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

[righty]

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

Of course not. What I'm saying is if a temporary moratorium on charges was imposed and then withdrawn should the banks win the test case a lot of people would be faced with years worth of charges in one hit.

But would they? & that's not what you said Nick. Anyway lets not argue about semantics there are bigger fish to fry
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Also doesn't the fact that some banks ARE suspending charges not make a case for ALL banks to do the same.

Re Exe's argument what about those hardship customers with suspended charges should the banks win the case. Are you suggesting those customers will be hit with multiple charges.

[Amethyst]

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

Also doesn't the fact that some banks ARE suspending charges not make a case for ALL banks to do the same.

Re Exe's argument what about those hardship customers with suspended charges should the banks win the case. Are you suggesting those customers will be hit with multiple charges.

Banks are suspending charges for customers in financial hardship - which is something which SHOULD have been happening anyway. When people are struggling or have a big change in circumstances then the banks should already have been suspending charges, moving to basic ac's, advising on outside agencies for help, allowing repayment of overdrafts etc....all these things they have been forced (pretty much) into doing and it should continue regardless of the outcome of the test case. These are things mentioned in the PCA consultation and in our response.

[EXC]

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

But would they? & that's not what you said Nick. Anyway lets not argue about semantics there are bigger fish to fry
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Also doesn't the fact that some banks ARE suspending charges not make a case for ALL banks to do the same.

Re Exe's argument what about those hardship customers with suspended charges should the banks win the case. Are you suggesting those customers will be hit with multiple charges.

What I mean is if the charges had been suspended as a condition of the waiver - not just hardship cases - and the OFT subsequently lost the case, many people would then be hit with 2 or 3 years worth of charges in one go.

[Amethyst]

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

quite a concise description of the Judgment

63. Bank Charges
In the latest round of the long running case on bank charges, Abbey National PLC, Barclays Bank plc, Clydesdale Bank plc, HBOS PLC, HSBC Bank plc, Lloyds Bank plc, Nationwide Building Society and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC ("Banks") appealed against a decision of Mr Justice Andrew Smith which held that the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") was entitled to assess the fairness of certain bank charges. These charges were made when the banks were asked by current accountholders to make payments when the customer did not have the necessary funds and had not arranged an overdraft facility.
The issue which the Court of Appeal had to decide was whether an assessment of the fairness of these charges related to the "adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange" within the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ("UTCCR") reg 6(2)(b). If it did then the OFT would not be entitled to make an assessment of fairness.
All parties agreed that UTCCR were to be construed so as to give effect to the terms and purpose of Council Directive 93/13 ("Directive").
The court considered the House of Lords decision in Director General of Fair Trading -v- First National Bank Plc. It was clear from the reasoning of that decision that article 4(2) of the Directive was meant to exclude from assessment by national authorities such as the OFT the core bargain or core price but not ancillary or incidental provisions. Regulation 6(2)(b) should be construed in that way.

That view was supported by the "travaux preparatoires" (official records showing how the Directive was negotiated) and a number of academic writings.

The critical question was therefore whether each of the relevant charges was part of the essential bargain or, put another way, was a core provision. If not then an assessment of fairness of the relevant charges would not be excluded.

The court concluded that the relevant charges were not part of the essential bargain between bank and customer. Very few terms in a banking contract are subject to direct bargaining between an individual and a bank and it is not straightforward to identify the "price or remuneration" for the package of banking services offered where the charges are contingent.` In order to preserve the purpose of the Directive it was necessary to require a narrow definition of "price or remuneration". The charges were not "the price or remuneration" within the meaning of article 4(2) of the Directive or Regulation 6(2)(b) of UTCCR and so the OFT was entitled to assess their fairness.

Abbey national PLC & Others v The Office of Fair Trading, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2009

[Glenn UK]

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

Personally i can see merits on both arguments, for and against a moratorium.

However, it does seem perverse from a consumer perspective to not be able to challenge the implementation of charges for what could well be a considerable time frame.

Whilst the FSA waiver appears to be working in some cases, the feeling i get from reading this board is that in some cases its not being applied fairly by some banks.

The impact of a failure on the part of a bank on a given consumer could be catastrophic financially and it would be ironic that they could then sue the bank some time down the lone to redress this situation when a moratorium on charges would prevent this to an extent and also prevent future litigation.

I do not share the view that this would let customers run riot with their accounts.

The banks have it within their power should they chose to exercise it, to stop people going overdrawn without an arrangement.

Ultimately they do exercise this power, they just like to make a shed load of cash before they stop a consumer, essentially when they consider that the cow has or is about to run dry.

JMHO

Glenn

[righty]

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

Did you know they use these penalty charge debts to over inflate their assets/loan book something the banks seem particularly good at ref Paul Walton

[EXC]

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

House of Lords judgments ''are usually given six to eight weeks after a hearing. The judgment is published on the Parliament website in the afternoon that it is given.''

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/p.../judgments.cfm

[ROBSTER]

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

Did you know they use these penalty charge debts to over inflate their assets/loan book something the banks seem particularly good at ref Paul Walton

It's almost as if they treat it as their own money! Bet they lend it out as well !

Remind me how bank lending ratios work again didnt the multiplyer go up as high as 20:1 at one point...crikey that means that my £1000 in charges may have facillitated £20,000 of loans maybe to help service unautherised overdrafts (which of course I had too) at up to 30% interest..that can't be right that means that the bank may have earned £6000 through taking £1000 in charges in 1 year (what was that? unjust enrichment?... never!).

[Shazzaw]

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

Thks for the advices on when Judgment will be handed down EXC.

Is there any way of knowing when the hearing will be held ?? i.e; as per the HMCS website where it gives the following days cases they day before they are heard

shazzaw

[EXC]

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

Here http://www.parliament.uk/judicial_wo...cial_work4.cfm

I'm pretty sure any date would be announced to the press via the Judicial Communications Office too.

[Bankstormer]

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

Let's see if they hear it first. Lets not forget that there is still a chance that the HoL will refuse the banks application.

[TANZARELLI]

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

We can but hope

[Brian]

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

I've read this whole thread with interest as there are a lot of differing viewpoints on the way the Banks are behaving, and likewise for our Guardians (OFT FSA etc)

I mentioned some month's ago that "cars will burn in the street" if this matter goes against the public (consumers), and looking at what happened this week up town to the RBS office bought it home that this could be the tip of the iceberg with civil unrest breaking out if this fiasco ends in the Banks favour. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but now that UK PLC effectively owns the major banks, it makes you wonder how the powers that be see this whole thing or rather how they want to see it ended...?

I won't have any problem with putting a shopping trolley through the window(s) of the Banks that owe me money, so I'm wondering how many others will follow that line.

"There is no right or wrong, only opinion"

x

[natweststaffmember]

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

That is well funny. I iz wiv u and me mates if you wanna put a trolly fru a window. I fink we should ban The Guardian, cos they iz well green.
Down wiv the monarchy coz we ain't been unhappy wiv them for a well long time.

[righty]

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

Nattie from your comments you may think that only the uneducated think that way but you'd be wrong. Many middle class who feel they have been conned by both the banks & the government feel much the same way. Also it's when the protests start emanating from such people that government should take note