MSE News: Bank charges round two: a new legal hope

esmerellda

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091215/debtext/91215-0002.htm

15 Dec 2009 : Column 788
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Office of Fair Trading is still considering that judgment in detail, and on 22 December it intends to make an announcement about what further action will be taken. Our position is very clear: we want to see a fairer and more transparent system of charges, and we are working very closely with the OFT to achieve that.

craigf136

I sent an email to my local councillors and too my parliamentary MP's Heleb Eadie and Gordon Brown who represent my constituency.

This is what I sent, hopefully with enough support from MP's and such like, we can get the OFT to continue.

Dear Gordon Brown,

I'm writing too you in regards to the recent decision by the supreme court regarding bank charges. As no doubt you are aware, the supreme court effectively said the charges are not unfair and basically threw the case out (even though the high court and the court of appeals ruled them unfair).

Moneysavingexpert.com have now consulted with two top barristers from the govan law centre. The current thought is the OFT should take this forward under the consumer credit act, where the banks must prove the charges are fair, rather than the consumer having to prove them unfair.

I would welcome your input and if you can also write to the OFT urging them to take this further it would be greatly appreciated.

I have also sent a copy of this email to Helen Eadie & my local councillors.

Yours sincerely,

pingchris

its taken a long time to get this far for anyone to decide on the terms and conditions of bank charges etc etc etc etc,scrutinising of regulations 6 etc and now regulation 5,three years ish i think,if its taken this long for all the top solicitors, politicians and the public to get to the point where they are no further forward on deciding on a true and correct answer then something is very wrong within the actual makeup of these contracts themselves,if it has taken this long for polticians and solicitors to be no further forward in there findings on bank charges terms etc and is still very much at a court stage then the general public you and i would take a lifetime 70 years or more if at all to understand the contracts we are signing,that being the case i would say that these contracts ARE UNFAIR because of the fact that they are unenforceable because of having no possible way of making it of fair clarity to the customer,basically when we sign for our accounts the paper we sign in itself becomes a loophole,a contract of sorts that can be worded and phrased so that to untangle it would have the result it is having,confusion and uncertainty,how long can we travel down a road that leads us to more roads then takes us back to the start,this case is similar,this case needs a thrash out in a real court to reveal its true identity,to reveal the true damage banks have caused to millions of british people with there smoke covered contracts and loophole account regulations.

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

its taken a long time to get this far for anyone to decide on the terms and conditions of bank charges etc etc etc etc,scrutinising of regulations 6 etc and now regulation 5,
In their original POC the OFT included Regulation 5 and the banks asked for a declaration on Regulation 5 which was denied.

three years ish i think,if its taken this long for all the top solicitors, politicians and the public to get to the point where they are no further forward on deciding on a true and correct answer then something is very wrong within the actual makeup of these contracts themselves,if it has taken this long for polticians and solicitors to be no further forward in there findings on bank charges terms etc
Politiicians have historically not said much at all and we are further forward. I don't believe that we have stagnated or remained the same in the last 3 plus years.

and is still very much at a court stage then the general public you and i would take a lifetime 70 years or more if at all to understand the contracts we are signing,that being the case i would say that these contracts ARE UNFAIR because of the fact that they are unenforceable because of having no possible way of making it of fair clarity to the customer,
I don't agree with your viewpoint because you can ask a banker to explain every single solitary part of the contract to you until you understand it. Never be shy to ask questions and expect answers.

basically when we sign for our accounts the paper we sign in itself becomes a loophole,a contract of sorts that can be worded and phrased so that to untangle it would have the result it is having,confusion and uncertainty,how long can we travel down a road that leads us to more roads then takes us back to the start,this case is similar,this case needs a thrash out in a real court to reveal its true identity,to reveal the true damage banks have caused to millions of british people with there smoke covered contracts and loophole account regulations.

I hate the use of the term Loophole since a bank account is not a loophole, it is covered by the law. So far three real courts have heard arguments and many more may well here new arguments. If that takes a lifetime, then the lifetime will have been worth it.

marcharrison1979

mystic_trev wrote: »

I really can't see the Banks offering to pay for the OFT's Legal costs for a second time. So unless there is someone out there with deep pockets (and we're talking several million) this will be a waste of time i.e. the OFT won't proceed again unless they can have their case funded.

HBOS can pay for it, after all, we do OWN them!