Over 1 million have bank charges claims on hold
Options
Former_MSE_Guy
Posts: 1,650 Forumite
This thread is to discuss the following news story:
0
Comments
-
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?0 -
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=164310 -
carlos1973 wrote: »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?
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.0 -
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?0
-
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.simon_templar wrote: »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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards