Case Management Conference/News 22/05/08

wirelover

are they still dealing with hardship cases or are they on hold????

spacey2930

what is taking all the time?
i think that all the money that WAS going to be paid out to the customers is actually going into the pockets of the lawyers in this case so there will be none left for everyone else.
once again, the only real winners in this will be the lawyers!
anyone have any idea how long this is gonna drag on for?
i started my claim in feb '07 so its been nearly 16 months for me already.
probably another 16 months before the appeals of the appeals are heard.
its making people very cynical that we rent our time off big corporations and we are at their mercy in everything!!!!

mreroots

mackers8923 wrote: »

You can start your case but it will get placed on hold.... better to do it now though

its already on hold since autumn :mad:

munchki

I apologise if this is the wrong place to vent......but......

What makes it all seem so unfair to me and I am sure I am not the only one who thinks this. All of our cases get put on hold as the banks do not have to process them per the judge.....however....it is still ok for the banks to continue to charge as they wish with no restrictions from the courts!!

Pardon me if I am just being very thick but how is this fair? If we were stopped from reclaiming what is not fair charges why was/is there not a stop put on banks continuance in charging us? I mean they make tons of interest off our money, we can do nothing now but wait and in the end who knows.....

*stepping off my soap box* apologies, just rather annoyed at this whole situation of one rule for one and one rule for another.

Sol00

Great to see this great capitalist country is still wanting to rip off the consumer. Do the government have any power over this?

chipbeck

Sol00 wrote: »

Great to see this great capitalist country is still wanting to rip off the consumer. Do the government have any power over this?

The government don't give a flying puck as long as they get their free kitchens!

Nathan_Spleen

<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="MARGIN: auto auto auto -1.7pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=567 border=0><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 8pt; mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 260.55pt; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 8pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" vAlign=top width=347>
OFT statement on Case Management Conference

66/08 23 May 2008
At the Case Management Conference, the judge gave the Banks permission to appeal his finding that the relevant terms can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCRs. Also, four of the Banks were refused permission to appeal the judge's findings that some of their terms are not in plain intelligible language. The OFT is not appealing any of the judge's findings. All the parties are agreed that the appeal process should happen as quickly as possible and are working with the court to achieve this.
Mr Justice Smith's Judgment of 24 April 2008 relates to relevant terms in current agreements between the Banks and customers and is restricted to those terms that were considered by the court. There will be a further hearing on 7, 8 and 9 July 2008 to determine whether the relevant terms in the Banks basic and historic personal current account contracts can also be assessed for fairness under the UTCCRs and whether they are capable of being penalties at common law.
OFT is continuing with its investigation into the fairness of the relevant terms in the Banks current terms and conditions. During July, we aim to be in a position to begin engaging with the Banks in relation to our preliminary views on the question of fairness.
NOTES

1.In April 2007 the OFT announced its investigation into the fairness of terms relating to unarranged overdraft and returned item fees (referred to as 'unarranged overdraft charges'). This followed on from the OFT's initial review of such terms, where the OFT concluded that it shared the public concern about the level and incidence of bank current account charges.
2. 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.
3. In April 2008 the judge ruled that:

• the UTCCRs do apply to the banks' current T&Cs for unarranged overdraft charges
• the banks' current T&Cs are in plain intelligible language (PIL) except for Abbey, Barclays, Clydesdale and HBOS' T&Cs which are not in PIL in certain specific and minor respects, and
• the banks' current T&Cs (and some historic T&Cs – that is, terms no longer in use) are not penalties at common law.

It is anticipated that Mr Justice Smith will be making an order to give effect to this Judgment next week.
The question of whether or not the T&Cs providing for the charges are actually unfair was not addressed in the stage 1A judgment (this is being addressed by our overall investigation and will be dealt with in stage 2 of the test case process).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 weeks.
7. 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. Download the High Court judgment (pdf 652 kb).
8. Relevant Terms: Terms in standard form Personal Current Accounts between the bank and the customer that provide for unarranged overdraft charges.
9. Basic and Historic Personal Account Contracts: This includes certain non-mainstream current accounts also.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________

</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 164.75pt; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 8pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" vAlign=top width=220>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE class=MsoNormalTable style="MARGIN: auto auto auto -1.7pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; mso-table-layout-alt: fixed; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes; page-break-inside: avoid"><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; PADDING-RIGHT: 5.4pt; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; PADDING-LEFT: 5.4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 425.6pt; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" vAlign=top width=567>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Sol00

chipbeck wrote: »

The government don't give a flying puck as long as they get their free kitchens!

Lol that's true! It's just that with Labour in the mess it's in at the moment, you'd think they would be actively trying to be seen on the side of the consumer for a change. :rolleyes:

peter999

First Direct -Overdraft Court Case update
http://www.firstdirect.com/1st-account/overdraft-charges.shtml

information on Overdraft Court Case
Update 23 May 2008

What is happening?
As part of the ongoing test case process, a procedural hearing (known as a Case Management Conference) took place on 22 and 23 May, at which the next steps in the test case process were decided.

Firstly, the Court dealt with the issue of appeals.

* In April, the Court adjudged that unarranged overdraft fees are not exempt from being assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ("UTCCRs"). The Court gave permission to the Banks to appeal this judgment.

The Banks are appealing on this issue as they continue to believe that the fees are fair and that the UTCCRs do not apply to these types of fees. There is limited guidance from case law on whether and how the UTCCRs apply in these circumstances and as the test case process is of considerable public interest, it is important for the issues to be fully tested.

* In April, the Court confirmed that, under the Banks' current terms and conditions, unarranged overdraft fees are not penalties, as the Banks have always maintained. The OFT did not seek permission to appeal on this issue.

Secondly, it was confirmed that, at a short hearing on 7/8 July, the Court will be asked to consider whether, under terms and conditions previously used by the Banks, unarranged overdraft fees are capable of being penalties.

Thirdly, whilst the Court concluded in April that unarranged overdraft fees are not exempt from being assessable for fairness, the Judge was explicit in stating that this does not mean that they are unfair. A further hearing will be required in order for the Court to determine the issue of fairness.

It was confirmed that the next steps in the test case will be decided on, or soon after, 8 July as the Banks, the OFT and the Court continue to work closely to bring a conclusion to the test case process as soon as possible.

Other matters from the 24 April Judgment

The judge decided that:

* Our current terms are sufficiently clear to enable the typical consumer to have a proper understanding of them for sensible and practical purposes

* Unplanned overdrafts are one of the essential services which we provide to our current account customers.

A full copy of the judgment is available at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk

peter999

kev2b3

Am i right in saying that the Court confirmed that, under the Banks' current t&c, unarranged overdraft fees are not penalties.The OFT did'nt appeal against this because the t&c being considered were only the latest ones. Now ,in july would the OFT be able to use t&c for over the past 6 years which would prove that the overdraft fees were indeed penalties?