OFT Announcement made 10.00 am 24/4

ailsajayne27

but surely that case has ruled that the oft can investigate? as they did with cc charges? If this is the case won't the oft sort it in the same way they did cc charges? I have a claim for £2k with Halifax and the sooner they pay out the sooner I can get them off my DMP and start paying back the people who actualy lent me money as opposed to just took it out of my account on a regular basis!!

cragdoo

Here is the OFT's official response

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2008/55-08

OFT welcomes High Court ruling on unarranged overdraft charges

55/08 24 April 2008
The High Court has today confirmed the OFT's view that personal current account unarranged overdraft charges can be assessed for fairness.

This is an important early milestone for the OFT and our investigation into this area of high consumer interest. We are now analysing the implications of the judgment for our overall investigation into the fairness of the terms. There may need to be further hearings to determine any outstanding issues arising from the judgment. The timetable for next steps will be decided by the court at a hearing before the end of May.

This case was brought by the OFT in agreement with eight of the largest current account providers. We will be working with them and other interested parties to ensure this market works well for consumers.

It is important to note that this judgment only covers points of legal principle and does not determine whether the relevant charges are actually unfair. We are continuing our investigation into the fairness of these terms and will consider our position after reviewing the detail of this judgment.

NOTES

1. The judgment today sets out the judge's ruling and reasoning on a range of legal issues, including ruling that the banks' relevant terms and conditions were in, or largely in, plain intelligible language; and that the banks' unarranged overdraft charges were not penalties at common law.
2. All businesses have a duty to ensure that they are complying with the law. Current account providers will need to consider whether there are any implications from today's judgment for their current terms and conditions.
3. In April 2007 the OFT announced its investigation into the fairness of unarranged overdraft and returned item fees (referred to as 'unarranged overdraft charges'). This followed on from the OFT's initial review of such charges, where the OFT concluded that it shared the public concern about the level and incidence of bank current account charges.
4. In July 2007 the OFT entered into an agreement with the largest current account providers in relation to bringing a test case in order to ensure an orderly and timely resolution of the legal issues associated with its investigation. This stage of the case was heard between 17 January and 8 February 2008, and dealt with certain preliminary issues of legal principle relating to whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ('UTCCRs') apply to the banks' various current terms and conditions and whether the charges are capable of amounting to penalties at common law.
5. The other parties to the test case are Abbey National plc, Barclays Bank plc, Clydesdale Bank plc, HBOS plc, HSBC Bank plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, and Nationwide Building Society. Together these current account providers account for about 90 per cent of personal current accounts in the UK.
6. In parallel with the legal action on the preliminary issues in the test case we are continuing our detailed analysis of the terms and conditions of current account providers.
7. In the course of its work on the issue we have liaised closely with the Financial Services Authority and have also held discussions with the main banks.
8. The OFT has also been conducting a market study which is taking a wide-ranging look at whether the personal current account market is working well for consumers. In particular we will assess the extent to which consumers help drive competition. The OFT plans to publish our findings in the next few months having taken account of the implications of the judgment. Further information on the background to the case can be found on this website. The FSA has also published guidance for consumers on its website.

UK007BullDog

The judge will rule by end of May. So things are moving along.

compulsivespender79

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7364422.stm

A judge has decided that the OFT can decide on the fairness of the charges.

:T :j :T :j :T :j :T :j

W_s_n

Check out Martin's interview outside the High Court :money:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7364498.stm

frugalpam

Has anyone got a real idea how long all this is realistically going to drag on? I phoned Natwest today over a charge for going a few pounds overdrawn (due to an S.O. being taken out early) and we got on to discussing the test case (I had said I would add on the £30 charge to my pending court case) The arrogant little s0d told me not to hold my breath as I wouldn't be getting my charges back 'any time soon'. Actually, I can believe that.

I can see why some elderly folk stuff their cash under their mattresses, and forgo the banks

Edinburghlass_2

From Martin's extra email sent out today...

24 April 08. An urgent update on the Bank Charges situation from MoneySavingExpert.com Today (Thurs) a High Court judge confirmed what bank charges campaigners have been arguing for two years, that consumer contract regulations do apply to bank charges meaning that 'fairness' counts. The next step is for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to assess whether they are actually unfair but as it's the one who took the banks to court, that seems likely. Then it'll try to reach agreement with the banks, and if not, go back to court.

To use a football analogy, before we were kicking the ball around the middle of the pitch, now we're at the penalty spot...though the judgement's massive and the nitty gritty may throw more up.
What happens next?
On 22 May 2008, there will be a case management meeting; at which point it's possible the banks will put in an appeal. Until then, all cases remain on hold. As explained above, my hope is, not long after that, the regulator will lift the hold on reclaiming that was apparently put in place to 'protect consumers' from inconsistencies.
Yet now the law is clear and binding - bank charges are required to be 'fair' - so hopefully it will soon allow people who think they're legally unfair to reclaim again, after all, the banks are still charging these charges!

If it's on hold, why put in a reclaim now?
Simple, the statute of limitations says you can only claim back six years' worth of charges in England, five in Scotland. The longer you leave it, the less far back your reclaim goes... as many people have had lots of charges stretching back over years, this means if you don't put a claim in sooner, you're less likely to get the old ones back.
Plus hopefully when the FSA ends the waiver on reclaiming, it means you'll be ahead in the queue, and should be dealt with more quickly.
What if my case is already on hold?
We’re still waiting for the FSA to end the waiver; as explained above, my hope is that this should happen in the next couple of months. Until then, sadly, you’ll just have to keep twiddling your thumbs. As always, all news will be included in the weekly email.

Free template letters for you to reclaim: In the step-by-step Bank Charges reclaiming guide.

borgbaiter

hi


how can they be unfair and yet still not penalties under common law???


someone help me out here


Borgbaiter

borgbaiter

hi again

light bulb moment

there subject to unfairness says the judge.... but he hasnt said there unfair.... he also says there in plain intelligible language..... he also says there not penalty charges....


forgive me if im wrong but this seems like a loss to me not a victory

the ultimate spin

ok there subject to unfair terms yes

but if there in plain intelligible language then they dont have to be reasonable

if the arnt subject to common law then they dont have to relate to cost

so in my opinion banks have won because they can charge what they say, if its in plain inteligible language. which is what judge says it is. reasonable only enters into it if it isnt in plain inteligible language.

the common law argument has also gone so were all screwed.


anyone with a reasoned argument let me know im wrong

infofreak

I just received a message from my bank. They say that because I went 5p over my overdraft limit for a total of 3 days they are going to charge me £30. Yes you heard right 5p for 3 days = £30. And they sent this today :rotfl:

I rang them. They refused to cancel the charges. :rolleyes:

Well at least we now know Cahoot have a sense of humour.:D