Judge Attacks Time Wasting Bank

matto

From BBC News Online:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6653757.stm

A High Court judge has warned banks to stop behaving unreasonably when customers accuse them of levying unlawful overdraft charges.

...

He said some banks were wasting the time of claimants and the courts by pretending they would defend claims when they had no intention of doing so.

He added if banks continued to do this he might award damages against them.

...

fooman

perhaps it would be worth putting a copy of that article with your letter to your bank requesting your charges back

Russjo

It sounds like CAG are encouraging everybody to claim for damages, I'm having a hard enough time just getting statements. I really wish I could get on with their website, but I don't find it easy to get around it. Does anybody else have the same problems??

Beate

http://www.metro.co.uk/money/article.html?in_article_id=49002&in_page_id=36

Banks which put pressure on customers trying to reclaim 'unfair' penalty charges could face damages for their behaviour, a judge has warned.

Some banks were wasting customers' and courts' time with evasive tactics, said Judge David Mackie QC.

Hundreds of cases have been lodged by angry account-holders trying to reclaim excessive charges for unauthorised overdrafts and credit card borrowing.


But no claim has reached court because banks usually settle just before hearings are due to start.

Other tactics include not responding to letters, failing to negotiate for months and not turning to at court.

Judge Mackie was speaking at the London Mercantile Court, which has processed about 300 claims for refunds of allegedly unlawful charges this year.

He said: 'Looked at in the real world, where there will be no trial, these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour.

'From now on, we will generally treat such conduct as unreasonable behaviour, thus enabling any claimant who has been put to unnecessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this.'

His comments come amid growing anger at bank charges, which can be as high as £39 for exceeding an overdraft and are being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading.

Barrister Tom Brennan is one customer trying to sue NatWest bank over fees that he claims are 'egregiously invidious'.

But Brian Capon, of the British Bankers' Association, defended its members, saying they were confident their fees were legal.

'They take the court process very seriously,' he added.

Hendrix_lennon

Fantastic news !
The only reason these banks attempt the evasive tactics is to try and put people off.
EVERYONE should just go for it !

moonrakerz

Russjo wrote: »

I'm having a hard enough time just getting statements. Does anybody else have the same problems??

Don't ask for statements, ask for details of charges applied to your account. Then they have to comply with the DPA, and its timescales.

If you ask for statements, they can take as long as they like and charge as much as they like.

Elsie2_2

"A High Court judge has warned banks to stop behaving unreasonably when customers accuse them of levying unlawful overdraft charges.

A judge said some banks were wasting the time of claimants and the courts by pretending they would defend claims when they had no intention of doing so.

He added if banks continued to do this he might award damages against them.

Typically these hearings have been referred from County Courts in the hope that one might be heard in the High Court and produce a test decision.

"If the banks had won, many fewer customers would have sued," said Judge Mackie.

"If the banks had lost, the claims would have been much easier to sort out than they are now," he added.

In such cases banks have so far settled out of court, usually a few days before their case is due to be heard.

This is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial

Judge David Mackie QC

Expressing some frustration at this situation, Judge Mackie said: "On the face of things each case raises serious issues which the court would permit to proceed to trial.

"But this is fantasy because, at least for the moment, we all know that there will be no trial."

Brian Capon, of the British Bankers Association, defended the stance taken by banks saying they were confident their fees are legal.

"They take the court process very seriously, but ultimately they would prefer to settle disputes with their customers outside the court process," he said.

"Where a customer's complaint dates back over a long period or is complex the bank will need longer to investigate the complaint properly."

The consumers association Which? rejected this.

"It seems that the banks are deliberately dragging their feet in the hope that their customers will either give up or accept part of the money they are owed," said a spokeswoman.

Judge Mackie pointed out that in some cases bank customers had tried to claim damages for stress and inconvenience.

Such claims have been unsuccessful so far, but he warned he would award damages in future if banks and their lawyers continued to:

fail to respond to some claimants letters

fail to negotiate for months and until a hearing date is set

demand extra information from the claimants, knowing they had no intention letting a court hear the matter

settle the case without telling the claimants they need not attend court

fail to show up in court
"Looked at in the real world where there will be no trial these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour," said Judge Mackie.

"From now on we will generally be treating such conduct as unreasonable behaviour thus enabling any claimant who has been put to unnecessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this."

Judge Mackie's comments appear to reflect growing judicial annoyance at the banks' attempts to avoid a test case at all costs.

It would be helpful if there was a decision taken at High Court level to clarify the situation Nationwide

Judge Roger Kaye QC

Last month, Leeds Mercantile Court listed 77 cases in one day, all of which were settled out of court."

Interesting stuff!!!!

Russjo

moonrakerz wrote: »

Don't ask for statements, ask for details of charges applied to your account. Then they have to comply with the DPA, and its timescales.

If you ask for statements, they can take as long as they like and charge as much as they like.

Hi Moonrakerz. I used Martin's letter and it does ask for details of charges or a copy of the statements (or words to that effect) if they cannot give a list of details. Still no joy. I've given them until the end of the month. I've read somewhere that somebody went to court to get their info. Any idea where to go for this?