Overdraft £1.21 - fees £148.81 - should I pay?

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

As you see, not just my interpetation, but that of a number of others.

But not quite the interpretation of an informed and unbiased Supreme Court judge:

MR CROW: Thank you, my Lord. Could I pick up a couple of loose ends from this morning? First, my Lady Hale's question, if the OFT wanted to undertake, in a sense a structural challenge. Having taken instructions, we have nothing to add to the response I gave, which is that the remit which is given to the OFT under the directive is a term-by-term targeted challenge, not an opportunity for a structural challenge.

BARONESS HALE: You couldn't take a group of terms and say, "Taken together, do these pass the fairness test?"

MR CROW: One would have to consider each term in the context of the contract as a whole. I guess one could have a several challenge, but I think one wouldn't end up -- it is getting too abstract -- with a collective challenge to the contract as a whole. It would have to be a challenge to the terms severally.

BARONESS HALE: There are several terms that say you pay this for this, and this for this, and this for this, and put together that tots up to something that produces a significant imbalance.




UTCCR Unfair Terms
5. - (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.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

...The view of Martin based on the intial viewpoint was that it would be difficult for those claiming to receive anything. The initial viewpoint has to be taken in context of the immediate aftermath of the OFT test case judgement and awaiting further advice from the OFT as to their way forward which came at the end of the michealmas term or 22nd December. ...

Nothing has changed. Martin still says "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing"
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

The only thing that changed is that Martin said " Seconds out, round two" when he hoped the OFT would take up the case again.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/12/oft-urged-to-continue-bank-charges-fight

Unfortunately the OFT wouldn't even get off the stool to come out for the second round.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/144-09

Oh, almost forget, what you are pinning many of your hopes on, the CCA matter
Bank charges: they think it's all over, it's not quite

The way the CCA law is framed, it is about the relationship between the individual and the lender and therefore the OFT thinks a collective case has less chance of success than individuals trying this themselves.

Of course, the issue here is how some of the country's poorest are meant to fight the deep legal pockets of massive banks (in many cases funded by the taxpayer). Over the next few weeks, we will be examining exactly how that will work, drafting templates,...

Ah, the template letters, they've been hinted at for ages, lets hope they don't get put back again from 3rd week in January.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28107341&postcount=4

As for the SC judgement, well it was not their role to advise whether or not to submit claims for bank charges, merely to confirm that charges could not be considered under the fairness legislation, hence why the OFT having given the matter further thought, opted to give up any attempt to do so under present legislation.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Nothing has changed. Martin still says "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing"
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

The only thing that changed is that Martin said " Seconds out, round two" when he hoped the OFT would take up the case again.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/12/oft-urged-to-continue-bank-charges-fight

Unfortunately the OFT wouldn't even get off the stool to come out for the second round.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/144-09

Oh, almost forget, what you are pinning many of your hopes on, the CCA matter
Bank charges: they think it's all over, it's not quite

I'm not pinning my hopes on the CCA route.
Ah, the template letters, they've been hinted at for ages, lets hope they don't get put back again from 3rd week in January.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28107341&postcount=4

As for the SC judgement, well it was not their role to advise whether or not to submit claims for bank charges, merely to confirm that charges could not be considered under the fairness legislation, hence why the OFT having given the matter further thought, opted to give up any attempt to do so under present legislation.

Ok, so here is the first paragraph from their press summary, Premier, so we can be clear what they were stating:

"This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair."

They then state: "the charges might still be open to assessment by the OFT on other grounds under Regulation 5."

I am not a judge but they do not appear to be saying that charges are fair or unfair or that the OFT cannot assess them.

Let's see what was said:

Lord Walker made clear that the scope of the appeal was limited – the court did not have the task of deciding whether or not the system of charging current account customers was fair, but whether the OFT could challenge the charges as being excessive in relation to the services supplied in exchange (Paragraph 3). As Lord Phillips stated, even if such a challenge was not possible, it might still be open for the OFT to assess the fairness of the charges according to other criteria (Para 61)."

What does Paragraph 61 state:

"61. Mr Sumption submitted that the difference between the “excluded term” and the
“excluded assessment” constructions was “a distraction from the real issues”. It is
certainly a distraction from the narrow issue that the parties are now agreed is before the
court. But it is only because the “excluded assessment” construction has prevailed that the
issue has been narrowed from that in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Issue. Had the
“excluded term” construction prevailed, a finding in favour of the Banks that the Relevant
Terms were included within the meaning of the word “price” in Regulation 6(2) would
have precluded any challenge to those terms on the ground of fairness. As it is, if the
Banks succeed on the narrow issue, this will not close the door on the OFT’s
investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in
which customers have challenged Relevant Charges"


Let's cut away from this continual BS that the charges have been deemed as fair because the court has not decided that bank charges are fair but that the OFT cannot continue a collective challenge on fairness. Why am I positive? Because arguments are being presented before a court and this may well be when they face the test. If they are unsuccessful then I might be joining you in your assumptions, so far, I don't

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I'm not pinning my hopes on the CCA route.

Really?

In this post (and I'm sure there are many others), you talk of making claims under the UCTTR 1999 and the CCA section 140
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28004069&postcount=2

In this post, you refer to the OFT 1154 statement that suggests potential claimants should consider their own claim under the terms of the CCA.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28650451&postcount=21

Just a couple of examples - I'm, sure there have been many other occassions when you have suggested similar.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

...I am not a judge but they do not appear to be saying that charges are fair or unfair or that the OFT cannot assess them....

Nor am I.

I am simply going by what MSE Martin & his team publish on this site.

e.g.

The Supreme Court has overturned High Court and Court of Appeal rulings and said bank charges don't have to be assessed for fairness...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-banks-win-appeal

To be fair, the article does indeed go onto state:

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is expected to continue to push for fairness to apply to charges. The ruling stated it can still assess the fairness of charges but under different grounds.

But as we all know, the OFT, having given the matter further consideration after the ruling decided:

...After detailed consideration of the judgment and of the various options available to it, the OFT has concluded that any investigation it were to continue into the fairness of current unarranged overdraft charging terms under the UTCCRs would have a very limited scope and low prospects of success. Given this, it has decided against taking forward such an investigation...

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/144-09

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Really?

In this post (and I'm sure there are many others), you talk of making claims under the UCTTR 1999 and the CCA section 140
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28004069&postcount=2

In this post, you refer to the OFT 1154 statement that suggests potential claimants should consider their own claim under the terms of the CCA.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28650451&postcount=21

Just a couple of examples - I'm, sure there have been many other occassions when you have suggested similar.
I am going to clarify my point. I am not pinning my hopes solely on CCA s.140. I do not believe that the future of reclaiming will be based on a one size fits all approach since UTCCR 1999 is about the contract between the buyer(you) and the seller(the bank).


Nor am I.

I am simply going by what MSE Martin & his team publish on this site.

e.g.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-banks-win-appeal

To be fair, the article does indeed go onto state:



But as we all know, the OFT, having given the matter further consideration after the ruling decided:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/144-09

The OFT have decided that any approach would not achieve its aims and the risks it could take and the resources required to achieve relatively little with regards to current charges would not be worth it. Having read, not the press release, but OFT 1154 I am inclined to share their belief that a limited success would not help people with regards to historical charges issue which the OFT would not go back to the courts with regards to. You can keep posting your "give up" approach and I'll keep posting up the "it's not over yet" approach and when the approach I have is tested in court and lost then that is when the way I will post will change. It won't change to "it's over loser! you are irresponsible!" but to try and get the poster to firstly understand why they were charged, how the charges work and perhaps better ways to manage payments that may cause them difficulties.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

...It won't change to "it's over loser! you are irresponsible!" ...

Glad to hear that.

I hate those posters on here who cannot seem to post without hurling offensive personal insults at others.

Fortunately, this forum has a good short etiquette to cover this

"Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps."

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Glad to hear that.

I hate those posters on here who cannot seem to post without hurling offensive personal insults at others.

Fortunately, this forum has a good short etiquette to cover this

"Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps."

LOL, I love the way you bring that out on here. You've been here on the reclaims board(regularly, so that we know what I am saying), so I am sure we can start to give each other some good old insults by now, surely?
It's the vociferous discussions that are keeping our minds active, would you not say?

BTW, it's never personal on here but hang on while I do get one that did get personal(a favourite of mine and we were not the two arguing either ).

Here it is and post 10 and 12: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2163983

orc_2

You need to remember Premier, that people find their way here through frustration, worry and fear.

They realise they have a problem and have taken the first step towards taking action to resolve their problem, themselves. They are seeking help and assistance.

They have a problem and if they have a family, their family has a problem. It takes someone fairly big to take the first steps on the road to financial recovery.

What they don't need is someone belittling them, blaming them or making snide comments.:rolleyes:

It is not necessary to make comments at peoples expense, neither is it nice. It does not reflect well on the person making such comments.

If posters make such comments, then there are others, including myself, who will reply to that type of post.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

LOL, I love the way you bring that out on here. You've been here on the reclaims board(regularly, so that we know what I am saying), so I am sure we can start to give each other some good old insults by now, surely?
It's the vociferous discussions that are keeping our minds active, would you not say?

BTW, it's never personal on here but hang on while I do get one that did get personal(a favourite of mine and we were not the two arguing either ).

Here it is and post 10 and 12: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2163983

I'm not suggesting you have insulted me, nor I hope are you inferring that I have insulted you (or others).

However, "If you spot a spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post or PM please email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]!!!!!![/EMAIL] "

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

I'm not suggesting you have insulted me, nor I hope are you inferring that I have insulted you (or others).

However, "If you spot a spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post or PM please email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]!!!!!![/EMAIL] "

So what was the point of the post then?? I thought we were having a good old battle with MSE reclaims guide, OFT 1154, OFT press release, and other posts on MSE forums. Or is this to keep our daily post count up ?