Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

dollydoodah

It won't be the end of it today.

From Sky News (which for some reason won't let me insert a URL)

But the judgement will not open the floodgates for more consumers to reclaim money, even if the court finds in favour of the OFT.
Instead, it will establish whether unauthorised overdraft charges break fair dealing regulations.
If this is found to be the case, there will be a second hearing to decide whether the charges are excessive.

sjat81

dollydoodah wrote: »

It won't be the end of it today.

From Sky News (which for some reason won't let me insert a URL)

Maybe not but its a start and some sort of news, were all waiting for to see if it will go any further and increase our chances of getting one back over on the banks, and the start of maybe something bigger, fingers crosssed.

mystic_trev

OFT have won the case!

monkeymax

judge states cases stay on hold until end of may according to BBC

sdooley

The OFT have won their argument that the charges fall within unfair terms legislation, but the banks won the argument that the charges are not penal (i.e. unenforceable).

IMO this paves the way for a compromise outcome, i.e. that charges are reduced, not abolished.

carriejones2008

Go-ahead for bank charges challenge

<!-- DO NOT REMOVE! Needed for Last Updated + Search Terms article enhancement -->

Barclays is one of the banks involved in the test case judgment

Charges levied by banks for unauthorised overdrafts are subject to regulation by the Office of Fair Trading under "unfair contract" rules, the High Court has ruled.
<!-- Awaiting copyright text -->
The decision paves the way for a further hearing in which the court will decide whether the charges are unfair and, if so, what a fair charge should be.
Mr Justice Andrew Smith stressed that his decision did not mean that the terms imposed on customers by the banks were necessarily to be regarded as unfair under the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), or that they were not binding on consumers.

The case was jointly brought by the OFT and seven high street banks and a building society to clarify the law after consumers began to reclaim millions of pounds of charges through the courts.

krunchieuk

Great news that the first case has been won, but am I the only person that belives in the current economic climate.. this gov' is never in a million years going to let us win the next stage of the court case?.. I mean the banks would have to pay out upto £20 billion + ! and most of them are having to borrow from the tax payers at the moment anyway! lol

I do not have enough faith in the Gov' & our legal system at present to belive that the case will go on to a win, not without being burried in red tape at some point that will take at least 5 yrs to sort though!

CincinnatiPete

I think the judgment is mainly good news for individuals. But by ruling that the charges are not panlty charges at common law, the judge has ruled out any reclaims on business accounts as the UTCCR's only apply between consumers and businesses

nickmack

In the verdict Mr Justice Andrew Smith, seems to have drawn a distinction between payment requests that have been paid and those that have not.

Simplified, he states that if the bank makes a consideration to pay a request but does not do so, it is not a service. However, he also states that if the payment is made, then it could be considered a service.

This could be interesting for the next stage of the legal process and may be how we see the distinction between whether charges are levied or not.

bel_2

Ok, just a thought, I successfully got my money back from the Natwest :T the accompanying letter stated they did not consider this a repayment of charges, rather a gesture of goodwill because I was so unhappy with the service. So, seems to me that if the OFT wins this case, and bank charges are unlawful, then I should make a new claim for my charges
Ho Hum!!!! like I say, it was just a thought :rolleyes: