Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

ARNIE_GOONER

what a suprize, did anybody really think we were goin to win??? I notice all the big boys have gone quiet!!! alll been a waste of time!!!!

MercMan

The Bankers are all celebrating. I can hear the champagne corks popping form here! I guess its open season on those who go overdrawn now for the banks. !!!!!!!s all of them!!!

PhiltheBear

ARNIE_GOONER wrote: »

what a suprize, did anybody really think we were goin to win??? .......!

For myself, I didn't think we'd win. I hoped we'd win - but that's not the same thing. As I said a few posts ago - this wasn't about being fair to consumers. It was about interpretation of existing law. The Supreme Court is the authority on law - not on fairness. As the law (still) stands then there's no argument about this now.

What is now needed is a political will to ensure that change is enforced on the banks. But I bet that won't happen either. :mad:

Morglin

Good verdict - this means we (those of us that didn't go overdrawn without permission) won't all have to pay for the compensation, either through taxes on the banks we own, or through bank charges being applied to all.

Lin

starnamer

I've been looking round but haven't found an answer to the obvious question ...

I haven't put in a claim yet, is it worth my while sending it in now?

I currently have an overdraft with Halifax, but also now have an Alliance & Leicester account, so am intending to close the Halifax account before they introduce the new charges on 6th December. I was planning on putting a claim for unfair charges in first. Is it worth bothering now or would I just be wasting my time? Would they just reject it immediately now and not put it in the queue?

smk77

Morglin wrote: »

Good verdict - this means we (those of us that didn't go overdrawn without permission) won't all have to pay for the compensation, either through taxes on the banks we own, or through bank charges being applied to all.

Lin

I agree but a rather simplistic view. There are people who got into a trap of being charged for going overdrawn once and never managing to get out of their overdraft.

Unfortuantely, I think that we will be paying "compensation" through fees but the banks will now be keeping the money rather than paying it out. Even those like myself with no claim will suffer from this action.

orc_2

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Statements/2009/bank_charges.shtml

"FSA statement following the Supreme Court ruling on bank charges


25 November 2009
In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment today in the bank charges test case the Financial Services Authority (FSA) can confirm that its waiver has now lapsed.
The waiver was granted during the test case so that firms did not have to deal with complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges in the eight-week-period required under FSA rules while the outcome of the court case remained unclear.
Firms can now resume processing consumers’ complaints in accordance with the FSA’s complaint handling rules."

orc_2

Reuters release

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5AO17X20091125

"LONDON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court has ruled that charges imposed by banks on unauthorised overdrafts formed part of their fees for services, dealing a blow to borrowers seeking to claim back from retail banks the billions of pounds of charges which they say were levied unfairly.
The landmark decision on Wednesday came after seven high street lenders appealed in June against an earlier ruling that fees for unauthorised overdrafts fall under the scope of consumer contract law and can therefore be regulated by the Office of Fair Trading.
Overturning the earlier judgement by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court said the charges could not be assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, but said the OFT can still assess the charges on other grounds.
"The key issue is in the last bit of the judgement where they say the OFT can assess the charges on other grounds. I don't think this is over but we have just lost a significant battle," said consumer rights campaigner Martin Lewis......................................."

wubberchicken

I take it no-one's heard of Reg 5 of the UTCCR??

Twinkly

orc wrote: »

......... the Supreme Court said the charges could not be assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations......"

I should think a key question would be WHY they can not be assessed for fairness under UTCCR. Are bank contracts NOT contracts then ?

When is a consumer contract NOT a consumer contract - when its a bank contract ?

This needs clarification.