Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Guy
    • By MSE Guy 7th Apr 09, 5:08 PM
    • 1,628Posts
    • 1,255Thanks
    MSE Guy
    Over 1 million have bank charges claims on hold
    • #1
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:08 PM
    Over 1 million have bank charges claims on hold 7th Apr 09 at 5:08 PM
    This thread is to discuss the following news story:

Page 1
    • carlos1973
    • By carlos1973 7th Apr 09, 5:31 PM
    • 236 Posts
    • 74 Thanks
    carlos1973
    • #2
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:31 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:31 PM
    It makes me wonder how much money is tied up in these claims?
    The article raises a worrying point,

    "If the banks lose the appeal it should reopen the reclaiming floodgates. However, the banks could still contest any such ruling in the courts."

    I thought that the House of Lords was the final stage of Appeal?
    I also feel that as the refunding of charges has been placed on hold that the levying of such charges should also be placed on hold. What are other peoples opinions on this?
  • natweststaffmember
    • #3
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:49 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:49 PM
    Thank you MSE Guy for the article. The full breakdown of figures are on the LB forum including claims paid out before the FSA tightened the waiver and afterwards. Unfortunately it seems to show that the FSA Waiver on Bank charges is not really making a difference even thought they included Financial Hardship.
    http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=16431
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • natweststaffmember
    • #4
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:51 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:51 PM
    It makes me wonder how much money is tied up in these claims?
    The article raises a worrying point,

    "If the banks lose the appeal it should reopen the reclaiming floodgates. However, the banks could still contest any such ruling in the courts."

    I thought that the House of Lords was the final stage of Appeal?
    I also feel that as the refunding of charges has been placed on hold that the levying of such charges should also be placed on hold. What are other peoples opinions on this?
    Originally posted by carlos1973
    The current case is on whether the terms can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCR. However, the OFT will identify terms that they believe are unfair and the banks may litigate again on the basis that they are fair. It is complicated.
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • simon templar
    • #5
    • 7th Apr 09, 6:21 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Apr 09, 6:21 PM
    If the charges are capped at say 12, does that mean that all those claiming back ALL the charges will need to resubmit less 12 per charge? And will those who have claimed them all back owe the banks 12 per charge claimed back?
  • natweststaffmember
    • #6
    • 7th Apr 09, 6:23 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Apr 09, 6:23 PM
    If the charges are capped at say 12, does that mean that all those claiming back ALL the charges will need to resubmit less 12 per charge? And will those who have claimed them all back owe the banks 12 per charge claimed back?
    Originally posted by simon templar
    The credit card limit of 12 is not a legally enforceable amount and was a temporary measure at the time. The answer is that if the term is unlawful, it does not exist in the contract and therefore a full refund of all charges made under that term has to be reimbursed plus compensation. 12 issue is not an issue.
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • Nathan Spleen
    • #7
    • 7th Apr 09, 6:24 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Apr 09, 6:24 PM
    The MSE news article states that ''The upshot of this is that if the banks win the appeal, they win the test case and consumers will have to find new avenues to get their money back.'' but I don't believe this is the case.

    The test case litigation agreement makes provision for either party to appeal to the European Court of Justice. Of course the case would need to be referred by the House of Lords for it to be heard there but it seems to me that the case would be perfectly suited to ECJ to rule on if the HoLs overturned the judgment of 2 lower courts. Also the ECJ is generally seen as more pro-consumer than the UK courts and the UTCCR - the legal issue in dispute - is based entirely on EU directives.
    • carlos1973
    • By carlos1973 7th Apr 09, 6:34 PM
    • 236 Posts
    • 74 Thanks
    carlos1973
    • #8
    • 7th Apr 09, 6:34 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Apr 09, 6:34 PM
    Thanks for that Nathan.
    I still feel that any charges should be stayed until the test case is resolved, especially if it will go onto the ECJ. The only thing that placates me is the thought of 8% interest, better than any saving account at the moment.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

79Posts Today

3,263Users online

Martin's Twitter