• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaims

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

    Can anyone confirm who the author was of the ‘Note on Good Faith and Themes of Unfairness’ and when roughly it was drafted? Cheers.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

      Anthony Scrivener QC, wrote that note as well after the OFT test case judgement so we are looking at late 2009/early 2010.

      EDIT: I think Hausfelds LLP also helped on that issue as well.
      "Family means that no one gets forgotten or left behind"
      (quote from David Ogden Stiers)

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

        Do you know if the 'Good Faith' bit is complete? Only a barrister I have recently spoken to seems to think it may be incomplete. Cheers
        Last edited by whizzkid001; 20th March 2012, 17:43:PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

          Originally posted by whizzkid001 View Post
          Do you know if the 'Good Faith' bit is complete? Only a barrister I have recently spoken to seems to think it may be incomplete. Cheers
          The note on good faith & themes of unfairness were actually written by Tom Brennan on behalf of Hausfelds LLP to accompany Anthony Scrivener's Opinion.

          I'm not quite sure why it may be 'incomplete'.

          A good example of the requirement of good faith argument being successfully applied is OFT v Ashbourne Management Services - read from paragraph 121 http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

            The essence of the requirement of good faith (s5.1 of UTCCR) was neatly summed up by Lord Bingham in the House of Lords judgment in the First National Bank case and it's easy to see it's potential application to a modern day bank charges challenge:

            “A term falling within the scope of the Regulations is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer in a manner or to an extent which is contrary to the requirement of good faith.

            The requirement of significant imbalance is met if a term is so weighted in favour of the supplier as to tilt the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract significantly in his favour. This may be by the granting to the supplier of a beneficial option or discretion or power, or by the imposing on the consumer of a disadvantageous burden or risk or duty.

            The illustrative terms set out in Schedule 3 to the Regulations provide very good examples of terms which may be regarded as unfair; whether a given term is or is not to be so regarded depends on whether it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract.

            This involves looking at the contract as a whole. But the imbalance must be to the detriment of the consumer; a significant imbalance to the detriment of the supplier, assumed to be the stronger party, is not a mischief which the Regulations seek to address.

            The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.

            Fair dealing requires that a supplier should not, whether deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the consumer’s necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position or any other factor listed in or analogous to those listed in Schedule 2 to the Regulation. Good faith in this context is not an artificial or technical concept; nor, since Lord Mansfield was its champion, is it a concept wholly unfamiliar to British lawyers. It looks to good standards of commercial morality and practice. Regulation 4(1) lays down a composite test, covering both the making and the substance of the contract, and must be applied bearing clearly in mind the objective which the Regulations are designed to promote

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Important - full Legal Opinion and update on LB's position on bank charge reclaim

              Thank you for trying, dear L. Beagles. Over the last couple of years I have learned that the bedrock of capitalism is debt, not only our own personal debt, but the debt of nations. At least I now know a the score. What to do to change it is another matter. I wish Legal Beagles member could form a political party. Why not? Who else can we vote for once we become aware of the economic scam?

              Comment

              View our Terms and Conditions

              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
              Working...
              X