OFT Test Case on Bank Charges ......from House of Lords to Supreme Court

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

as my claim has already been on hold since July 2007, how exactly do I go about asking for payback do I merly send a copy of the claim, will interest be payable ?

If you already have a claim in you don't have to do anything at the moment Agnes. We just have to wait for the test case litigation to finish and all will become clear. The FSA waiver does say that any eventual refunds have to include ''an element of compensatory interest'' but we don't know yet at what rate - hopefully it'll be 8% which is what a court would award.

[BJ's Dad]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Exc, will the '8%' be calculated upto the date when legislation becomes enforced or will it be stuck at the date when we first tried to claim from our banks...it's just that my claim as many 1000's of others was started nearly 2 years ago and in that time the bank has still been claiming interest on the o'draft

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

The 8% will be calculated up to the point your claim is settled. When you calculated your 8% you will have caluclated a daily rate also (the x 0.0022 calculation?) and the amount owing will increase by that each day you wait.

You'll also add in any charges incurred, or interest charged to you upon those charges, since you submitted your claim and add 8% pa to eahc and every one of those too.

[righty]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

If you already have a claim in you don't have to do anything at the moment Agnes. We just have to wait for the test case litigation to finish and all will become clear. The FSA waiver does say that any eventual refunds have to include ''an element of compensatory interest'' but we don't know yet at what rate - hopefully it'll be 8% which is what a court would award.

why 8% why not the contractual rate?

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Rightyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ((((((((hug)))))))))))) hope you are feeling better Nice to see you.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

"One way to determine the fairness of the bank charges in the OFT’s test case is for litigation to continue until it reaches a conclusion. However, this may take some years. Subject to the outcome of the stage one proceedings, the Government therefore calls on the regulators
and the banks to explore whether there is a quicker way of resolving these cases that is preferable for customers to pursuing further litigation, and provides the certainty that regulators and banks need. The Government will also work with interested parties with a view to moving the market to a more efficient, equitable, and transparent system as quickly as possible."

Is this something like what was written by Gordon Brown to Martin Lewis?
I don't want to tell anyone that it is written on page 116 here:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/refo...kets080709.pdf

[Amethyst]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Yes and it was discussed at length back when it was first published, and i think is what instilled Martin to write to David, Gordon and Nick in the first place.

the current discussion I think is about the 'terms of settlement' Martin is proposing, which is just an outline at the moment, pending wider discussion to come up with a plan.

[WendyB]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

How can there be any terms of settlement until the court case is over? And what if the Supreme Court says "this is unfair. Pay back everything less 5 quid a charge. Or else". In order to negotiate you have to be involved. Is the court likely to say "Oi Banks, your terms are unfair. Negfotiate with Beagles CAG and MSE to reach an agreement"?
Until we know the outcome its all academic. And might still be afterwards.

[Tools]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Wendy, stage one of proceedings is only to decide if the terms can be assessed for fairness, not wether they are or not and certainly not what a fair charge level is. This would have to be determined in the second stage of litigation which has been termed as "substantiative issues". The

explore whether there is a quicker way of resolving these cases that is preferable for customers to pursuing further litigation, and provides the certainty that regulators and banks need

that is being debated would only come into play if, and hopefully when, the Supreme Court find in favour of the OFT.

[WendyB]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Yes I knew that Tools. I'm not so thick as I make myself look lol.What I was trying to say is, who will be doing the debating? Who will make the final decision? What stuff will the final decision makers take into account? Presumably the PCA report that Beagles contributed to etc?

I think there's a lot of people out there who will be getting the forthcoming decision from court mixed up with the level of charges that will be decided on eventually, and getting to think that it will all be over in the blink of an eye. It's difficult to take on board the fact that it's not over when the Court case is over, and that there's ongoing issues. People have been banking (scuse the pun) on it all going against the banks and are no doubt thinking that at the end of the court case they will get all charges back pronto. When that isn't really the case. Just needs separating in peoples minds, and I don't think other sites are making enough effort to point that out, from what I can gather.

Unless God has been replaced by Martin Lewis and what he says goes...............in which case we are all probably doomed pmsl.

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

In order to negotiate you have to be involved. Is the court likely to say "Oi Banks, your terms are unfair. Negfotiate with Beagles CAG and MSE to reach an agreement"?

No it's not very likely is it? And you're right in that any terms of settlement can only be thrashed out on the basis of some kind of ruling from the stage 2 litigation, unless of course the banks throw in the towel.

According to Tom the format of the stage 2 litigation would be as follows:

1) The OFT declare the terms unfair.

2) The OFT apply to the courts for a hearing to plead their case for the court to issue an injunction to prevent the continued use of the terms, based on their belief that the terms breach the regulations.

3) The banks also attend the hearing to challenge the injunction application. At this point the OFT technically cease to be a party to the case and the injunction application becomes an issue between the court and the banks.

4) The judge or judges then rule whether to grant the OFT's application or not.

[Budgie]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Sorry!

Just sort of repeating a post I made much earlier in this thread.

Basically my point here is that it doesnt really matter what the Politicians want or what the OFT or the banks or Marc Gander or Martin Lewis or anyone, including me, wants in relation to a quick fix.
The European Court of Justice has stated that there is a duty and obligation for the National Courts to asses terms for fairness in Consumer contracts.
Therefore, whatever anyone might think or say to the contrary, the current test case and all stages of it, will have to proceed on to a final conclusion. Otherwise the UK will be in breach of European law !!

Unless anyone has a differing interpretation ??

Budgie



OUT-LAW News, 04/06/2009

Courts in the EU must examine and rule on terms in consumer contracts that may be unfair even if no consumer has complained about them, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said. The duty will exist when a company seeks to enforce a consumer contract.

The European Union's Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts governs contracts because consumers have no bargaining power when presented with pre-written contracts to sign. It says that any term that is unfair will not be binding.
A Hungarian woman was taken to court by her mobile phone provider Pannon. It enforced a term of its contract with her which said that the court in Budaörsi had jurisdiction over the contract. The woman, Sustikné Győrfi, lived 275 kilometres away from Budaörsi. She receives invalidity benefit and there is no direct public transport between where she lives and Budaörsi.
The Budaörsi court said that the normal place of jurisdiction would be the court where Győrfi lives, and asked the ECJ whether it had the right or an obligation to examine the contract term governing jurisdiction for unfairness, even if the consumer in question had not raised an objection to its fairness.
The ECJ, the European Union's highest court, said that the court had not only the right to make its own analysis of the contract's fairness, but an obligation to do so. Only if courts do that, it said, are consumers protected in the way the EU legislation envisages.
"The system of protection introduced by the Directive is based on the idea that the consumer is in a weak position vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both his bargaining power and his level of knowledge," said the ECJ ruling. "This leads to the consumer agreeing to terms drawn up in advance by the seller or supplier without being able to influence the content of those terms."
Referring to an earlier ECJ ruling involving Salvat Editores, the ruling said that "the aim of Article 6 of the Directive would not be achieved if the consumer were himself obliged to raise the unfairness of contractual terms, and that effective protection of the consumer may be attained only if the national court acknowledges that it has power to evaluate terms of this kind of its own motion".
"Article 6(1) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand," it said.
The ruling said that previous ECJ decisions indicated that courts had not only a right but a duty to assess terms on behalf of consumers.
"The nature and importance of the public interest underlying the protection which the Directive confers on consumers justify the national court being required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term is unfair, compensating in this way for the imbalance which exists between the consumer and the seller or supplier," it said.
"The court seised [i.e. having ownership] of the action is therefore required to ensure the effectiveness of the protection intended to be given by the provisions of the Directive. Consequently, the role thus attributed to the national court by Community law in this area is not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion," it said.
The ECJ was also asked what factors should be taken into account to determine fairness. It said that distance, which was the primary concern in Győrfi's case, could itself deny people access to justice.
Referring again to the Salvat Editores case, the ruling said that: "a term [deciding jurisdiction] obliges the consumer to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a court which may be a long way from his domicile. This may make it difficult for him to enter an appearance. In the case of disputes concerning limited amounts of money, the costs relating to the consumer’s entering an appearance could be a deterrent and cause him to forgo any legal remedy or defence".
"The Court therefore concluded that such a term falls within the category of terms which have the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action," it said.
The ECJ did say, though, that it could not rule generally on whether a term was unfair, that national courts had to make decisions based on the facts of the case in hand.


Here is a link to the relevant European judgment http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bi...umaff=C-243/08

[WendyB]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

No it's not very likely is it? And you're right in that any terms of settlement can only be thrashed out on the basis of some kind of ruling from the stage 2 litigation, unless of course the banks throw in the towel.

According to Tom the format of the stage 2 litigation would be as follows:

1) The OFT declare the terms unfair.

2) The OFT apply to the courts for a hearing to plead their case for the court to issue an injunction to prevent the continued use of the terms, based on their belief that the terms breach the regulations.

3) The banks also attend the hearing to challenge the injunction application. At this point the OFT technically cease to be a party to the case and the injunction application becomes an issue between the court and the banks.

4) The judge or judges then rule whether to grant the OFT's application or not.

Thanks Exc, thats exactly what I thought (the bit about it not being very likely,not the stuff about stage 2,) my point was that as people probably won't be consulted then it's all a bit pointless Martin spouting off like he's St Martin of th Downtrodden isn't it?

And as Budgie says, it doesn't really mater becuase it will all have to come to a conclsion under European thingy.

So it's good that we speculate on what we would like to see hapen, but must remember to keep feet firmly on ground in that what you want and what ou get are usually two completley different things.

[EXC]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

my point was that as people probably won't be consulted then it's all a bit pointless Martin spouting off like he's St Martin of th Downtrodden isn't it?

The problem is that although the likes of Martin and Marc Gander were instrumental in getting the entire bank charges issue off the ground, into the public consciousness and as a result, into the courts, they have no real status (as indeed do we).

To the people who's real job it is to decide on these matters - the OFT, FSA & senior judges - the above are (however well intentioned) little more than blokes with websites.

It is plainly ludicrous to imagine that the OFT and the banks would a) Both be willing to abandon the legal aspects of the issue after investing 2 years and countless millions and b) allow a journalist and someone whose credentials remain a mystery to represent 60 million odd people without even the most flimsy of mandates in 'negotiations' with a multi trillion pound industry.

It simply couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't happen.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: TODAY at the House of Lords - OFT v Banks latest news

Just to explore the issue of negotiation,if they would negotiate it would be with "designated" consumer groups and with respect, LB, CAG, MSE, PAG, PC, CCS et al are not.