News from the CMC - May (OFT v Banks)

[Amethyst]

No firm decisions have been made or appeals lodged as yet but this is what has been discussed thus far in court so is what is likely to happen.

The Beagles team will update at the lunch break (apparently the courts pretty packed out as you'd expect)

The Banks WILL appeal the UTCCR 1999 Regs.

There will be NO APPEAL on the Penalty Charges ruling for PRESENT T&C's

The OFT are requesting the right to appeal the PIL judgements subject to the outcome of the appeal on the UTCCR.

The OFT and the Banks have agreed that the UTCCR ruling when it is finally made is likely to apply to historical terms as well as present terms, but the Judge is reserving Judgement on this until such time as he has looked at historical terms.

Judgement on HISTORICAL TERMS will be handed down on the 6th/7th July 2008.

Banks are still submitting historical terms to the court.

The Judge said he was concerned over the length of time an appeal on PIL would take holding the claims up in the courts for the consumers to get ''THEIR'' money.

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Re the last line - will get proper quote at lunch, but yes it does sound pretty hopeful re the Judge being keen to lift the stays - this was a wee phonecall at a 10 min break just before midday. Hope to hear more in depth at lunch.

Judge also said something about not wanting to agree UTCCR will apply same to historical terms until he'd looked at the historical terms in full, so probably stays to stay in place until then (July)

[righty]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Well done you lot

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

The banks are DEFINATELY appealing UTCCR 99 and judge has accepted this appeal.

Judge was critical of the QC for OFT - the OFT still have no idea when publication of PCA report will be and he couldnt pin it down to being within a year. The QC is taking advice from the OFT on this for this afternoons session - and the Judge seemed keen to put pressure on the OFT to get this report completed.

The hold up is the Banks keep changing T&Cs so the OFT keep having to refer back to banks to get info on new T&Cs on 20th May all banks meant to have responded but all but two have asked for extension.

7th and 8th july hearing the judge will be making decisions re the penalty issues and UTCCR 99 on historic terms and basic accounts. This will be a declaration ( handing down of judgement ).

The Judge cannot say if Historic terms are subject to UTCCR 99 cause he hasnt looked yet but he has said he would be suprised if they were not broadly similar.

Penalty charge aspect of Historic Terms - OFT have been working in last couple of weeks on a revised list of terms that the OFT still consider relate to penaltys under common law. The have issued these to the banks for their responses, which will be in and submitted to the court by the 5th June.

No NATIONWIDE building society terms either present or historic can be considered capable of amounting to penaltys.
Therefore Nationwide customers CAN NOT use the Penalty charges arguments under commmon law to reclaim their charges.

The Judge wants to consider penalty and utccr on historic terms at the same time - thus is pushing for the 5th June for the OFTs submission regarding terms in historic agreements it percieves could be deemed as penaltys under common law - in order to make the declaration on the 7/8 July.

The Judge was questioning how the claims currently in the county courts system are structured - re are they mentioning specific terms in banks T&Cs or just general claims that the terms are penaltys. He did not appear to have seen any POCs from the thousands of claims currently in the system.

He once more expressed his concerns over consumers money being held up in the courts system. He seems quite keen to get the stays lifted as soon as possible.

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

sorry for the rubbish grammar I'll work on it a bit later. Main facts there though. More at next break.

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

OFT pressurised over bank charges


By Ian Pollock
Personal finance reporter, BBC News, High Court
Thursday, 22 May 2008 13:37 UK


The High Court has been the seen of the latest legal battle

A High Court judge has told the Office of Fair Trading to reveal when it will decide if bank charges are fair or not.
Mr Justice Andrew Smith made his comments as he granted eight banks leave to appeal against his earlier ruling on the issue.
Last month he decided that the OFT had the power under consumer contract regulations to rule if bank overdraft charges were unfair.
Thousands of bank customers will have to wait for their cases to be heard.
'On hold'
An agreement between the OFT and the banks to use the courts to resolve the legal issues at stake has seen all current and new claims put on hold.
It is thought that there could be tens of thousands of bank customers waiting to see if they can pursue their claims.

We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims


Justice Andrew Smith

The appeal by the banks against the OFTs jurisdiction in this matter is likely to be held by the Court of Appeal this autumn.
The Judge said uncertainty about the length of the OFT's investigation risked being unfair to people whose refund claims are currently suspended in the courts.
"How long should we hold up the county court litigation?" he asked. "Are we talking months, years or weeks?"
"We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims."
When asked if the OFT would conclude its investigation this year, the regulator's QC said he did not know.
"The investigation is ongoing and substantial further work and consultation with the banks has still to be undertaken," he said.
He explained that recent changes to the terms and conditions of some banks' current accounts had extended the timescale for the OFT investigation.
The OFT has been investigating the fairness of bank charges for more than a year.

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7414299.stm

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Cheers Ladidi xx Well done on getting the info out across the other forums too.

[Ladidi]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

YVW, I saw that you was posting in penaltycharges so I was posting it in CAG for you, I hope you dont mind. I cant send the links into there so I am copying and pasteing what you have put

[ed.]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

How has he concluded Nationwide aren't penalties - wasn't it Nationwide unless my mind has gone that admitted they were and the QC had to say their leaflet was wrong?

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

The OFT issued the banks with a list of terms to which the banks had to respond. Only two did, one of which was Nationwide and the OFt have concluded that none of Nationwides terms either present or historical can be deemed penaltys under common law. Its not a judgement I think just an indication of what the OFT have found - so UTCCR only for Nationwide.

I'll ask a bit more next contact tho. They do talk fast lol.

[ed.]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Oh that's a new spin then, so that's an OFT judgment not a Smithy Judgment.

In that case I'd say Nationwiders can still use penalties, but need to be prepared to argue against the OFT decision - keep it on track of, easy to sort out - disclose your costs. But that definitely means now for Nationwide T&C's are needed and the appropriate bits highlighted properly.

Then again I do like straws! lol

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

lol ladidi you are on the ball today - can you try keep it clear where its come from on the posts. I'll try and get more bits clarified next time i speak to the team down there - so dont take everything i say as gospel (yet lol)

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

And ed. yep I'd agree with you....need to have a look at the T&Cs from nationwide. Like I said will try clarify at next break. and no its not a ''judgement''. :kiss:

[ed.]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

nice one.

Just wish the OFT had appealed the penalty aspects, but they aren't interested in those at all are they.

The good thing is, it's already been said the Judgment on Penalties for current terms can be ignored because it flies 'so' in the face of history it's unbelievable.

But Smithy finding that they can be looked at under UTCCR because they aren't 'really' service fees, coupled with the OFT's disinterest in penalties means 'we' can if you are up for the argument, still forge ahead on penalty issue it just would be a more convoluted argument in Court now and not as simple as befire.