Test Case Sealed Order 28th October 2008

[Budgie]

Interesting

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/per...rder241008.pdf

[jax007]

Re: Test Case sealed Order - 24th October 2008

So does that mean the charges cannot be assessed for fairness as well as them not being penalties??

[EXC]

Re: Test Case sealed Order - 24th October 2008

No it means the historicals can be assessed for fairness. What it's saying is the terms don't apply to the exeptions in UTCCR.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Test Case sealed Order - 24th October 2008

No it means the historicals can be assessed for fairness. What it's saying is the terms don't apply to the exeptions in UTCCR.

And we will no doubt be seeing another appeal relating to this in the early part of 2009 I would think.

[killersla]

Re: Test Case Sealed Order 28th October 2008

could someone please tell me in simple terms please!!!

what does this mean for us people who have got claims stayed with the court now?

[grimbell]

Re: Test Case Sealed Order 28th October 2008

Me too

Can we have that in PIL pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee

[jax007]

Re: Test Case sealed Order - 24th October 2008

No it means the historicals can be assessed for fairness. What it's saying is the terms don't apply to the exeptions in UTCCR.

Que?? What exceptions? Oh Gawd I fear I am being awful fick 'ere!

[killersla]

Re: Test Case Sealed Order 28th October 2008

so if the terms dont apply to the exeptions in the UTCCR does that mean that bank charges cannot be assesed under the UTCCR terms? which means were all screwed

[Amethyst]

Re: Test Case Sealed Order 28th October 2008

I can;t get the pdf to open - from the link or direct from the OFT site x

[Budgie]

Re: Test Case Sealed Order 28th October 2008

OK.

As far as it is possible to condense thousands of pages of legal arguments into a few simple sentences !!! LOL, But I will have a go.

UTCCR1999 Section 6 (2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate -
(a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or

(b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange.


Basically, the whole test case has been about these two sentences in the UTCCR 1999.

The Banks say that paragraphs (a) and (b) ( the exceptions ) are relevant to the terms in their contracts that describe their charging systems. The Banks believe that those specific terms are part of the main subject matter of the contract and that therefore makes those terms exempt from a test of fairness by the OFT.

The OFT argued the opposite, they claimed that the terms in the Banks contracts are not core terms, so they are not part of the main subject matter of the contract and are therefore not exempt from a test of fairness.

Judge Smith agreed with the OFT.

The sealed order ( first post in this thread ) is basically just written confirmation of Judge Smith's various decisions ( but written in a legalistic way ) the order also confirms that the Banks were given permission to appeal the Judges decision.

That appeal hearing has now taken place and the transcript of that hearing has just been posted up on the legal beagles site today. It's about 900 odd pages and makes very interesting reading.

I encourage you to at least read the part of the transcript covering Mr Crows ( the OFT Lawyers) presentation. This will give you a very good understanding of what is now happening.

Basically, we now await the outcome of the appeal hearing to see if Judge Smiths original decision is upheld.

Budgie