Bank Charges - Bank of Scotland must prove fairness in Court

concerned43

THE BANK OF SCOTLAND has failed in its attempt to prevent a customer amending her claim for unfair bank charges, recalling the sist, and fixing a full evidential hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court this morning (Friday, 19 February 2010).

Interesting case - please see govan law centre site -
http://govanlc.blogspot.com/

Excellent work Mike!

hicskis

Ding Ding - round Two....:j

natweststaffmember

I'm not so sure that this one is as significant as you may think. The Bank were looking to make sure that the claimant could not amend their POC in court. There have been cases that have gone before and courts have allowed this to happen. Nice to read but no, not a huge leap forward as yet.

orc_2

Perhaps not Nattie, but the fact that Govan and Mike are involved gives it a high profile and hopefully provides much needed encouragement.:)

We are getting closer.:T

esmerellda

hmmm, in reality if you show up at court and say you want to amend POCs it is being granted to amend POCs - I havent heard any one who has asked to amend and showed up at the hearing be refused yet. Sorry, yes it is good news and yes people need a boost, I simply think the title of the news article is misleading tho and gives false hope.

reid101

The title of the news article says: "Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges - onus of proof now on Scottish bank to show charges were not excessive".

The article goes on to explain that a proof or trial has been fixed for June after the case was amended to include an additional claim under s.140A, CCA. The significance of this, we are told, is that under s.140A the customer can argue that charges are unfair because they were excessive (which can no longer be done under the UTCCR), that the CCA requires the bank to prove that their charges were fair, and that the claim has also been amended to ask the court to prohibit the imposition of future bank charges under the CCA.

This is new territory, as the banks have never been required to prove in an evidential court hearing that their overdraft charges were fair in relation to price (e.g. all the OFT test case did was consider whether the fairness of charges in terms of price could be challenged in principle under the UTCCR - and as we now know, the Supreme Court said no to that).

Obviously, this claimant will still have to win in June (unless the bank offers full settlement, which must now be at least likely?), but to say this news article 'gives false hope' or is 'misleading' is a little unfair. Particulary, as the banks are already winning in their powerful PR/media battle to convince everyone there is know no prospect of reclaiming overdraft charges based on legal grounds.

esmerellda

Theres a hearing on 5th March in Scotland for someone who was given permission to amend statement of case back in Jan, they entered the amendments and have had a defence back from the bank which they are now responding back to before the hearing.

Is that not the same situation? (I'm ASKING because I don't know a great deal on scots court procedures and am trying to learn)

Here

claimant wrote:

Anyway, the bank requested time to examine the content of the incidental application, so the sheriff has requested that by 28 January, I submit a fuller arguement. The bank has then been given a further 2 weeks to state a defence. I will then have time to rebutt before a full days hearing is convened on 5 March to hear legal argument.

natweststaffmember

reid101 wrote: »

The title of the news article says: "Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges - onus of proof now on Scottish bank to show charges were not excessive".

The article goes on to explain that a proof or trial has been fixed for June after the case was amended to include an additional claim under s.140A, CCA. The significance of this, we are told, is that under s.140A the customer can argue that charges are unfair because they were excessive (which can no longer be done under the UTCCR), that the CCA requires the bank to prove that their charges were fair, and that the claim has also been amended to ask the court to prohibit the imposition of future bank charges under the CCA.
I think amethyst was kinda agreeing with me, but perhaps some people are putting more emphasis on this case than there is. There are cases in England where the same arguments are being held prior to this one in Scotland where the POC is going in on the new legal arguments.
This is new territory, as the banks have never been required to prove in an evidential court hearing that their overdraft charges were fair in relation to price (e.g. all the OFT test case did was consider whether the fairness of charges in terms of price could be challenged in principle under the UTCCR - and as we now know, the Supreme Court said no to that).

Obviously, this claimant will still have to win in June (unless the bank offers full settlement, which must now be at least likely? I don't agree with you on this, not before they have at least been served an amended POC and have had the chance to defend it, which in the early days we know will be a strong defence and subject to costs), but to say this news article 'gives false hope' or is 'misleading' is a little unfair. Particulary, as the banks are already winning in their powerful PR/media battle to convince everyone there is know no prospect of reclaiming overdraft charges based on legal grounds.

I think some people are attributing a lot more to this case and the slant of the article than is really necessary at the moment. If the bank DOES settle then the importance of the amended POC argument is very important but I don't agree that currently, the high regard you might attribute it to is warranted just yet. Furthermore, we haven't even got close to getting back the media that we lost at the end of last year. We allowed the banks PR machine to proudly announce they won and didn't counter it.
I completely agree with that point you have made.

ThunderBird_3

:beer: Any new argument is got to be a bonus?

natweststaffmember

ThunderBird wrote: »

:beer: Any new argument is got to be a bonus?

The claimant in Scotland if using arguments already in the Guide on MSE. The fact that they have been allowed to amend their POC is good but there are cases on other forums and cases in Scotland that will be heard before then. Let's not over emphasise this but if they settle, it will be big and/or if they fail to defend it, then it is big.

hicskis

So if i understand right -

1. If they settle - it's big
2. If they don't defend it - it's big
3. If the bank's defend it and loose - it's big
4. If the bank's defend it and win - because non of the ideas will work in their current form - then it's big because then what...

So to conclude - it's big is it not (the new claims that is based on section 5 of the UTTCR and 140 of the CCA - whether it's in Scotland or abu dabi??)