• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

DAY 5 - OFT test case report

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DAY 5 - OFT test case report

    Day 5

    Before continuing Barclays submission, QC Milligan wanted to give a correction to the judge on the ‘’muddled response’’ he gave yesterday as to how he believes ‘’the common law kills penalties’’.

    Although his correction was difficult to understand through the legal jargon he seemed to be saying that the consumer was the only side to benefit from any protection against penalties in common law and the benefit was not reciprocal, regulation was a better test.

    He gave his reasons that ‘’the law was inconsistent with penalties’’. The circumstances of penalties and unfairness were different. A high penalty charge was not necessarily more than a pre-estimate of cost. A penalty depends on a pre-estimate of cost - not actual loss and he quoted from Johnson & Johnson in the Court of Appeal.

    The subject then turned again to current and historical T&Cs. Milligan restated the banks requirement for a declaration on both that they are ‘’struck down under common law’’. He said they needed both ‘’for the purposes of County Court litigation’’.

    The judge voiced some displeasure at continually being asked to address an issue not in the agreement on the case and the extra time needed for it. ‘’This hearing has stretched from 2 to 5 weeks.’’ and criticised the banks for not accounting for this in their original 2 week estimation. He said that although he is yet to make a decision, ‘’it’s not likely I’ll make a declaration on historical T&Cs at this hearing.

    Milligan ended his submission by referring to a comment made by the judge yesterday on the ‘seven deadly sins’ that the judge joked ‘’and no doubt the first one is greed’’. Milligan thought this ‘’unhelpful’’ and could imply that ‘’our charges are too high’’. The judge didn't seem that bothered.

    Next up was young QC Snowden for HSBC. He started with the analogy of a new car one orders and chooses extras such as air conditioning. But as you can’t have the air conditioning without the car, the air conditioning is therefore a core part of the contract.

    Snowden took the judge through the HSBC terms and conditions and the judge asked about under 18s not being charged for unauthorised overdrafts. ‘’Do you consider and not charge him for not granting it? What about a joint account if only one of them is under 18?’’ Snowdon was stumped and asked the judge if he could consult his clients and respond tomorrow.

    Like Milligan Snowden stated that everything in the T&C’s are contractual. The judge quoted from HSBC’s terms and conditions, ‘’what is this ‘fair fees policy? Is it fluff and spin or is it contractual?’’ ‘’It’s a policy statement’’ the QC replied.
    The judge pointed out the use of ‘overdraft’ and ‘item charge’ which appeared to refer to the same thing. ‘’Your terms and conditions refer to overdraft but your price list refers to item charge. If your current balance is £25 and you make a payment for £30 you could say that your overdraft requirement is £5 bringing you under your £10 threshold but as an item charge the overdraft is more than you need. Is this unambiguous?’’ Snowdon simply said ‘’no, the price list makes this clear.

    Other than that the submission was a repetition of both Barclays and RBS.

    At the end of day 5 Justice Smith is now very concerned by the overruns to the schedule. He is now insisting that Snowdon has 15 minutes to finish his submission in the morning and that Nationwide complete theirs by lunchtime followed by Abbey in the afternoon.

    It’s almost certain the hearing won’t sit for this and next Friday. Kick off tomorrow is at 10.30.

    Feed rooms

    Although access to the 50 seat feed room at the Royal Courts of Justice is now a reality - I checked - It hasn’t made too much difference to the attendance figures which reached the dizzy heights of one today albeit for 20 minutes. As the IDRC room only attracted 6 they are considering closing the IDRC room and keeping the RCoJ.

    Unlike IDRC no pass is required, the trade off being you have to use the main entrance and wade through the media scrum for the Diana inquest and go through airport like security.

    Transcripts

    Transcripts of the hearing will be made available through Merril Legal Solutions 15 days after the last day of the hearing. I have ordered up a set in PDF and will post them up.


    Bleeding Lawyers

    In the middle of QC Snowdon’s submission this afternoon the HSBC lawyer began bleeding from his neck and asked the judge for a 5 minute adjournment while he left the room to apply a band aid, explaining that due to a recent operation he was on blood thinning medication causing him to bleed spontaneously.

    No sooner was he back and a junior Clydesdale QC passed out and hit the deck. This caused a further half hour delay even though the sparko lawyer took no part in the rest of the proceedings.

  • #2
    Re: DAY 5 OFT test case

    The Johnson case mentioned by the counsel Milligan


    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean


    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: DAY 5 OFT test case

      SO an interesting day NOT related to bank charges then?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: DAY 5 OFT test case

        Thanks EXC

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: DAY 5 OFT test case

          On the contrary, it looks as though it was another very interesting day.

          It appears that the Judge is totally in control of matters. Combined with the Judges worries regarding the overruns it appears unlikley that any of the other banks are gonna be putting forward any additional arguments over and above those already presented by RBS, Barclays and HSBC so the Judge is therefore going to be limiting the presentation time for the remaining Banks. If he does a similar time limitation exercise for Monday it is quite likley that the banks presentations could be finished by the end of play on Monday and the OFT could start their presentation on Tuesday. The test case could effectivly be finished by the end of next week.

          Budgie

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: DAY 5 OFT test case

            Like Milligan Snowden stated that everything in the T&C’s are contractual. The judge quoted from HSBC’s terms and conditions, ‘’what is this ‘fair fees policy? Is it fluff and spin or is it contractual?’’ ‘’It’s a policy statement’’ the QC replied.
            The judge pointed out the use of ‘overdraft’ and ‘item charge’ which appeared to refer to the same thing. ‘’Your terms and conditions refer to overdraft but your price list refers to item charge. If your current balance is £25 and you make a payment for £30 you could say that your overdraft requirement is £5 bringing you under your £10 threshold but as an item charge the overdraft is more than you need. Is this unambiguous?’’ Snowdon simply said ‘’no, the price list makes this clear.


            Originally posted by HSBS information
            Our Fair Fees Policy

            Our Fair Fees Policy - we will not charge any fees for agreeing either formal or informal overdraft requests, unless they occur frequently.
            • You will not have to pay for your first agreed overdraft request (formal or informal) in any six-month period. Each further agreed request in a six-month period may incur an arrangement fee
            • You will not have to pay fees for being overdrawn by £10 or less
            • You will not have to pay more in fees than you are overdrawn by in a charging month, so a £15 overdraft will not cost you £50
            • You will not have to pay a fee for an informal overdraft request if your account is credited with covering funds by the end of the same day
            Originally posted by HSBC fees leaflet
            Arrangement Fees
            1st overdraft in 6 months free*
            Subsequent overdrafts £25
            *No Arrangement Fee is payable if, in the last 6 months, we
            have not agreed to an overdraft request from you. See our
            Fair Fees Policy below for full details.
            Return Fees
            We may not be able to grant every request you make for an
            overdraft. Where we decline an informal overdraft request we
            will not charge an Arrangement Fee but a Return Fee will be
            payable for considering and returning payment requests, eg,
            cheque, standing order, direct debit etc.
            Up to £10 no charge
            Up to £25 £10 per item
            Above £25 £25 per item
            So I think the information part is talking about ''
            • You will not have to pay fees for being overdrawn by £10 or less
            • You will not have to pay more in fees than you are overdrawn by in a charging month, so a £15 overdraft will not cost you £50''
            The Fees part is talking about unpaid fees ''Up to £10 no charge
            Up to £25 £10 per item
            Above £25 £25 per item''

            So if you have £20 and spend £26 that is returned unpaid - do they charge £25 ( Above £25 £25 per item) or £0 (Up to £10 no charge).

            From what I can make out they would charge you £25.00 as its on the unpaid transaction value, rather than the amount of overdraft it would have put you in.

            Is that what the judge was questionning do you think ?
            #staysafestayhome

            Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

            Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: DAY 5 - OFT test case report

              Before continuing Barclays submission, QC Milligan wanted to give a correction to the judge on the ‘’muddled response’’ he gave yesterday as to how he believes ‘’the common law kills penalties’’.

              Seems Mr Milligan doesn`t even understand his own defence.


              Although his correction was difficult to understand through the legal jargon he seemed to be saying that the consumer was the only side to benefit from any protection against penalties in common law and the benefit was not reciprocal, regulation was a better test.
              The `protection against penalties` is exactly as it sounds. We as customers are(and always should be) protected against unfair penalties by using UTCCR as the law to protect us. The argument Milligan is in effect using is like saying a theif should be protected against theft.

              He gave his reasons that ‘’the law was inconsistent with penalties’’. The circumstances of penalties and unfairness were different. A high penalty charge was not necessarily more than a pre-estimate of cost. A penalty depends on a pre-estimate of cost - not actual loss and he quoted from Johnson & Johnson in the Court of Appeal.
              Maybe they would FINALLY like to declare their GENUINE pre-estimates of cost?

              The subject then turned again to current and historical T&Cs. Milligan restated the banks requirement for a declaration on both that they are ‘’struck down under common law’’. He said they needed both ‘’for the purposes of County Court litigation’’.

              The judge voiced some displeasure at continually being asked to address an issue not in the agreement on the case and the extra time needed for it. ‘’This hearing has stretched from 2 to 5 weeks.’’ and criticised the banks for not accounting for this in their original 2 week estimation. He said that although he is yet to make a decision, ‘’it’s not likely I’ll make a declaration on historical T&Cs at this hearing.
              Fair play to him, deal with the actual case presented and keep things flowing instead of the QC`s constantly trying to throw it off track.

              Milligan ended his submission by referring to a comment made by the judge yesterday on the ‘seven deadly sins’ that the judge joked ‘’and no doubt the first one is greed’’. Milligan thought this ‘’unhelpful’’ and could imply that ‘’our charges are too high’’. The judge didn't seem that bothered.
              COULD IMPLY?????? Get Real Milligan, a blind monkey can see the charges are disproportionate.

              Next up was young QC Snowden for HSBC. He started with the analogy of a new car one orders and chooses extras such as air conditioning. But as you can’t have the air conditioning without the car, the air conditioning is therefore a core part of the contract.
              Erm, yes you can. Would it stop the car from operating if the air-con WASN`T fitted? Is the air-con necessary to every car, no. Things like the engine and gearbox are CORE parts to a car. Dougie Howser QC even contradicts himself with his next statement.

              Snowden took the judge through the HSBC terms and conditions and the judge asked about under 18s not being charged for unauthorised overdrafts. ‘’Do you consider and not charge him for not granting it? What about a joint account if only one of them is under 18?’’ Snowdon was stumped and asked the judge if he could consult his clients and respond tomorrow.
              Scurry along little boy, proof that an overdraft charge IS NOT core to the contract and can operate without it. Looks like they don`t allow under 18`s `air-con` I assume because they always have the window fully down, stereo volume fully up.

              Like Milligan Snowden stated that everything in the T&C’s are contractual. The judge quoted from HSBC’s terms and conditions, ‘’what is this ‘fair fees policy? Is it fluff and spin or is it contractual?’’ ‘’It’s a policy statement’’ the QC replied.
              It is bull like the rest of it

              The judge pointed out the use of ‘overdraft’ and ‘item charge’ which appeared to refer to the same thing. ‘’Your terms and conditions refer to overdraft but your price list refers to item charge. If your current balance is £25 and you make a payment for £30 you could say that your overdraft requirement is £5 bringing you under your £10 threshold but as an item charge the overdraft is more than you need. Is this unambiguous?’’ Snowdon simply said ‘’no, the price list makes this clear.
              Plain and intelligible language?????

              Other than that the submission was a repetition of both Barclays and RBS.

              At the end of day 5 Justice Smith is now very concerned by the overruns to the schedule. He is now insisting that Snowdon has 15 minutes to finish his submission in the morning and that Nationwide complete theirs by lunchtime followed by Abbey in the afternoon.

              It’s almost certain the hearing won’t sit for this and next Friday. Kick off tomorrow is at 10.30.

              Feed rooms

              Although access to the 50 seat feed room at the Royal Courts of Justice is now a reality - I checked - It hasn’t made too much difference to the attendance figures which reached the dizzy heights of one today albeit for 20 minutes. As the IDRC room only attracted 6 they are considering closing the IDRC room and keeping the RCoJ.

              Unlike IDRC no pass is required, the trade off being you have to use the main entrance and wade through the media scrum for the Diana inquest and go through airport like security.

              Transcripts

              Transcripts of the hearing will be made available through Merril Legal Solutions 15 days after the last day of the hearing. I have ordered up a set in PDF and will post them up.
              Many thanks EXC


              Bleeding Lawyers

              In the middle of QC Snowdon’s submission this afternoon the HSBC lawyer began bleeding from his neck and asked the judge for a 5 minute adjournment while he left the room to apply a band aid, explaining that due to a recent operation he was on blood thinning medication causing him to bleed spontaneously.
              An operation to have his guilty conscience removed before spouting utter nonsense throughout this case?

              No sooner was he back and a junior Clydesdale QC passed out and hit the deck. This caused a further half hour delay even though the sparko lawyer took no part in the rest of the proceedings.
              Sorry if this sounds awful but I do hope this was Kirsty Ross
              Any opinions I give are my own. Any advice I give is without liability. If you are unsure, please seek qualified legal advice.

              IF WE HAVE HELPED YOU PLEASE CONSIDER UPGRADING TO VIP - click here

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: DAY 5 - OFT test case report

                Quote:
                Next up was young QC Snowden for HSBC. He started with the analogy of a new car one orders and chooses extras such as air conditioning. But as you can’t have the air conditioning without the car, the air conditioning is therefore a core part of the contract.
                Erm, yes you can. Would it stop the car from operating if the air-con WASN`T fitted? Is the air-con necessary to every car, no. Things like the engine and gearbox are CORE parts to a car. Dougie Howser QC even contradicts himself with his next statement.
                Excellent stuff TOOLS and similar to the arguements that the OFT will be using I'm sure. I hope the Judge spotted this analogy error as well.

                Comment

                View our Terms and Conditions

                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                Working...
                X