Halifax say on their website

Wig

Summary of Supreme Court Judgment
On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court said that the level of unarranged overdraft charges is not assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This means the banks have won their appeal and the test case has concluded.
This is a final judgment from the Supreme Court as they have decided it is not necessary and/or not in the public interest to make any reference to the European Court of Justice.

Is this true? I thought the media were saying that that the court only ruled that the OFT could not decide what was a fair charge? Or are these two things synonymous?

natweststaffmember

Wig wrote: »

Is this true? I thought the media were saying that that the court only ruled that the OFT could not decide what was a fair charge? Or are these two things synonymous?

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html
Bottom judgement is the Supreme Court verdict which you can read for yourself.

Wig

OK, having read that it confirms what the media said that the OFT could not decide etc...

But is that necessarily the same as what the Halifax wrote? What I mean is we have established that the OFT cannot assess that fairness, but does that mean that a private individual cannot present an argument of fairness to a court on a case by case basis?

Also what about the cases which were based on treating the charges as a penalty (which would not be allowed) How does the ruling affect those cases?

Alpine_Star

The judgment established that the OFT (or anyone) cannot challenge the level of overdraft charges for fairness. But the judgment didn't rule out a challenge to the fairness of current account contracts as a whole. The OFT have decided not to but it is technically still open to individuals to do so.

The High Court had already declared that the charges are not penalties.

Wig

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The High Court had already declared that the charges are not penalties.

Why didn't this issue also go to the supreme court?

esmerellda

Because the OFT decided against appealing that decision.

Wig

Seems to be a waste of a perfect opportunity.

dunstonh

Remember that the OFT would have a legal team and they would guide the OFT on the law. Some laws are black and white but many have shades of grey. Its the shades of grey that get argued. If the legal team thought there was no way to argue in their favour then they would not waste money. So, what may be a waste of a perfect opportunity to you may be because there was no likely chance of success on that particular area.

natweststaffmember

dunstonh wrote: »

Remember that the OFT would have a legal team and they would guide the OFT on the law. Some laws are black and white but many have shades of grey. Its the shades of grey that get argued. If the legal team thought there was no way to argue in their favour then they would not waste money. So, what may be a waste of a perfect opportunity to you may be because there was no likely chance of success on that particular area.

I would add to that dunstonh that the vast differences within the terms and conditions would mean that the OFT do not believe further litigation can deal with the market conditions today so they may well explore other options on charges as would the government as per the judgement. Getting a judgement on historical charges would not really be something that they would pursue within their remit to be honest even though they will keep a watching brief as they have said in their reasoning why they would not take any action.