Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

noh

PhiltheBear wrote: »

I keep seeing this being quoted. So, I've Googled it - nothing. If it exists there must be a direct link. I've searched the OFT site and I can't find anything that corresponds to "1005c".

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft1005c.pdf

found on this page

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market-studies/completed/personal/pca/

snortbrick

I got a slimey letter off HSBC saying they now see the matter closed, but i must contact them and let them know if i want to continue with my case.
Your damn right, i was pushed into more and more debt because of their unyeilding stance in charging me every month even though it was the cause of me to go further over the account overdraft and penalty charges for my credit card.

Individual cases to be assessed on their own merit are the only way forward!

Richard_Tovey

With regard to snortbricks letter I also got the same letter and have had the same problem with the HSBC plus I think it was a damned cheek that it was despatched before the OFT made there decision to not carry on with the case, maybe they had a crystal ball to tell them what was going to happen several days in the future, either way we cannot let these banks bully the customers that is our money they play with not there's,and they have not done a very good job so far.

P_Walters

Richard_Tovey wrote: »

With regard to snortbricks letter I also got the same letter and have had the same problem with the HSBC plus I think it was a damned cheek that it was despatched before the OFT made there decision to not carry on with the case, maybe they had a crystal ball to tell them what was going to happen several days in the future, either way we cannot let these banks bully the customers that is our money they play with not there's,and they have not done a very good job so far.

It was obviously all a done deal a while back Richard. OFT were 'persuaded' that this should all just be allowed to go away quietly.

snortbrick

I will be looking back through my very difficult times when i was telling the HSBC: "i cannot pay you this month because you charged me last month and that's the reason why i can't pay".
This is one of and probably a lot of customers experiences, which are the real case and the way in which the "Unfair" charges should be brought to the attention of any legal fight. Not once did The HSBC say to me, we will help you to alleviate the pressure by giving you some breathing space this month.
They act entirely without any concern as to customers welfare.
The amount of times i came off the phone from talking to them and just felt like topping myself because of the stress that went on for months. yes i'm serious i was suicidal at the way the HSBC behaved like loan sharks.

P_Walters

snortbrick wrote: »

I will be looking back through my very difficult times when i was telling the HSBC: "i cannot pay you this month because you charged me last month and that's the reason why i can't pay".
This is one of and probably a lot of customers experiences, which are the real case and the way in which the "Unfair" charges should be brought to the attention of any legal fight. Not once did The HSBC say to me, we will help you to alleviate the pressure by giving you some breathing space this month.
They act entirely without any concern as to customers welfare.
The amount of times i came off the phone from talking to them and just felt like topping myself because of the stress that went on for months. yes i'm serious i was suicidal at the way the HSBC behaved like loan sharks.

Snortbrick, I am grateful as an individual for your comments as I was laid off in November and have tried very hard to get a job at the wrong time of year. Suicide seems like a welcome option were it not for family that would be left and I applaude you for saying how probably quite a few of us great British public feel right now. My bank charges are spiralling as I too get no let off for no income coming in to pay the many people my salary was responsible for in my household. No-one else within the household has any spare cash as we were 'to the bones' before I was laid off. The whole economy seems to be based on loan shark mentality and when it's practice is sanctioned by those in charge we really appear to have no place to turn. I am fast running out of fight and I guess that is the grand plan.

snortbrick

Listen i turned things around, i finally came to my sense and went to the CCCS and finally got a grip of things. The CCCS were brilliant and have turned things around for me and my family. Life isn't a bed of roses at the moment ,but at least things have reversed so dramatically for us. For gods sake don't ever give up hope ,because there is no situation that you can't come back from. Contact the CCCS!

truebluexxx

The OFT tried to argue that a fee of £x is to much for the service provide, and it was ruled that this arguemnet can't be used to judge fairness. The arguement I was thinking of using is

The bank charges the same fee, regardless of the level of service requested or the level of service supplied, but I won't be claiming the amounts charged are unfair.

Does anyone know if this has been argued before?

I am trying to get back about £590 from the Clydesdale bank. They were granted a sist on 14th december 2009 in the small claims court Dundee, based on this presenting new legal arguments that they need time to consider, and that initially I hadn't mentioned this detail, only that I planed to argue the charges are unfair based on the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

esmerellda

The supreme courts decision means you can't look at the adequacy of price in relation to the service provided - so unfortunately that is a no go argument.


HOW THE RELEVANT CHARGES STAND IN LAW
Over 12 million bank customers pay the Relevant Charges each year, averaging £240 per customer per year, and around 1.2 million are presently contesting these as unfair via the banks complaints systems and around 65,000 through the County Courts. As a result of the recent Supreme Court judgment we know the following about the Relevant Charges:

i. they apparently do not exist purely to deter the Consumer behaviour that generates them and they are not capable of being penalties under a contractual construction. The Banks rely on them to cross-subsidise the free-if-in-credit model.
ii. They are a charge for services rather than default (breach of contract).
iii. They are not ancillary to the price of a current account; they are a core part of it in exchange for the overall package of services.
iv. They are described in Plain Intelligible Language (PIL).
v. As service charges they are exempt from assessment for fairness under the UTCCR 1999 Reg. 6(2).
vi. Other areas of the UTCCR might allow assessment of fairness, not on the basis of price, but must be within the context of the overall contract.
vii. The judgment was on a narrow legal issue and doesn't mean other laws /regulations can't be applied.

On first reading, the judgment may appear to have severely hindered the attempts to assess the Relevant Charges for fairness. However, as a result of the judgment there may be new approaches to the matter.

ALTERNATIVE AND NEW APPROACHES
Below are six areas of law under which the Relevant Charges might still be considered unfair, unlawful and open to investigation. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but these appear promising as they are consistent with and in some cases complementary to one another.
1. UTCCR Reg. 5(1) – An imbalance of rights and obligations, contrary to good faith, and to the detriment of the consumer.
2. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 or common law Mistake
3. The Competition Act 1998, Chapter II
4. Undue influence (common law)
5. CCA 1974 (as amended), s140A & 140B – unfair relationship
6. Common law penalty/PIL (plain intelligible language)

truebluexxx

thanks for the replay, I have another question then.
On 20th March 2007 the Clydesdale bank sent me a letter with regard to my excessive charges complaint. One part that I would like to highlight says

"the relationship bettween you and the Bank was governed by the Bank's standard terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions provided that:
(2) You must obtain the Bank's agreement before overdrawing on the account."

Do you think I will be able to argue, that in my case, the Bank was treating my going overdrawen as a breach of contract?

Also my Bank manager specificaly told me that I must stop presenting payments when I had no available funds, I agreed to this. So I think this represented a new contract, but it might be hard to prove that this conversation happened.