Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

[Tools]

Re: <i><b><span style="">Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National

PS whats happened to the thread title?

Someone had been tinkering lol, its fixed.

[Exclusive]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Hi, I'm not an expert, just a struggling mum trying to reclaim charges.
Aren't the banks thinking that they will lose?

I say this because Haliax recently offered me the new Reward Account which charges just £1 and £2 for exceeding overdraft limits, returned direct debits etc.

It just seemed to me that they know that their charges would be found to be unreasonable were going to have to change them, and they've already done just that.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Hi, I'm not an expert, just a struggling mum trying to reclaim charges.
Aren't the banks thinking that they will lose?

I say this because Haliax recently offered me the new Reward Account which charges just £1 and £2 for exceeding overdraft limits, returned direct debits etc.

It just seemed to me that they know that their charges would be found to be unreasonable were going to have to change them, and they've already done just that.

I would want to see the Terms & Conditions of this account before commenting, but we have seen Barclays and LTSB try to pretend they have reduced charges , but on further investigation it shows your not much better off.

[Glenn UK]

I don't think they can or will do the same as credit cards...they could have done that in April 06. Once the bank charges are sorted they hopefully will go back for a declaration of historical c/c charges.

The OFT could only have gone the CC route if the banks had been compliant, which they weren't.

Glenn

[borgbaiter]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

hi

thats £1 per day for using the overdraft and £2 for using arranged overdraft over £2,500 then £5 per day for any unarranged overdraft above this. sounds similar to lloyds and alliance & liecesters new terms last year.


Borgbaiter

[Glenn UK]

It will be intersting to see what figure is finally agreed on. I would imagine that the banks would argue whatever it is suggested and there will be a lot of further discussions before it may be taken to a judge to decide on the final amounts.

That is the my entire point, if the banks loose the final appeal (assuming they do submit one) the actual assessment of the charges will take place.

The banks may force the OFT to take them to court if they see a benefit to them (the banks that is).

However, if the OFT says OK chaps we believe that a fair charges is, lets say for the sake of argument £25.00 for going overdrawn.

Do you think the banks would accept that or argue in court about their charges?

I really dint think that the OFT would set a value so high given their previous threshold for CC charges and the question will be if they can get an agreement with the banks over the level of charge they feel is reasonable.

it would of course be caveatted with the usual...' only a court can decide ....etc, etc....'

(incidentally it doesn't really matter how the OFT arrived at the figure for the CC companies but it was acceptable to the CC companies and therefore prevented the need for a test case in respect of cc charges).

The litigation agreement is such that there must be a stage 2 litigation

Do you have a link to the agreement -please?

Glenn

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

The litigation agreement hasn't been disclosed but it's common knowledge it comprises of 1) The preliminary issues - whether the OFT can assess for fairness. 2) The substantive issues - if the charges are unfair. The BBA have repeatedly said that ''only a court can decide on the issue of fairness.''

The whole point to a test case is to remove any legal uncertainty and that could not be achieved out of court.

As Stone pointed out we now know the cc threshold was only a temporary measure and as Ame said it would be returned to once the principles of UTCCR have been established in the test case.

[ROBSTER]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Found this across the road @ CAG

Hi Guys,

Does anybody know what on earth is going on with Royal Bank of Scotland's/NatWest's penalty ruling against them. This was massive news and if they aren't going to appeal then surely stays can be lifted as far as charges applied between 2001-2003, surely this can now be dealt with by the Court in light of an absence of the bank appealing. For business claimants of RBS/NatWest this is extrmely important. I have scoured the net and other sources and can find nothing, does anybody know what is going on?

TheyrCriminals

what do you think guys

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

If you read the announcement on CAG that boldly stated ''Natwest historical charges are penaties - official !!!' you may have been led to believe this was the case. It isn't. Justice Smith merely ruled that they are capable of being penal and not that they are.

I'd say the poster has been mislead.

[Amethyst]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

wonder why on the RBS site it says

. On 21 January 2009, the Court issued its judgment following those further submissions. The Court found that all RBS terms considered were incapable of being a penalty.

am sure it mentioned the 2001 ones before.

Ahh it does on the Natwest site (darn banks having too many names( NatWest Overdraft charges update.

On 21 January 2009, the Court issued its judgment following those further submissions. The Court found that most NatWest terms were incapable of being a penalty. It found that a single historic term prohibited customers from using a card to go overdrawn. This does not mean that term is a penalty. The OFT and NatWest are together considering how best to address the remaining issues in relation to the NatWest historic term.

In the Jan judgment it states

20. I therefore remain unpersuaded that the Relevant Term in the NatWest 2001 conditions is not capable of being penal.

and

iii) I shall grant RBSG declaratory relief in respect of the NatWest 2004 conditions, the RBS 2005 conditions and the NatWest July 2003 leaflet, but not in respect of the NatWest 2001 conditions.

In the Feb 26th Appeal judgment they state

Finally, the judge declared that none of the terms with which he was concerned was a penalty clause at common law. There is no appeal against that part of the order.

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

so does feb 26th ignore the jan 21st judgment on historics ?

[Glenn UK]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

The litigation agreement hasn't been disclosed but it's common knowledge it comprises of 1) The preliminary issues - whether the OFT can assess for fairness. 2) The substantive issues - if the charges are unfair. The BBA have repeatedly said that ''only a court can decide on the issue of fairness.''

The whole point to a test case is to remove any legal uncertainty and that could not be achieved out of court.

As Stone pointed out we now know the cc threshold was only a temporary measure and as Ame said it would be returned to once the principles of UTCCR have been established in the test case.

So we both agree on what the issues are.

1 has been settled and 2 is yet to be settled.

What we are disagreeing about is the method of how the issues will settled finally.

I cannot see any logical reason why if the banks propose a settlement to the OFT which both parties found acceptable, why there would be any need to continue to work through the courts?

There is no mileage for either party to enter court to argue over something if they can both agree. This principle is widely accepted and i have seem people from this forum argue exactly the same when someone tries to press a point when they have already been offered a reasonable remedy.

My only observation is that i believe that the banks will settle as they are likely to get a better deal through the oft than through the courts.

Whether the CC threshold is revisited or not is largely to do with how big the problem is and whether it needs further action on the part of the OFT.

Temporary or not, holding measures have a funny way of ending up permanent if they produce a lasting solution.

If the CC threshold is working why would the OFT need to re-visit it?

With regards to the BBA, I'm surprised you would put any store by what the BBA say.

Once the banks decide they can save more money by complying than by fighting through the courts, then court action will stop.

As for the ltitgation agreement, i thought you had some insight into the issues which i wasnt party to.

Glenn

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

.

I cannot see any logical reason why if the banks propose a settlement to the OFT which both parties found acceptable, why there would be any need to continue to work through the courts?

This is just nonsense. There is no logic in the parties agreeing to settle their dispute in court, by way of a test case, spending 2 years in court and then deciding they could settle the matter out of court.

The county courts have issued stays on the basis of the test case providing legal clarity on the lawfulness of the charges under UTCCR and not on the basis of the OFT reaching some cosy settlement figure with the banks.

I was wrong, the Litigation Agreement is a public document - attached.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Although the HoLs Judicial Office has not yet received an appeal application by the banks they do expect to get one by the closing date of 26th - Thursday.

Although the HoLs have 2 months in which to respond ''if all the paperwork is in order we would expect to turn it over quite quickly''.

If, at that point, the HoLs decide to hear the appeal they expect the hearing would be held ''within a few months''.

[showergirl]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

If the banks lose their appeal to the HOL. How soon can we expect the case to move on.
Does anyone know if the OFT have completed their findings and are they ready to go back to court.

This has been a long process but as soon as we can see some light the banks seem to be putting the shutters up again. But I am sure we will win in the end.

I would like to thank all the hard work that has been done by the people on this site

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Thanks.

The OFT will give their view on fairness ''later this year''.

I'm trying to get some definitive answers on what the litigation process involves from that point on at the moment.