Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

Tiny_J.E.M

Well, I think I agree with legoman. I wanted some advice? Maybe an answer to my questions, but the above thread just looks like a page on facebook?!!
Sort it out people! Some of us need proper advice, not a social network!

Nathan_Spleen

Tiny_J.E.M wrote: »

Not sure what will happen now? I put a claim in last year and then the courts wrote to me to tell me it had been 'stayed'. Do I have to wait for this whole mess in the courts to be sorted before I continue with my claim? and will the courts automatically write to me when it's sorted to tell me what is happening?

You can do nothing to progress your claim until Justice Smith offers his reccomendation to the County Courts. Hopefully this will be on or shortly after the CMC on 22 May.

Any reccomendation he makes should kick in within a month of it being made. As to the whether stays would be lifted automatically or by application from the claimant is unclear but I suspect it would be the former and that the court would inform you.

I would imagine that if your claim is based soley on the penalty charge argument, you would need to amend it to the UTCCR argument. If your claim includes both, as most seem to, my guess is it would stand.

stefm31

so now its been decided that the charges are unfair , what happens with my claim .
ive sent final letter to my bank asking for the charges back, and am just deciding whether to start the court action.....


considering it will be stayed should i bother or wait till 22nd may ??

any advice will be greatly received thanx

Nathan_Spleen

stefm31 wrote: »

so now its been decided that the charges are unfair , what happens with my claim .
ive sent final letter to my bank asking for the charges back, and am just deciding whether to start the court action.....


considering it will be stayed should i bother or wait till 22nd may ??

any advice will be greatly received thanx

It has not been decided the the charges are unfair, only that the OFT have the power to decide if they are.

Start your court claim now. Even if it is stayed, it means you don't loose out on the six year limitation rule and also should speed up the process of any refund.

DELBOY1108

now it has been decided does this apply to business accounts aswell

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain

newreclaimer wrote: »

Hey Johnny Storm,

As you like your Pizzas ask your 'mates at work' this.

Youre in your local Pizza shop and order. When the Pizza's ready you realise youre a few pence short. The Pizza man says dont worry take the Pizza and pay me the rest next time.

Next time you go in the Pizza man leans over the counter and takes £35 out of your wallet and says that for not having enough money last time. You can do nothing about it so decide to take him to court.

Before your big day in court the Pizza man goes to the Pizza adjudicator who says to the Pizza man I dont agree with you but Ill tell the courts to hold fire on this for a year or 2. In the meantime the Pizza man continues to take money out of customers wallets knowing nobody can do anything about it.

Do your 'mates' think thats fair??

Aaahaa, not the same.. if the pizza man had a sign up saying:-

"if you come and buy my pizza knowing you dont have enough cash, i will lend it you temporarily, however it will cost you £35"

do you still order the pizza knowing you're short and it'll cost you an extra £35?? Seriously i know you were taking the !!!!, but all the same.. The issue is that the re-claimers knew the consequence of utilising the money THEY DIDNT HAVE knowing there was a £35 charge for doing so.

Nathan_Spleen

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain wrote: »

Aaahaa, not the same.. if the pizza man had a sign up saying:-

"if you come and buy my pizza knowing you dont have enough cash, i will lend it you temporarily, however it will cost you £35"

do you still order the pizza knowing you're short and it'll cost you an extra £35?? Seriously i know you were taking the !!!!, but all the same.. The issue is that the re-claimers knew the consequence of utilising the money THEY DIDNT HAVE knowing there was a £35 charge for doing so.

Oddly enough one of the bank's QCs used this example - except it was a shoe shop - in the test case hearing to say that a sign would NOT be enough to make it contractualy binding.

Nathan_Spleen

DELBOY1108 wrote: »

now it has been decided does this apply to business accounts aswell

No. Business claims are based on the penalty argument and business accounts are not covered by UTCCR which are consumer only regulations.

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Oddly enough one of the bank's QCs used this example - except it was a shoe shop - in the test case hearing to say that a sign would NOT be enough to make it contractualy binding.

ok ok i can 100% see that with a sign - what about if you had signed a contract with T&Cs with the pizza shop saying that you understood the charges / consequences.. neeeeever gonna happen i know, but the way i see it, if i was told the charge was £100 then thats the charge... i agreed, it wasnt imposed retrospectively or without warning.

Smasher

Ok, so what if you signed a contract with your landlord in which it says that if you paid your rent late, he can shoot your kneecaps off? You see how stupid your argument is now?
THAT is why there is legislation that governs unfair terms. You are not allowed to make conditions that permit one party to commit an unlawful or illegal act in the event of that the other party breaks any of your terms. There is a good reason for it.

Honestly, you should go & learn a bit about the subject before you stand on your soapbox.