OFT Test Case Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Basically the running theme seems to be The terms that say you are not allowed to go overdrawn are terms which define the limit of the customers right to have his intructions honoured by the bank.


RBS is basically their T&Cs in 2003 booklet tie up contractual effect of booklet with terms. So it is fully expected RBS will be declared as not being capable of amounting to penalty charges too - the exception is simply logistical at this stage.

[righty]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

The judgment defies logic.

If it walks like an elephant, has a trunk like an elephant & looks like an elephant then it is an elephant ................ Where's Lord Denning when you need him

[Birdie]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Hi All

Please excuse my ignorance and poor understanding. Does this mean that we will not be able to claim back any bank charges?

Thanks

Birdie

[ROBSTER]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Dont panic, if the modern T&Cs are subject to UTCCR test, then it will hardly be suprising if the historic T&Cs will be too..although expect banks to appeal this .....back into hibernation till january appeal results I guess.

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

No it doesn't - the terms can still be looked at under the UTCCR. This is simply the Penalty charge argument out the window a bit.

[borgbaiter]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

hi


nope claims are still on, just under the UTCCR not common law of penalties



Borgbaiter

[theGobbyOne]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

The judgment defies logic.

If it walks like an elephant, has a trunk like an elephant & looks like an elephant then it is an elephant ................ Where's Lord Denning when you need him

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes.....good old Lord denning would have given us all our money bank and spanked the banks too....

Now back in my real world.......It stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pinknico]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Does this in anyway affect claims against store cards and credit cards and wanting to reclaim the whole amount not just the difference between £12?
Is the arguement still the same?

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

8 October 2008
High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Commercial Court judgment
The Office of Fair Trading –v– Abbey National PLC and others



The Office of Fair Trading –v– Abbey National PLC and others 8th Oct - Legal Beagles

[Budgie]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Hi Folks,

Have just got home.

I see that the judgment has just been posted so enjoy the read !

I already had a full read through on the way home and IMO there are currently several loopholes in the judgment that may mean that a court claim based on penalty issues might still succede.

I do not wish to go into any detail at the moment as current judgment is only at draft stage so we don't want to give the Banks any clues as to what these loopholes might be do we !!!!!!!!!!!!

If anyone else spots them on their read through please do not post anything about them on any public forums.

After the judgment was handed down there was a further 15 minutes discussion regarding the various outstanding submissions required by the Judge from the OFT and some of the Banks in relation to matters outstanding in this judgment. Also discussed was the actual form of the order to accompany the finished judgment. The Judge wants to include a list of the individual terms that he has considered so as to provide detailed guidance to the County Courts. The Judge is also mindful that of overall timescales and that the OFT may wish to appeal his decisions in this judgment.

Note : IMO todays judgment has NO read across whatsoever to credit cards or possibly even to Business bank accounts. At the moment all that has been decided are that the range of terms presented to the Judge and the way in which these terms have been presented to the Judge by the OFT and the Banks have all been considered by the Judge and found not to be capable of being penal. As far as this issue is concerned ( wrt the penal aspects ) we are currently down ............. BUT NOT YET TOTALLY COUNTED OUT.

The UTCCR aspects ( in relation to historical terms ) were not mentioned and we believe that this is because the Judge is not yet ready to hand down this part of his judgment.

Budgie


Exc - might be a little late in giving his report as he is sulking :tinysmile_twink_t2:
This is because Megan Murphy ( Court Reporter for the Times ) came up and said hello to me and not to him LOL
He would probably not be speaking to me at all if he knew what happened in the corridor outside the Court room when she and I were both phoning through the first news of the judgment to our respective contacts.

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

ahhh thats what the slurping noise was

(Bud sucking up to Ms Murphy TSK !)

[Budgie]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Does this in anyway affect claims against store cards and credit cards and wanting to reclaim the whole amount not just the difference between £12?
Is the arguement still the same?

Nope, today's judgment does not affect credit card claims at all.

[EXC]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

An excellent summary Budgie.

I'll try the OFT tomorrow and see if we can shed some more light on what happened to the UTCCR aspect of the judgment.

As Budgie said there was a lot of discussion about the wording and format of the declarations as this would have to be interpreted in the County Courts.

There was also no mention of how the OFTs consultation with the banks on the fairness issue was progressing.

For the record, I was gutted when Megan Murphy walked straight past me to shake Budgie's hand and say hi. It would appear that even in the Royal Courts of Justice, there is in fact, no justice.

[scoobydoo]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

Does that mean in theory that if you were lodging a claim at court now the claimant would have to have a different POC?

[Amethyst]

Re: Judgment is IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8th October 2008

OFT test case judgment - Angela Knight said:


08/10/2008

"This is a positive decision for the banks. The Judge had already decided that current terms and conditions could not be penalties so went on look at terms and conditions banks had in the past. Today he found most are not penalties and has asked for more information on the others. The question of penalties was one of the claims made by the Office of Fair Trading which triggered the initial court case. Now we have had this judgement we are keen to move on to the next stage as quickly as possible."


Judgment on next stage of OFT test case


08/10/2008

Seven banks (the "Banks") and one building society are engaged in a High Court test case with the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") to decide the legality of unarranged overdraft charges. The first stage of the test case process was heard by the Court between 16 January and 8 February 2008 and dealt with certain preliminary issues of legal principle in relation to the terms and conditions used by the Banks at that time. On 24 April 2008 the Court issued its judgment on this first stage of the test case process. It decided that the current charges cannot be penalties, but that they can be assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 ("UTCCR"s).

A further Court hearing took place on 7, 8 and 9 July 2008 when the Court was asked to consider whether terms and conditions previously used by the Banks are capable of being penalties. The Court was also asked to make a ruling on whether terms and conditions previously used by the Banks are assessable for fairness. Terms and conditions previously used by Nationwide Building Society were not considered during this further Court hearing, as these terms and conditions were materially identical to those considered in the 24 April 2008 judgment.
On 8 October 2008 the Court issued its judgment on this second stage of the test case process. The Court's decision means that most (and, in the case of some Banks, all) of the Banks' charges levied under previously used terms and conditions are incapable of being penalties but there will be further submissions in due course on some aspects.
The Court has not yet made its order whether the Banks' previously used terms and conditions are assessable for fairness under the UTCCRs. This will be dealt with shortly.
Further Court hearings will be required before the test case process is concluded, including an appeal of the first stage judgment by the Banks and the building society on the question of whether the current charges can be assessed for fairness, which starts on 28 October 2008.
As previously agreed with the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service, customer complaints relating to unarranged overdraft charges will currently remain on hold. The Banks and the building society will continue to ask County and Sheriff Courts to keep cases relating to unarranged overdraft charges on hold until the test case process is concluded.
Please refer to the BBA and individual Banks' websites for further information.