Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

natweststaffmember

mamf wrote: »

I'm waiting for a reply to my rejection in writing. I asked for them to reply within 7 days and it's been 5. I did speak to them on the phone also and the woman at the other end said she didn't know why I'd rejected because of the test case waiver. I feel like I've done the wrong thing now, is all lost?

Once you have the rejection letter, we will see whether we can do something about that, ok?

mamf_2

Thank you, you don't know how much it means to be able to get some help with this as I'm trying to take hold of things but there always seems to be another stumbling block!

Thanks again and I will be in touch in a day or two.

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Once you have the rejection letter, we will see whether we can do something about that, ok?

ProfessorX

I've just had a £12 charge on my CC Bill which was for last months of under £54 which I apparently paid a day late? How is that fair and proportionate, bearing in mind they've also charged more than a £1 in interest too. I will claim it as unfair but I shouldn't have to tolerate the hassle of doing this, as the Banks are just liars, cheats and thieves.

This whole case has been a farce from start to finish. It shouldn't need to go to the House of Lords or any UK Court at all to decide whether or not the UTCCR's apply, because it is bleeding obvious they do. If these bankers and their lawyers (liars)had actually read the European Council Directive 93/13/EEC (OJ No. L95, 21.4.93, p. 29) which applies, then they would have to admit it applies to all contracts between sellers or suppliers of goods and/or services and consumers and to terms which are not individually negotiated. That would cover every consumer contract in this country or Europe duh!!

The law should have been effective by 31 Dec 1994 too, but our last Government even delayed that till 1 July 1995, so why doesn't everyone have the right to claim back all 'unfair charges' after 1 Jan 1995? The state has no right to deny such claims when they are guilty of failing to protect consumers and allowing the banks profligacy to go unchecked.

As for the OFT, I've been told by them and Trading Standards that only a Court can decide what is or isn't fair, so that will delay this case further by the banks arguing with the OFT who will then, no doubt, have to go back to the Courts to make a decision (another 6yrs?). Whereas if we had an honest and decent legal process it would all have been sorted out in 1995. All contracts should be checked by consumer panels before standard terms are allowed to be used.

The MP's expenses scandal proves just how corrupt our whole 'system of Government and Governance' has been since 1949 when they failed to give us all Human Rights due after the UN's Universal Declaration of those on 10th Dec 1948. I suggest that you all demand them now and every penny you've been ripped off by, from 31 Dec 1994 too.

The Court system is more interested in protecting their right to judge and solicitors their high fees, than consumers rights and it's just not working fast enough. I could do better from my bed.

esmerellda

Credit cards are down to the penalty charge argument not the UTCCR although you could argue that as well, and they are not covered in the test case.

The 2006 OFT report does not state £12 is a fair charge so yes you should get the entire charge and interest it incurred back.

237

ProfessorX wrote: »

I've just had a £12 charge on my CC Bill which was for last months of under £54 which I apparently paid a day late? How is that fair and proportionate, bearing in mind they've also charged more than a £1 in interest too. I will claim it as unfair but I shouldn't have to tolerate the hassle of doing this, as the Banks are just liars, cheats and thieves.

This whole case has been a farce from start to finish. It shouldn't need to go to the House of Lords or any UK Court at all to decide whether or not the UTCCR's apply, because it is bleeding obvious they do. If these bankers and their lawyers (liars)had actually read the European Council Directive 93/13/EEC (OJ No. L95, 21.4.93, p. 29) which applies, then they would have to admit it applies to all contracts between sellers or suppliers of goods and/or services and consumers and to terms which are not individually negotiated. That would cover every consumer contract in this country or Europe duh!!

The law should have been effective by 31 Dec 1994 too, but our last Government even delayed that till 1 July 1995, so why doesn't everyone have the right to claim back all 'unfair charges' after 1 Jan 1995? The state has no right to deny such claims when they are guilty of failing to protect consumers and allowing the banks profligacy to go unchecked.

As for the OFT, I've been told by them and Trading Standards that only a Court can decide what is or isn't fair, so that will delay this case further by the banks arguing with the OFT who will then, no doubt, have to go back to the Courts to make a decision (another 6yrs?). Whereas if we had an honest and decent legal process it would all have been sorted out in 1995. All contracts should be checked by consumer panels before standard terms are allowed to be used.

The MP's expenses scandal proves just how corrupt our whole 'system of Government and Governance' has been since 1949 when they failed to give us all Human Rights due after the UN's Universal Declaration of those on 10th Dec 1948. I suggest that you all demand them now and every penny you've been ripped off by, from 31 Dec 1994 too.

The Court system is more interested in protecting their right to judge and solicitors their high fees, than consumers rights and it's just not working fast enough. I could do better from my bed.

Cannot agree more These banks and this Government are the parasites of this land. And not one MP as yet stands to be prosecuted for ripping off the state or the system or rather the Tax payer.We i am afraid stand alone no one will stand up and fight no matter how desperate the case. We tend to do the fighting on our own rather than a collective fight which would truly bring down this system if everyone just stood together and stated enough is enough. How they are stringing out this court case while the laywers yes agree they are just as bad as the banks and the government who are ripping us off. I will won't wait till hell freezes over. Still i have not fallen for this Governments con. And as for the bank they state i owe them but have taken no notice of what they owe me. So far as i am concerned they can go and kiss my butt they will not get a penny from me until they pay back my charges. If they take me to court before i have chance taking them to the small claims court then all well and good.:T

natweststaffmember

237 wrote: »

Cannot agree more These banks and this Government are the parasites of this land. And not one MP as yet stands to be prosecuted for ripping off the state or the system or rather the Tax payer.We i am afraid stand alone no one will stand up and fight no matter how desperate the case. We tend to do the fighting on our own rather than a collective fight which would truly bring down this system if everyone just stood together and stated enough is enough. How they are stringing out this court case while the laywers yes agree they are just as bad as the banks and the government who are ripping us off. I will won't wait till hell freezes over. Still i have not fallen for this Governments con. And as for the bank they state i owe them but have taken no notice of what they owe me. So far as i am concerned they can go and kiss my butt they will not get a penny from me until they pay back my charges. If they take me to court before i have chance taking them to the small claims court then all well and good.:T

If the bank does take you to court then you counter claim for the charges owed. They cannot win either way.

Essess_2

Does anyone know when the case is due to be heard again? I thought it was June?

natweststaffmember

Essess wrote: »

Does anyone know when the case is due to be heard again? I thought it was June?

Hearing was June, currently awaiting the decision on whether bank charges can be assessed for fairness. This is just the Preliminary Issues because we still have the Substantive Issues to go.....

natweststaffmember

"Box 8.C: The OFT’s test case on bank charges
More than one million complaints about bank overdraft charges are outstanding.
The OFT and the banks agreed to a test case in July 2007 in order to resolve issues
concerning the general application and interpretation of the Unfair Terms in Consumer
Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT will be able to challenge the future use of bank
charges that is considers to be unfair if the outcome is in its favour.
The case is in two stages. Stage one considers whether unauthorised overdraft charging
terms can be assessed for fairness under the Regulations. This stage has now reached the
House of Lords. Depending on the outcome, stage two will establish whether the terms are
unfair. Once the application of the Regulations is clarified, customers will be able to pursue
their complaints against the banks if they consider that the outcome is in their favour.
One way to determine the fairness of the bank charges in the OFT’s test case is for litigation
to continue until it reaches a conclusion. However, this may take some years. Subject to the
outcome of the stage one proceedings, the Government therefore calls on the regulators
and the banks to explore whether there is a quicker way of resolving these cases that is
preferable for customers to pursuing further litigation, and provides the certainty that
regulators and banks need. The Government will also work with interested parties with a
view to moving the market to a more efficient, equitable, and transparent system as quickly as possible"
From the Government White Paper Page 115

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/reforming_financial_markets.htm
Link to page where document is on.

Nathan_Spleen

The FSA have renewed the waiver for a further 6 months.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2009/100.shtml