Nat West Rejects New legal argument

hicskis

I can tell you which way we're heading and it's not good...

smithp

Surely if people are argueing the points made by the Supreme Court Judge then there has to be a decent chance of winning your claim

Premier_2

smithp wrote: »

Surely if people are argueing the points made by the Supreme Court Judge then there has to be a decent chance of winning your claim

Not what MSE Martin thinks. He says, in relation to a claim based on UTCCR reg 5

While these arguments certainly make sense, when the Office of Fair Trading looked at them, it didn’t believe they had a realistic chance of success, (see the OFT to drop bank charges MSE News Story or read the full OFT Personal Accounts decision – focus on pages 13 and 14).

However while that certainly is dissuasive, it isn’t definitive. After all in the original test case the OFT thought it would win, and already did at the High Court and Court of Appeal. The law is like quicksand and sadly can be inconsistent.

and in relation to a claim based on the CCA (s.140)

This is completely untried and tested on bank charges. On paper it looks pretty good, yet establishing and arguing it will be difficult. So chances of success are impossible to work out.

He appears to summarise this by the comment

... if you’ve had charges and don’t fit the Ombudsman’s criteria, it’s at this point you may need to accept you won’t get your money back or at least wait to see others are successful...

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges

hicskis

Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999

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.


What is the contract term being argued? It is the term that allows the charges. This can not be argued on price as the OFT has already been there - it can only be argued on reasonableness - in otherwords was the contractual term that permitted the charge - Fair.


The Supreme Court held that these terms were Fair as they make up an integral (core) part of the contract.


How is anyone therefore going to be able to argue that they were not Fair.


I will use an example - if i sold you an apple for 1 pound how could you then argue later that this was Unfair.


We both know the apple cost only 10 pence - but i can come up with a list of reasons of why that particular apple had cost me not only the 10 pence to buy it, but a further 89 pence in getting it to you - a cost to me of 0.99 pence (a profit of 0.01 pence).


The banks will do the same on a case by case basis.


The quantitive value of the charges cannot be attacked.
The reasonablness cannot be proved.


Or can it - see my thread "Is this Fair" in the Bank Charges Forum.


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2295007

smithp

I have received a reply from Nat West requesting that I complete another financial statement so that they can assess my financial situation. They also want an explanation of the circumstances leading to my inability to meet my commitments (less money due to bank charges). Nat West are also claiming that they will review my banking facilities which could mean opening a basic acount with no lending facilities. What chances of success will I have ?

Premier_2

smithp wrote: »

...They also want an explanation of the circumstances leading to my inability to meet my commitments (less money due to bank charges). ...

Familiarise yourseof with the Lending Code if you have not already done so.

http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk/docs/lendingcode.pdf

I think what they are asking is what happened that made you have less money (or greater than expected expenditure) that caused you to incur bank charges in the first instance. e.g. loss of job, becoming disabled, etc.

I doubt you will a hardship claim based on the fact you simply started incurring bank charges for spending money you did not have.

natweststaffmember

Completely agree with Premier, the main issue you have to convey to NatWest is why did your income drop or your expenditure increase.

davidgmmafan

I'd love to see a referral to the competition commission, I presume this can only come about as a result of a body like the OFT requesting it. But there again the Tories aid should they win the election they would make a referral. So why doesn't somebody just do that now?

I don't go along with thier point that the the OFT thinks there is competition and that, why did the OFT take on the case at all if it thought all was well?

Putting aside the legal arguments for one second the banks maintain, steadfastly, that they have many satisfied customers (once again taking silence as consent). Huge numbers of thier customers think they have been screwed by the bank and they still think there's no cause for concern (despite Natwest massivley lowering thier charges!).

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I'd love to see a referral to the competition commission, I presume this can only come about as a result of a body like the OFT requesting it. But there again the Tories aid should they win the election they would make a referral. So why doesn't somebody just do that now?
Why would they refer it to the Competition Commission?
I don't go along with thier point that the the OFT thinks there is competition and that, why did the OFT take on the case at all if it thought all was well?
There is competition NOW. There may not have been when the OFT test case kicked off but there is now. RBS Charges are lower, Barclays charges work differently, etc,etc, etc,
Putting aside the legal arguments for one second the banks maintain, steadfastly, that they have many satisfied customers (once again taking silence as consent). Huge numbers of thier customers think they have been screwed by the bank and they still think there's no cause for concern (despite Natwest massivley lowering thier charges!).

Banks would take into account customer surveys that are sent out each month from branches and which they receive feedback from. Branch Satisfaction may well be higher than bank satisfaction.

davidgmmafan

I accept that there have been changes, but some changes are actually to the detriment of customer - Barclays reserve thingy, and Halifax new 'simplified' charges.

Natwest's changes have been positive.

IMO it should be referred to the competition commission because one can make the argument there is a cartel in operation.

I realize historic charges are off the menu, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Changes now are like someone mugging you for a months wages and giving you a fiver back.