Another Weakness in Bank Contracts?

DarkD

I haven't heard anyone mention this, but I have put this in my Particulars of Claim:

Further, and in the alternative, the charges are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, because there is no balancing clause in favour of the Claimant obliging the Defendant to compensate the Claimant in the event of the Defendant breaching the contract by making incorrect deductions from the Claimants account.

If I, mistakenly or intentionally, make unauthorisded withdrawals resulting in an unauthorised overdraft, the contract is designed to allow the Banks to make me pay charges.

Banks DO make mistakes, and intentionally or accidentally make incorrect deductions from customer's accounts. However, bank contracts do not contain balancing clauses forcing banks to compenate customers if the bank makes a mistake.

The cost to a customer is also disproportionately higher, as complaining about incorrect deductions involves writing letters, etc., not sending out proforma letters as the banks do.

I think that this is a further, distinct, reason why the charges in bank's contracts fall foul of the Regulations.

Tozer

Interesting point but why would there need to be a balancing clause? That isn't a requirement of UTCCR or any principle of common law that I know of.

If you are talking about the principle of equality of bargaining position, I think it is a different issue.

Smasher

Fairness & Balance was the point around which most claims which applied the contractual rate of interest (charging them the rate they charged you). Prior to that some were using an argument of mutuality & reciprocity until a case was lost using those terms.