LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

I shall retract my earlier comment now. Thank you xxxx

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

LOL I think it's actually very flattering that MSE are keen to be closely associated with this victory.

To be brutally honest the principle credit has to go to Tom Brennan for developing the superb Hatosag arguments used in Ollies case. No forum was running angles anything close to this......
And yes, I liked Mike Daillys comment....spot on.

Absolutely !!!!

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

YourMoneyClaim (CMC) have posted the case up

A new victory for the consumer against bank charges

Back to bank charges now….and whilst it’s been assumed for some time now that claiming for unfair bank charges was generally a waste of time, there appears to be some light at the end of the tunnel.
The OFT lost it’s case against the banks by basing their argument that the charges themselves were unfair.
However, a recent court case has shed a whole new dimension to the argument, and for once we have Europe to thank as the case took into account rulings made by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) when it ruled on a case known as Hatosag -v- Invitel in 2012.
Hatosag won the case based on unfair terms within the contract between the two parties, and Invitel was ordered to repay the charges it had made. Basically, Invitel had inserted into it’s contract that it reserved the right to charge fees and amend fees.
The European Court of Justice ruling

So…how was the Hatosag -v- Invitel ruling relevant to the case for bank charges, and how might it change things moving forward?
Well, the ECJ ruled that, although it didn’t have any issue in the charging of fees, or even the amount of fees so long as these are clearly explained, it did have an issue with the fact that Invitel reserved the right to amend it’s fees within it’s contract without offering Hatosag the option to terminate the contract.
The ECJ ruled that the term inserted by Invitel violated Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), which states that:
‘(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the cosumer’
So basically because the term inserted by Invitel offered no right to Hatosag to terminate the contract in the event it decided to change it’s charges, Hatosag was effectively stuck in a contract where Invitel could raise it’s charges at any point without any negotiation.


Oliver Foster-Burnell -v- Lloyds TSB

Following on from Hatosag -v- Invitel, the ruling by the ECJ offered an alternative avenue to consumers fighting for bank charges, by basing their argument that the terms themselves are unfair.
Victory!!!
Oliver Foster-Burnell (OFB) and his legal team took Lloyds TSB to court over unfair bank charges, and with the assistance of the ruling made by the ECJ, beat them!
Lloyds had inserted terms into the current account contract which stated they could change interest rates, charges and charging dates, or introduce new charges. They also stated within their contract that they were able to make any change to the terms of the agreement. What they failed to do was offer OFB the right to terminate the contract as and when Lloyds changed the terms, which much like Hatosag -v- Invitel, was deemed to be unfair.
So, OFB was not given the option to negotiate the charges, or terminate the agreement if he didn’t agree with the charges. This effectively allowed Lloyds TSB to increase their charges at will, effectively trapping OFB into a contract which was to his detriment.
Mr Oliver Foster-Burnell and his solicitors may have just set a precedent, although at this moment in time you can be sure that Lloyds TSB are currently spending a lot of money to see if they are able to appeal and overturn the decision.
Your Money Claim View

Whilst this is certainly a significant ruling we are certain that Lloyds will look to fight back over the next few months and launch an appeal.

It was generally accepted back in 2009 that the Office of Fair Trading had approached the case in the wrong manner, and it appears the European Court of Justice may just have opened the door, even if only slightly, to millions of customers who’ve been trapped into being charged extortionate fees by sometimes going a matter of a few pennies overdrawn.
We cannot underestimate the impact bank charges has had on such a significant proportion of the population, with close to half of us receiving these charges at some point or another. The spiral of debt that such charges has put so many people into, and the stress it has caused, should cause the banks no end of shame, but we know what banks are like by now don’t we.
We’ll be keeping a close eye on event over the next few months, but if you want to discuss your situation, if you want any advice, or if you’d like to make a claim our experts are on hand so why not contact us via telephone, email or via our live chat facility.

[enaid]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

And I don't remember this
Reclaiming bank charges ........ was once an open door. You simply threatened to take a bank to court or to the Ombudsman, and it sent you a goodwill cheque for six years' worth of charges, plus interest.


We used to work fricking hard and almost always had to submit court claims and go literally to the steps before they'd settle.


Sorry ranting.

That's exactly right and I remember saying about the millions the courts had actually gained fer doing nowt.

[Guest]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Has there been any work on using similar argument to challenge the way that interest rates are varied ?

In particular on some sub-prime loans, it seems to me to be made to measure.

[Fred]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Has there been any work on using similar argument to challenge the way that interest rates are varied ?

In particular on some sub-prime loans, it seems to me to be made to measure.

Ditto !

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

YourMoneyClaim (CMC) have posted the case up

Just how did you find that? I can't find it by search terms.

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Just how did you find that? I can't find it by search terms.

I was Googling foster-Burnell Lloyds

[Amethyst]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Has there been any work on using similar argument to challenge the way that interest rates are varied ?

In particular on some sub-prime loans, it seems to me to be made to measure.

Interest rates are variable or fixed by nature but I'm pretty sure with at least credit cards if they put the rate up they give you notice and the option to stop use of the account repay the debt at the original interest rate under the original terms.

[Guest]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Interest rates are variable or fixed by nature but I'm pretty sure with at least credit cards if they put the rate up they give you notice and the option to stop use of the account repay the debt at the original interest rate under the original terms.

Yes credit cards are supposed to give you thirty days, the contention is as above that you can terminate if you do not like it, but as said in the judgment, really that option does not exist, as you would need to be in credit first. Also is it reasonable or fair to be able to vary interest rates without the change corresponding to some agreed term.

In secured lending it is usually fixed to LIBOR for instance, this would be fair I should imagine as everyone knows what it means and it would be intrinsic to the contract.(agreed) However what about some sub prime agreements which vary at a whim, or vary if he libor increases but not if it decreases.

I think that these terms could at least be challenged under the same criteria. I think that where any of these factors appears in a contract in that the interest rate is being varied by another term, the other term would be open to challenge under the UTCC .

[Fred]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Yes credit cards are supposed to give you thirty days, the contention is as above that you can terminate if you do not like it, but as said in the judgment, really that option does not exist, as you would need to be in credit first. Also is it reasonable or fair to be able to vary interest rates without the change corresponding to some agreed term.

In secured lending it is usually fixed to LIBOR for instance, this would be fair I should imagine as everyone knows what it means and it would be intrinsic to the contract.(agreed) However what about some sub prime agreements which vary at a whim, or vary if he libor increases but not if it decreases.

I think that these terms could at least be challenged under the same criteria. I think that where any of these factors appears in a contract in that the interest rate is being varied by another term, the other term would be open to challenge under the UTCC .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of workings on the go with this unregulated/secured/sub-prime/second charge......its taking time, there should at least be one more court case this year & there should be a boat load of regulatory answers coming.........................

its not bank charges (as above) but the similarity in terms is a big point of interest as it adds to the populous involved.

[mystery1]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Yes credit cards are supposed to give you thirty days, the contention is as above that you can terminate if you do not like it, but as said in the judgment, really that option does not exist, as you would need to be in credit first. Also is it reasonable or fair to be able to vary interest rates without the change corresponding to some agreed term.

In secured lending it is usually fixed to LIBOR for instance, this would be fair I should imagine as everyone knows what it means and it would be intrinsic to the contract.(agreed) However what about some sub prime agreements which vary at a whim, or vary if he libor increases but not if it decreases.

I think that these terms could at least be challenged under the same criteria. I think that where any of these factors appears in a contract in that the interest rate is being varied by another term, the other term would be open to challenge under the UTCC .

There are options for credit cards http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/rec...rate-increases

The options available may still fall foul, i don't know really but i do know you can keep the old rate and still keep paying over longer.

M1

[Nibbler]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

Apologies if already posted somewhere i haven't noticed, but seems You And Yours now have a direct link to the programme segment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026k4ms

[Guest]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

There are options for credit cards http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/rec...rate-increases

The options available may still fall foul, i don't know really but i do know you can keep the old rate and still keep paying over longer.

M1

Yes good stuff, I would imagine that these guidelines would be an aid to anyone who challenged an interest rate hike, I suppose it would be down to the construction of the individual contract, and the fact that the suspect term had been implemented as a vehicle to permit the increase.

[orfoster]

Re: LegalBeagle Wins Bank Charge Case - Lloyds Overdraft Terms deemed Unfair

With only a few days until the appeal deadline, I wonder a) how closely the bank are monitoring this and b) what their position will be.