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

[Amethyst]

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?

Until the appeals are known about no not really but if it remains penalty charge arguments are invalid then yes POCs will need to concentrate on UTCCR.

[Shazzaw]

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

Hmmmm, please note that what I'm about to post is only my personal opinion and that I have no where near as much knowledge of the legal aspects of this case as other members but just wanted to post my thoughts for discussion really!!

I currently have 3 claims in the court system worth over £6k which I have been praying will come to fruition thus my interest in whats going on.

Whereas this morning I was maybe 80% certain I'd be getting this back at some point in the future after todays judgment I'm maybe 60% hopeful.

My take is that my cases in the Courts will now not succeed as the penalty charges argument which everyone was winning on pre July 07 will now not succeed. The banks have won the argument (yes subject to appeals which I don't believe will succeed) that their charges can not be deemed as penalties.

I don't think that any of the cases currently held in the system will now succeed after todays judgement - and I re-iterate this is just my opinion as I'm not as learned as many on this site.

I think that it is now massively important that Justice Smith agrees that the OFT have jurisdiction to investigate historic charges under UTTCR - if the OFT are not granted this then my personal opinion is that it's all over and the days of reclaiming bank charges are gone - anyone hoping to get back their charges from the last 6 years have little chance.

What worries me most after today is why no decision has been made on whether the OFT have jurisdiction to assess historic charges under UTCCR - this is imperative if anyone has any chance of trying to claim back past charges incurred.

If - and I am hoping - Justice Smith agrees that the OFT can investigate historic charges under UTCCR then I'm hoping I may get back a portion of my charges. As i understand the OFT will then liaise with the banks to come up with a fair figure as they did with credit cards (hopefully £12 but for some reason I think this will be higher).

The OFT and banks will hopefully by mid next year come to an agreement on a fair level (lets say £17), any charges above this amount paid in the last 6 years will be refunded, the OFT wins - the bank wins - us claimants get something back, everyones a partial winner and a line is drawn under this.

Please I know there are many contentious issues in the above and I am no expert but just wanted to give my thoughts for feedback.

In short I'm now 60% hopeful that I'll get back maybe 2/5ths of my claims by next summer at the earliest.

What is essential is that agreement is reached that the OFT can investigate historic charges without this I think it's all over now.

Many, many thanks again to Ame, Exc and Budgie for what I can see as being the people out there delivering news to the many thousands of us I guess that this means so much to.

shazza

[Amethyst]

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

I don't think that any of the cases currently held in the system will now succeed after todays judgement

Most cases have both penalty charges and UTCCR arguments in them. also I do not think cases will be decided in court once this is finished, unless there are non standard issues involved. I think some kind of repayment/compensation scheme will be set up by the FSA/Banks.

Thats my personal thought anyway.

[shooter]

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

[quote=Amethyst;82577]Justice Smith is happy to issue a declaration to the effect that there are NO terms historically which can be deemed as penalty clauses for Barclays, Clydesdale, HSBC and HBOS.

Abbey and Lloyds TSB the decision is not yet final as the Judge is still waiting for representations. It is however expected to be the same declaration.

RBSG the Judge does not feel able to make a declaration but this is pending submissions.

Nationwide was already determined as not having historical penalty charges.

Back in April Justice Smith ruled that CURRENT terms also could not be deemed as Penalties under Common Law.




Hi all
I am wondering if and what the out come is likely to be in regards to LLoyds T&C as I understood (maybe wrongly) that there was a problem with the legalities ( maybe the wrong word) of the changes in their T&C's over the years.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=10478

Maybe someone more versed in this could explain or advise.

I honestly seem to have got things wrong as I thought that we would hear today that as lloyds didn't seem to have a leg to stand on in relation to T&C's before Nov 2007 that the judge would find that lloyds would have to repay all reclaimed charges before then.
I think that maybe I have been rather niave(?sp) in my veiw and hope that someone canput me straight with regard to this.

Many thanks

Shooter x

[EXC]

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

High Court backs UK banks overdraft case

By Megan Murphy, Law Courts Correspondent
Published: October 9 2008 01:47 | Last updated: October 9 2008 01:47


Amid the chaos that was sweeping across global markets on Wednesday, the UK’s largest retail banks won an elusive sliver of good news in their long-running legal battle over overdraft charges.
The High Court backed most lenders’ arguments that fees levied over the past several years when customers exceeded their agreed account limits or bounced a cheque could not be classified as unlawful “penalty” charges.
While only a relatively minor triumph in a case that still threatens to cost the banks billions, the decision was immediately welcomed by a battered and beleaguered industry.


“This is a positive decision for the banks,” said Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association.
“Now we have had this judgment we are keen to move on to the next stage as quickly as possible.”

This month, eight of the largest high street lenders – which include HSBC, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland – will appeal against a ruling which held that current forms of the charges are subject to unfair consumer contract regulations.
Tens of thousands of refund claims have been frozen in the county courts since the Office of Fair Trading and the banks agreed to bring a test case to clarify their legality.
Overdraft and so-called “unpaid item” fees have ranged as high as £35 a transaction,
generating billions in revenue for the banks.

The OFT has already reached a preliminary conclusion that the current level of charges was unfair and said last night that it would continue its dialogue with the banks.
Some observers have pointed to the watchdog’s decision to cap the fees levied on late credit card payments at £12 in 2006 as indicative of its view on the appropriate level of charges.

The banking industry claims that the charges are a legitimate payment for services rendered, such as notifying customers of debits that are unpaid and taking the credit risk of granting an unauthorised overdraft.

The High Court is likely to kick off the second stage of the proceedings, which will centre on an assessment of the fees’ fairness, even while the banks appeal against the first judgment.


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

[EXC]

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

The OFT have confirmed that the declaration - on whether the historical T&Cs can be assessed for fairness under UTCCR - is yet to be made. They do not know when the handing down will be but I would imagine it to be sooner rather than later.

The OFT hope to update the test case Q&As this afternoon.

[ROBSTER]

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

This from OFT site:

9 October 2008
Judgment for the second preliminary hearing of the test case has been handed down in the High Court. The Judge has indicated that he will make a declaration that Banks' historic and other non-mainstream account unarranged overdraft charges can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCRs.

AS EXPECTED!

[Shazzaw]

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

WAHHEEYYYYY!!!!

Blooming, excellent, excellent news if it's true.

Have spend the morning fretting that for some reason Justice Smith would not allow historics to be considered under UTCCR.

Now just have to pray the banks lose their appeal on the 28th, the OFT and the banks start talking and a figure is agreed as per credit cards that the OFT deems fair.

Am now much more positive that we'll all be getting at least a portion of our historic charges back and even possibly (if its anything like credit cards) if we push our banks hard enough and do not accept initial offers from them the full amount back.

Great news I think - lets hope this is all done and dusted with monies back in our accounts by the mid of next year at the latest.

s

[ROBSTER]

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

CONSUMERS 2 BANKS 1 At 1/2Time ?

[Shazzaw]

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

I agree - in football parlance I think the final result will end up a draw with both sides gaining something from the result.

The banks not having to refund all charges nor having to disclose their actual costs and the OFT ensuring that consumers are entitled to a refund of any amount over what the OFT decide is a fair figure.

I'd certainly be happy with that anyway as even though we all know it doesn't cost the banks, say £12 (hopefully being decided!) i'ts in my mind a much fairer figure than the £35 fees they have been charging.

The more I think about the loss of the penalty aspect it's not really that surprising. If the OFT had won this part of the argument then the local Courts would be absoutely swamped again with cases which I don't think they would be able to handle.

Justice Smith has ensured his 'organisation' if thats the right word have managed to get themselves out of all this but still ensuring claimants have hope by letting the OFT and banks sit down and come to a compromise.

just my thoughts

[EXC]

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

The OFT's updated Q&As 9 Oct

[EXC]

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

BINGO!!!

''We have updated our questions and answers in light of yesterday's ruling in which Mr Justice Andrew Smith indicated that he will make a declaration that the banks' historical and other non-mainstream account charging terms can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCRs.''

[borgbaiter]

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

hi

am i wrong in thinking that if the oft come up with a fair/reasonable figure less than the charges imposed that the full charge must be returned as its unlawful? not just the difference?



Borgbaiter

[Amethyst]

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

Thats what SHOULD happen Borg yes. I think in this case it will be negotiated with the OFT/FSA/Banks and probably the difference refunded. There of course may well be llegal challenges to that,

[borgbaiter]

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

me for one :-)