Tweet
Challenge charges despite bank ruling’
‘Challenge charges despite bank ruling’ From Echo)
1:30pm Friday 4th December 2009
Comments (0) Have your say »
By Paul Offord »
A FINANCIAL expert from south Essex is convinced customers still have a strong chance of reclaiming bank charges.
The Supreme Court ruled the Office of Fair Trading did not have the authority to assess whether bank charges were unfair.
It was feared without the Office’s support there was no longer any legal basis for more than a million customers to proceed with claims.
However, Tim Coombs, 59, who runs Southend debt advice and counselling firm Sun Lane, insists this is not the case.
All claims had been put on hold for the past two years, while everyone waited for the Supreme Court decision last week.
Now, there is nothing to stop individuals pursuing claims through the county courts and financial ombudsman. Mr Coombs said: “Basically, we are back to July 26, 2007, the day before the Office of Fair Trading issued proceedings.
“This means county courts and the financial ombudsman service will now decide on matters, regardless of the Office of Fair Trading.”
If the ruling had gone in favour of the Office of Fair Trading, it could have declared all bank charges over a certain amount, for example £10, unfair and each bank would have been forced to refund the cash.
However, the decision means the Office of Fair Trading has been taken out of the equation, leaving county courts and the ombudsman free to decide on a case-by-case basis if charges levied by the banks on individuals are justified.
Campaigners claim the cost to a bank of a customer going into an unauthorised overdraft is less than £2.50, yet banks charge up to £35 per transaction if people exceed their agreed limit.
Mr Coombs said: “All claims must now be amended, and the Supreme Court identified the sections the case should be brought under through its ruling.
“The charges should be challenged under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regula-tions 1999. I would advise people to submit their revised claims as quickly as possible.”
Mr Coombs’s firm can help individuals fill in the right wording to ensure their claims receive a fair hearing, but there would be a charge. Claimants are advised to contact a solicitor, the Citizens Advice Bureau, or log on to a free advice website, such as Legal Beagles - Guarding your Consumer Rights
‘Challenge charges despite bank ruling’ From Echo)
1:30pm Friday 4th December 2009
Comments (0) Have your say » By Paul Offord »
A FINANCIAL expert from south Essex is convinced customers still have a strong chance of reclaiming bank charges.
The Supreme Court ruled the Office of Fair Trading did not have the authority to assess whether bank charges were unfair.
It was feared without the Office’s support there was no longer any legal basis for more than a million customers to proceed with claims.
However, Tim Coombs, 59, who runs Southend debt advice and counselling firm Sun Lane, insists this is not the case.
All claims had been put on hold for the past two years, while everyone waited for the Supreme Court decision last week.
Now, there is nothing to stop individuals pursuing claims through the county courts and financial ombudsman. Mr Coombs said: “Basically, we are back to July 26, 2007, the day before the Office of Fair Trading issued proceedings.
“This means county courts and the financial ombudsman service will now decide on matters, regardless of the Office of Fair Trading.”
If the ruling had gone in favour of the Office of Fair Trading, it could have declared all bank charges over a certain amount, for example £10, unfair and each bank would have been forced to refund the cash.
However, the decision means the Office of Fair Trading has been taken out of the equation, leaving county courts and the ombudsman free to decide on a case-by-case basis if charges levied by the banks on individuals are justified.
Campaigners claim the cost to a bank of a customer going into an unauthorised overdraft is less than £2.50, yet banks charge up to £35 per transaction if people exceed their agreed limit.
Mr Coombs said: “All claims must now be amended, and the Supreme Court identified the sections the case should be brought under through its ruling.
“The charges should be challenged under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regula-tions 1999. I would advise people to submit their revised claims as quickly as possible.”
Mr Coombs’s firm can help individuals fill in the right wording to ensure their claims receive a fair hearing, but there would be a charge. Claimants are advised to contact a solicitor, the Citizens Advice Bureau, or log on to a free advice website, such as Legal Beagles - Guarding your Consumer Rights
