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

oscar52

I have a question regards Financial Hardship and the current mass produced letter =s following the supreme court decision.

Apologies first if this is elsewhere, but there are numerous threads and this seems the most logical.

Could I go back to my bank citing financial hardship - the bank has previously given me a payout on this basis (after a review following a previous request).

Could I go back stating I beleive I still fall into this category?

Chrysalis

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I actually give in for the time being. I know I have better things to do with my time so have fun with the arguments.

whats your view on this.

1 - My original t&c which I have in front of me states these are penalty fees.
2 - The t&c states the bank can update the conditions but they have to give me 45 days notice in writing.
3 - I never got this notice. Meaning my original t&c applies and any charges I accrue according to my contract are penalty fees not services charges.
4 - The crucial part of the supreme court ruling was they accepted the edited t&c provided by the banks which probably only legally applies to new recently opened accounts.

natweststaffmember

Chrysalis wrote: »

whats your view on this.

1 - My original t&c which I have in front of me states these are penalty fees.
The fact that they are within the terms and conditions and not excluded to me suggests that in law they are not penal since they are within that contract.
2 - The t&c states the bank can update the conditions but they have to give me 45 days notice in writing
Read the EC directive in full since they can do this
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31993L0013&model=guichett
3 - I never got this notice. Meaning my original t&c applies and any charges I accrue according to my contract are penalty fees not services charges.
See point 1
4 - The crucial part of the supreme court ruling was they accepted the edited t&c provided by the banks which probably only legally applies to new recently opened accounts.

The OFT accepted that the ruling would be for historic charges as well so they have accepted that decision. To be honest, it is not in their interests to go after HISTORIC charges but to focus on the current charges regime and take action if/or if it feels it is necessary

Chrysalis

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The OFT accepted that the ruling would be for historic charges as well so they have accepted that decision. To be honest, it is not in their interests to go after HISTORIC charges but to focus on the current charges regime and take action if/or if it feels it is necessary

the exact wording is this.

"We may apply penalty charges to this account when you are not able to keep the account in acceptable standing as stated by these terms and conditions, when we do this we will write to you and give you 45 days notice"

There is no charges related to returned items and unauthorised/unplanned overdrafts in my document. Whilst normal service charges are listed.

I am not talking about what the oft did now tho, I am talking about individuals, and in particular my own contract with the bank. The oft may well have lost interest in historical charges but I expect some people still want to persue (I am not going to persue as I think I would only have about £70 to claim for).

Alpine_Star

Chrysalis wrote: »

"We may apply penalty charges to this account when you are not able to keep the account in acceptable standing as stated by these terms and conditions, when we do this we will write to you and give you 45 days notice"

I would say that even though the bank described the charge as a 'penalty', the true test of a 'penalty' under common law would be whether the charge related to a breach of contract. Failing that there may be a case for misrepresentation of the true nature of the charges as all banks now claim that they represent a fee for a consideration service.

davidgmmafan

This just got interesting, this is the legal fiction I was referring to earlier.

The majority of the banks redrafted thier T & C's, what actually happens is unchanged, and yet the language is totally different.

I think there is cause for more optimism than the mainstream media suggest now that I've learned more chiefly from this website. The OFT has given up because to take matters forward they cannot really argue there is an unfair relationship, that will be left to the individual (s).

Are the changes in charges relevent? Shouldn't there be some law to trip the banks up because many said the charges were just to cover thier costs and have now changed thier story?

Watching this thread with interest, although I admit I didn't follow all the EU stuff. Finally I think it is right that the likes of MSE pursue this issue. Not because there should be no charges but because of the many MANY examples of banks riding roughshod over people.

The fact the FOS even has to exist, let alone takes ages to even looks at a complaint, shows banks values and practices leave a lot to be desired.

Getting off topic now, so I'll go back to lurking.

ProfessorX

BigBudgie wrote: »

An excellent post Professor X.

I raised similar points on the Legal Beagles website in behind the scenes discussions.

You have articulated the points perfectly, would you mind if I extracted some of the points from your post and forward them to the OFT for their comments.

I was one of the Legal Beagles team who attended the Consumer Group meeting with the OFT in early December, we did raise the basic principles you have covered with them and hoped that it might influence their decision favourably. It obviously didn't but it would be interesting to now get some feedback on these specific points.

Rgds Budgie

:eek:
For a number of reasons I was unable to follow up on this thread last year, but I would have been happy for you to use quotes for the OFT, as I've had my own battles with them over an unfair contract which was not a bank. They've still done nothing to help me about that and I think the loss they suffered in the Bank case hasn't helped.

It looks as if it has now died as a thread, but if you saw the BBC4 programme last week, wherein Lord Phillips of the Supreme Court stated that he thought Bank Charges were unfair, but their decision had to be based on the law (not justice then) and the law, as he accepted the arguments of the banks, was that these charges could not be reviewed by the OFT. I'm no lawyer but even I would have argued vociferously against his reasoning. He never actually said they couldn't be reviewed by any other court, but the lawyers will probably have been arguing that he meant that.

There was another example of incompetent decision making by the Supreme Court on that programme and it seems to be down to the fact that these Judges are insulated from society and have their heads in books of law which should be irrelevant in the 21st Century.

I've been told that Judges are not even trained in Human Rights at all by the Judicial Studies Board, so how the hell can they judge anyone? The UN produced a manual for the training of Judges and Legal Professionals, which has presumably been ignored too, along with the Government ignoring all the Universal Human Rights promised to everyone whose State was a member of the UN in 1948, such as Egypt, which is on the news.

Sorry for the mix up.

tifo

ProfessorX wrote: »

if you saw the BBC4 programme last week, wherein Lord Phillips of the Supreme Court stated that he thought Bank Charges were unfair, but their decision had to be based on the law (not justice then) and the law, as he accepted the arguments of the banks, was that these charges could not be reviewed by the OFT.

When was this program on? Maybe it can be viewed on iplayer.

Alpine_Star

It was on 21 Jan but unfortunately is no longer available on iplayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xz0s5

ProfessorX wrote: »

It looks as if it has now died as a thread, but if you saw the BBC4 programme last week, wherein Lord Phillips of the Supreme Court stated that he thought Bank Charges were unfair, but their decision had to be based on the law (not justice then) and the law, as he accepted the arguments of the banks, was that these charges could not be reviewed by the OFT. I'm no lawyer but even I would have argued vociferously against his reasoning.

Justice and the law are two entirely different things.

Justice is subjective and law is objective.

The purpose of any court is to 'give effect to the law' and like it or not that is what the Supreme Court did.

Melly31

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.

What a breath of fresh air you are, thank-you x