Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

chrisharri

veryannoyed wrote: »

With the help of this website, I recently claimed back over £8000 on mis-sold PPI on loans I have had going back approx 9 years. Over the last 6 years I have incurred approx £3000 worth of bank charges, and the most I've ever been over my overdraft is a few hundered pound. I was wondering how feasible it would be to claim back the bank charges based on the fact that if I had not been mis-sold the PPI, I would have had more money available to me, and would therefor not have incurred these charges.
Any advice would be appreciated

I think it sounds like quite a good argument, but when you recieved your money back from your mis-sold PPI, didn't you have to sign something to say to the effect that you would no longer persue the bank for money with regards to PPI and that the matter was now closed? However, if your argument does work, let me know! there are lots of us in a very similar position to you! Good luck

jsh01

Am I missing the point here, as a lawyer I must say I agree with the Supreme Courts ruling but was also pleased to see the bit of obiter that the charges may still be assessed for fairness under regulation 5(1) paving the way for another round of legal challenges?

But surely all of this was unnecessary if the FSA had just said to the banks, actually unless you (the banks) can evidence that the charges you impose are consistent with our principle of treating customers fairly and you have appropriate MI to support this, we think current regime of bank chares is unfair.

Also how does their complacency actually do anything to achieving market confidence, one of their statutory objectives, when instead of issuing rules or guidance on the matter, or even carrying out a themed review and then issuing a Dear CEO letter to all the banks the simply issue a waiver of the DISP rules to all the banks so that they don’t even have to deal with complaints pending the Supreme Court Ruling on a technical piece of law rather than the general principle of fairness which in any other situation is used to come down on anyone in the regulated sector where they can not actually point to a rule breach!

Centium5000

I see your point jsh01 but unfortunately there's a number of reasons for it...

First issue is that overdrafts come under OFT regulation, not FSA, due to the concordat between the two. The FOS (under the FSA umbrella) can assess complaints related to overdrafts, but can only do so on a case-by-case basis. To have wider effect, the OFT had to act.

The OFT has conducted a number of studies into and produced a report on Personal Current Accounts (PCAs). They needed to fully understand what was wrong with the market in terms of fairness / competition before deciding what action to take.

In its toolbox, the OFT has lots of powers but it's a matter of which one is most appropriate to get the right outcome. E.g. it regulates CCA licenses, issues guidance, enforces UTCCR, can make referals to the Competition Commission etc. etc.

If the OFT issued guidance to ensure fairness in future, it wouldn't necessarily allow consumers to claim back historical charges as it would be new guidance. It was thought that by resolving the matter under UTCCR it would allow consumers to claim back unfair charges with a solid legal basis.

As you're no doubt aware, this failed in the Supreme Court because unfairness cannot be due to excessive price as this is prohibited by UTCCR reg 6. Also we found out that the charges are for services, not default, and that this is used to cross-subsidise in-credit accounts.

A rules-based approach may fix the problem in future, but if the charges are unfair a legal basis would be needed to claim back historicals. I image there would be hell to pay if a rule acted retrospectively and forced a pay-out.

Hopefully the next action the OFT takes will sort it once and for all so we can rest easy...

PhiltheBear

Centium5000 wrote: »

...... and that this is used to cross-subsidise in-credit accounts.
.

Was any evidence supplied for such a statement?

natweststaffmember

PhiltheBear wrote: »

Was any evidence supplied for such a statement?

Yes it was in the House of Lords appeal and if you google OFT 1005c it gives the percentage of Personal Current account revenue.

BR54

OFT are backing out, dropping the case

natweststaffmember

BR54 wrote: »

OFT are backing out, dropping the case

I don't watch or read Sky News so I wouldn't know until the OFT announce it tomorrow morning

PhiltheBear

So the OFT have dropped it - no surprise really as they completely screwed it up all along the line. There ought to be a government inquiry into why they wasted their money pursuing a very small technical point rather than doing something of value.

PhiltheBear

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Yes it was in the House of Lords appeal and if you google OFT 1005c it gives the percentage of Personal Current account revenue.

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".

snortbrick

A very simple one:
The fact that Banks charge customers like myself for going over their overdraft limit or not paying charges from last month because the intial charge itself took away money that i needed to pay bills and charges. Is this not a simple case of the Banks being unfair!?
More importantly, is this right!?
The whole system, and old boy network constantly ******* on the man in the street!