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

[WendyB]

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

Yes I already know that Nattie, thanks.

The point I was making is that there is no such thing as free banking, contrary to what whatshisface and others are trying to convince the Lords.

[Amethyst]

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

I don't have a bank account so that's free.

[Amethyst]

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

just read the bbc report....

''He also said it was "assuming a great deal" to suggest that banks might have to automatically make huge refunds to their customers if they lost the current appeal.
"Banks will not necessarily have to reimburse everything", he said. ''


Excuse me, unless you change the law they will.

I suppose he could be referring to limitations act which would tho ride over his 1995 argument.

okay update from court being typed now xx

[Budgie]

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

This may be the bit ( from the test case transcripts ) that Lord Phillips was asking Crow about this morning.

MR DOCTOR:
Yes, actually if you looked at it, it was really a claim for damages for the breach. It wasn't a claim for the rental of an extra date of the video when seven days was £1 each and the eighth day was £50. So in Jervis's case of course because it was the costs that he could recover that didn't arise, but if it had been an entitlement to recover five times the costs, the question of whether it was a disguised penalty might well have reared its head, and we would say in this case, even if these services are ultimately characterised as services, these acts of considering and what not, it may be open to a court which is considering this to consider that they are actually disguised penalties because they are not really for services rendered in any real sense, or the amount of them is out of all proportion to the breach which the court will have found otherwise to exist.

[Amethyst]

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

Thursday Afternoon ( thats it now)

crow did his summing up and explained the OFTs biggest objection to the charges was the interplay between the level of the charge and the abesence of consent.

the PCa report shows most consumers are genuinely unaware how much defaulting will cost etc. he referred to both PCA and Cruikshank reports to make his points.

Crow stated the OFT concerns over the charges will remain even if the Lords find against them.


Sumption argued that conpetition legislation would be more appropriate than consumer regulations.


VOS al;so spoke and replied that in the nationwide contract which stated shareholders who ran up unauthorised overdrafts would be ejected, yes it was there but in practise it doesnt happen.


Lord Phillips acknowledged the Vast number of stayed cases and the lords seem to realise the urgency of getting decision out asap.



What happens Next ?

The ecj is a definate possibility and was discussed briefly by Crow and Phillips - OFT were saying they would, if it goes to ECJ, take submission 2 in and not submission 1, not a lot of use as we dont know what either submission was.

Crow stated there were basically 4 stages (sorry think i only got three)

OFT complete their investigation which was in progress
If oft find them unfair they will seek voluntary compliance form the banks
If the banks won't comply voluntarily they will apply for an injunction

further litigation wasnt mentioned

EXC will add more later on and clarify anything I have missed.

[borgbaiter]

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

so basically the OFT are going to ignore the HOL result if it goes against them :-S. why did they bother springs to mind.

sounds a bit contemptuous of the legal system to me.


Borgbaiter

[Guest]

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

The OFT are not ignoring anything, it is the banks' who are the appellants and who have been nothing but sham litigants throughout this whole sorry saga.

The OFT are doing precisely what they should be doing.

[EXC]

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

I think Ame & Bud covered it all but I'll double check in a bit.

There was a discussion at the end about the possibilities of the case being referred to the European Courts of Justice. Phillips and Crow went through the various elements of the OFT's case and concluded that the ECJ would have the jurisdiction to to rule on at least half of them. Basically because much of the case turns on the interpretation of the European Directive that gave rise to UTCCR.

Earlier Sumption had said that there was no fast-track method to having a case heard at the ECJ but Crow convinced the court that there was.

It's impossible to guess the likelyhood of the Law Lords referring it to Europe but he prospect is very real.

Over the 3 days I'd have to say the OFT are on top. Although Sumption's submission was good the OFT's reply did look like it successfully countered all the major arguments and this seemed to reflect the limited nature of Sumption's final reply this afternoon which only dealt with minor points such as the definition of 'typical consumer'.


On a more light-hearted note there was a wonderful exchange between Crow and Lady Hale - who spent the entire hearing with a broad smile on her face for no apparent reason.

Anyway, Crow was having a tough time convincing her Ladyship that you can make a payment instruction without knowing you will incurr a fee. Lady Hale said ''But you know if you write a cheque. You know if you use your debit card''. Crow went on to the subject of the typical consumer not reading the small print in a contract. Her Ladyship piped up ''My Mother - a woman of considerable intelligence - always reads the small print before signing any contract. So there are people who do you know''.

Crow, who you could just feel was thinking 'and your point?' politely but dryly replied ''I am lost in admiration, my Lady''.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Am not sure the banks would want it referred to the ECJ since they are more consumer friendly as the case with regards to Romania and the EU directive recently.
The next question then is how does a case get fast tracked through the ECJ and the timescales involved?

[righty]

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

The OFT are not ignoring anything, it is the banks' who are the appellants and who have been nothing but sham litigants throughout this whole sorry saga.

The OFT are doing precisely what they should be doing.

AND what they should have done at the beginning of this saga when it became apparent to everyone, except the OFT, that this would become huge as more & more consumer came forward to claim & the banks played the legal system for all it's worth - The banks en masse should have been declared vexatious litigants for their appalling behaviour & non-stop abuse of the courts

[natweststaffmember]

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

surely the question: is it penalties in law or UTCCR 1999 is the one thing we almost have certainty on so there is some good, I guess.......

[dad]

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

Hi All,

Just to add my 2p worth, I was able to spend the day at the hearing.

Overall I agree that Dr Crow put in a good performance. In fact I followed two of the bank's solicitors out of the building and they were chatting about how well he did. I found Sumption's summing up really turgid by comparison.

I would add these comments to the points mentioned above.

Lord Phillips was clearly back on the penalties point again today. It was interesting that this was the first issue that Sumption dealt with in his summing up - so I would say that the banks are a bit rattled, because of course if they lose here there is nowhere for them to go - the ECJ will not rule on penalties.

I spent much of the hearing looking at the reaction of the various law lords. Lord Neuberger seemed to agree with the penalties point and Lord Mance seemed to be a bit of a waverer. Baroness Hale I think leans to the bank's line and my view of Lord Walker was blocked.

The other point I noted was that Lord Phillips said at one point "that we are in this position because these are extraordinary contractual arrangements".

I would second the point that a referral to the ECJ was being given real consideration and could well be on the cards.

Dad

[Amethyst]

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

Hey thanks Dad, didn't realise you managed to get down there today xxx good on you and thanks for reporting back

fingers crossed then

[askl]

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

Hi, thanks everybody for their tireless contribution and informed reporting......

Somebody mentioned transcripts yesterday. Will there be any transcripts in the public domain, and if so where?

ASKL

[Tools]

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

A huge thank you to Exc, Budgie and of course dad for taking the time and effort to attend the hearings and report the actual facts back to everyone here on Beagles.