OFT Announcement made 10.00 am 24/4

nickmack

borgbaiter wrote: »

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.

There were three points to decide:

- If UTCCR 1999 can be applied to bank charges (Verdict - They do apply)
- If the law of Penalties applies to bank charges (Verdict - They do not)
- If the T&Cs of Current accounts are in plain and intelligible langauge (Mostly yes, some exceptions)

The most significant point seems to concern business reclaiming to which the UTCCR did not apply and now the law of Penalties has also been ruled not to apply.

The UTTCR can now be used to decide if the charges are unfair, subject to what happens in any appeals.

frugalpam

Sounds par for the course :rolleyes:
I really hope the banks get their come uppance and have to refund these unlawful charges, but I'm afraid I'm not holding my breath over it.

infofreak wrote: »

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

kev2b3

Great result today. The OFT and the banks should now get together and come to some agreement over what is considered a fair amount to charge. Loads feel five pound per charge fair.I feel by doing this the banks will save face because its not only people in the uk interested in this case.

Chrissie-G

Im like most on here and have a pending claim. Mine is against HSBC. I had two accounts with them and what annoys me is they paid me £1,100 last year on one of my accounts and refused to pay out on the other. Surely, if they paid out on one account this is admitting that the charges were wrong, so how come they can hold back the payment on the other account.

My other question is, can I add any new charges since last year onto my frozen claim.

lindilou39

Been a while since I last posted here, ...the banks still gain interest from the "already" imposed charges, and the courts have our fees sat in their banks (gaining interest)?

machomanugget

lindilou39 wrote: »

Been a while since I last posted here, ...the banks still gain interest from the "already" imposed charges, and the courts have our fees sat in their banks (gaining interest)?

Yes this really gets my goat as well grr
The banks for one is bad enough, but c'mon the courts as well ????

I thought they were supposed to be being made to get on with it ...

I heard some guy on the radio earlier say 2010 ?????? gimme a break plz

YorkshireBoy

kev2b3 wrote: »

The OFT and the banks should now get together and come to some agreement over what is considered a fair amount to charge.

But that isn't going to solve anything is it? If the OFT says they would consider anything over, say, £12 per transgression unfair, people will continue to reclaim the charges as they do now with (post-OFT involvement) credit card £12 fees...won't they?

This will clog up the court system, clog up the FSA/FOS, etc. Recognise anything?

No, something far more decisive is required I fear.

Bernard_Coleslaw

alexjohnson wrote: »

Chalk and cheese. In contract, there is the notion that both parties "agree" to terms...

Thanks for that, one of the best summaries I've seen in a long time.

frugalpam

Interesting article here in the BBC's financial pages. Looks like we shouldn't perhaps be planning how to spend any refunded charges just yet