conjunction with Article 4(1) which said "1. Without prejudice to Article 7, the unfairness of a contractual term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.".

Yet again however, the corrupt English Court process has allowed the banks to argue their case out of context, so it ought to go to the European Court of Justice as an appeal. The OFT should do this under Article7(2) of the Directive.

The Banks seem to have been allowed to argue that the 'main subject matter' of any contract between them and their customers is to make as much profit as possible on the slightest pretext of an excuse, even by applying a 'not individually negotiated term'. I don't see how that is 'fair' and I'm sure the majority of their customers would agree too. It is also contradictatory to Article 6 of the Directive:-
"Article 6
1. Member States shall lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not be binding on the consumer and that the contract shall continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms.
2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the consumer does not lose the protection granted by this Directive by virtue of the choice of the law of a non-Member country as the law applicable to the contract if the latter has a close connection with the territory of the Member States.

The Government would no doubt argue that the UTCCR's comply with this but that is no good if the Supreme Court ignores them entirely and allows the Banks to mislead it into considering a "limited nature of the issue" and effectively not doing their job right, which is to correctly interpret the law which in this case includes the European Directive 13/EEC/1993 and I for one don't see this as being met.

The only question in my mind is - How much did they get paid to reach this corrupt decision? We pay their wages, as well as supporting the Banks when they don't handle their finances properly either and they have been profligate and squandered billions on deals designed to make them personal gains, by way of artificial bonuses for non existant paper profits.

Many people criticize others for irresponsibly borrowing money but the Banks don't have to lend it. They do it for profit. Only today I saw an advert for money lenders on TV charging over 2,000% interest and surely that must be 'unfair to anyone' when the base rate is 0.5% and has been for months now. What laws are in place to protect consumers from such exhorbitant interest charges if not the UTCCR's?

Does this Supreme Court decision now sanction this usury? Surely the 'main subject matter of the contract' when it comes to banks must be based on the 'Banking Code' which promises to deal with all customers failry not rip them off at the first chance they get. Business customers should get the same treatment as private individuals when they are 'sole traders' as they are not protected by any 'limited liability' clauses in corrupt Corporate Laws either. Otherwise the Human Right to be treated equally under the law is violated for them.