Bank Charges - Bank of Scotland must prove fairness in Court

Darth_Thundercloud

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.

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.

If as in the case in Scotland the banks are to prove that their charges are not unfair in relation to price (S140A of the CCA) could we refer in court to the findings of Professors Molyneux and Struthers and Ian Jarrett?
I know this was a hot topic quite a while ago but if price is back on the legal agenda then there is strong evidence from the Professors to rebut any assertions from the banks that their charges are fair (in relation to price).
If this type of evidence is before the court then it blows the free if in credit argument put by the banks clear out of the water.

Q – Have I spectacularly missed the point?



I’ll get me coat.

hicskis

By Darth Thundercloud:
"Q – Have I spectacularly missed the point?"

A. Yes. People are arguing section 140 (a) of the Consumer Credit Act and section 5(1) of the UTCCR - they both refer to contractual terms.

That means you would have to argue that the contractual term was unfair based on price which you cannot do because of the Supreme Court Ruling.