OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

[TANZARELLI]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Just to help you out, here is a link to the judgements

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/judgments.html

the link on that site takes you to the wrong judgement

[jim3940]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I Am Gutted,speechless !!!

[Not_Watson]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I, like many of the members of this and many other online forums, suffered at the hands of these banks - I personally very nearly had my life totally destroyed - I am sure that there are very many unspoken voices out there who have suffered worse - perhaps there are many out there who can no longer speak of this injustice (a horrific, but true reality).

I have a very large claim currently stayed in county court - what on earth happens to that now ?

I am totally shocked by this judgment and must say that this was my worst fear - it looks and feels like the old boy network just patted the bankers on the back. I have been reading with avid interest, this forum over the last couple of years but over the last 12 months or so, have had a niggling feeling that we were being stitched up - turns out that was correct - what a crying shame.

This is devastating news.

This forum has helped me and thousands of others like me - so please all accept a huge 'thank-you' for all of your help and freely given (excellent) advice.

I shall continue to read the thoughts on here until there really is no more hope.....

Banks: rotten to the very core.

[Curlyben]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

here you go
The press release and judgement,
Sorry wrong judgement, so I've removed it, but the press release is worth reading.

[TUTTSI]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Anyone who is suffering Financial hardship can make a claim under the current Financial hardship rules are receiving some help from the bank, have a read here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ad.php?t=15761 but whether the waiver will be amended or lifted we will have to wait and see.

I, like many of the members of this and many other online forums, suffered at the hands of these banks - I personally very nearly had my life totally destroyed - I am sure that there are very many unspoken voices out there who have suffered worse - perhaps there are many out there who can no longer speak of this injustice (a horrific, but true reality).

I have a very large claim currently stayed in county court - what on earth happens to that now ?

I am totally shocked by this judgment and must say that this was my worst fear - it looks and feels like the old boy network just patted the bankers on the back. I have been reading with avid interest, this forum over the last couple of years but over the last 12 months or so, have had a niggling feeling that we were being stitched up - turns out that was correct - what a crying shame.

This is devastating news.

This forum has helped me and thousands of others like me - so please all accept a huge 'thank-you' for all of your help and freely given (excellent) advice.

I shall continue to read the thoughts on here until there really is no more hope.....

Banks: rotten to the very core.

[Angry&Informed]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Stinking Pinstripe Boys Club. Scum Scum Scum

[jibbsy1912]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Hi all.

I think something needs to be done about this. I am outraged with the whole situation. It just seems there is no help out there for all the people who pay there tax's and due to the bank's greed we are stuck in a hole. I think the goverment need to get involved and we need to take this forward. If the banks can appeal why can't we? The judge's don't realise what this means to us, i doesnt affect them. I just don't know what to do next? im owed £8500 from the banks!!!!!

[Mrleelee]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Banks: rotten to the very core.

It's not just the banks though, it's the whole damn country.

Time after time we see stuff like this happen, the honest hard-working people of this country mean jack sh!t and will always get screwed over.

I've gone from being shocked, to more of a 'this was pretty predictable' type of feeling. It's just sickening.

[TANZARELLI]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Just to help you out, here is a link to the judgements

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/judgments.html

Press summary

PRESS SUMMARY
Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v Abbey National plc & others (Appellants) [2009]
UKSC 6
On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2009] EWCA Civ 116

JUSTICES:

Lord Phillips (President), Lord Walker, Baroness Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the
banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an
investigation into whether they were fair.
At present, banks provide retail banking services on the basis that customers whose accounts are kept
in credit (in other words who lend money to the banks) will not be charged for the services provided;
customers who have authorised overdrafts will be charged interest on the money that they borrow
from the bank; and customers who incur unauthorised overdrafts will be charged, not only interest on
the sums borrowed, but fixed fees for each particular service involved.
The OFT has power to assess the fairness of terms in consumer contracts but this is subject to the
limits laid down in the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which
implemented European Council Directive 93/13/EEC.
Regulation 6(2)(b) states that the assessment of the fairness of a term in a contract “shall not relate . . .
to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange”.
In other words, the “value for money” equation is excluded.
The Court of Appeal held that this exclusion applied only to the “core terms” of the contract and not
to ancillary terms such as the charges for unauthorised overdrafts. The Supreme Court unanimously
held that the charges for unauthorised overdrafts fell within this exclusion. They were part of the price
paid by the customer for the banking services provided.
However, the charges might still be open to assessment by the OFT on other grounds under
Regulation 5.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL:
The Office of Fair Trading (‘the OFT’) wished to investigate the fairness, under the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (‘the Regulations’), of the terms (‘the Relevant Terms’) in the
Appellant banks’ contracts with customers imposing charges (‘the Relevant Charges’) on unauthorised
overdrafts. The Regulations implemented European Council Directive 93/13/EEC. The OFT applied
for a declaration that it was entitled to make such an investigation, notwithstanding Regulation 6 (2) (b)
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD

T: 020 7960 1886/1887 F: 020 7960 1901 www.supremecourt.gov.uk

of the Regulations, which stated that the assessment of fairness of a term in a contract ‘shall not

relate… to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in
exchange’. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal decided that Regulation 6 (2) (b) did not stop
the OFT from making such an investigation. The banks appealed.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal by the banks.
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT


Lord Walker made clear that the scope of the appeal was limited – the court did not have the

task of deciding whether or not the system of charging current account customers was fair, but

whether the OFT could challenge the charges as being excessive in relation to the services
supplied in exchange (Paragraph 3). As Lord Phillips stated, even if such a challenge was not
possible, it might still be open for the OFT to assess the fairness of the charges according to
other criteria (Para 61).


The key issue was whether the charges constituted the ‘price and remuneration’ as against ‘the

goods or services supplied in exchange’ within the meaning of the Regulations. The Supreme

Court considered and decided a number of arguments as to whether the charges could be said
to be ‘price or remuneration’ under Regulation 6 (2) (b):
(1) The charges were not paid ‘in exchange’ for the transactions to which they related – eg.
honouring a cheque when the customer had insufficient funds to do so (Para 75).
(2) The Court of Appeal was wrong to find that Regulation 6 (2) (b) did not apply to charges that
were ‘ancillary’ to the core contract between the bank and customer (Paras 38-41, 47, 78, 112).
Lord Walker commented that Regulation 6 (2) (b) contained no indication that only the
‘essential’ price or remuneration was relevant. In fact, any monetary price or remuneration
payable under the contract would naturally fall within the language of Regulation 6 (2) (b)
(Para 41).
(3) The charges were not concealed default charges designed to discourage customers from
becoming overdrawn on their accounts without prior arrangement (Paras 88, 114). The High
Court had rejected this argument and was right to do so.
(4) The charges were properly to be regarded as falling within the scope of the Regulations (Paras
43, 80, 104)

. They were in fact part of the price or remuneration paid by the customer in

exchange for the package of services which made up a current account (Paras 47, 89). The

fact that liability to pay the charges depended on specific events occurring was irrelevant to
that conclusion (Paras 47, 104).


Accordingly, since any assessment of the fairness of the charges, which related to their

appropriateness as against the services supplied in exchange, fell within Regulation 6 (2) (b), no

such assessment could take place and so the appeal would be allowed (Paras 51, 90, 92, 118,
119).
Further Comments


Lord Phillips also noted that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able

profitably to provide current account services without a fee (Para 88). He stated that it might

be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers whose accounts always
remain in credit by levies on others who experienced events they did not foresee when they
opened their accounts (Para 80).


Lord Walker commented that ministers and Parliament had decided to transpose the directive

as it stood rather than to confer the higher degree of consumer protection afforded by the

national laws of some other member states. Parliament might wish to consider whether to
revisit that decision (Para 52). Lord Mance endorsed this comment (Para 118).
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD

T: 020 7960 1886/1887 F: 020 7960 1901 www.supremecourt.gov.uk



Lady Hale commented that if Lord Walker’s invitation to ministers and Parliament was to be

taken up, it might not be easy to find a satisfactory solution. She questioned whether the real

problem was not the charging model, but the lack of competition between the banks as to the
product they offered (Para 93).
No Reference to European Court of Justice


The court decided that although the interpretation of the European directive which the

Regulations implemented was a question of European law it was not necessary to refer the

matter to the European Court of Justice (Paras 49, 91, 115, 120).
NOTE
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form
part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative
document.
Judgments are public documents and are available at:

www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decidedcases/
index.html

The Judgment

Michaelmas Term

[2009] UKSC 4

On appeal from

: [2008] EWHC 2907 (Admin)

JUDGMENT

Louca (Appellant)

v A German Judicial Authority

(Respondents) (Criminal Appeal from Her
Majesty’s High Court of Justice)

before

Lord Hope, Deputy President

Lord Rodger
Lord Mance
Lord Collins
Lord Kerr

JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

19 November 2009

Heard on 29 July 2009

Appellant Respondent

Conor Quigley QC James Lewis QC

John R W D Jones Daniel Jones
(Instructed by Cartwright
King Solicitors)
(Instructed by Crown
Prosecution Service)

Page 2

LORD HOPE

1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion which has been prepared

by Lord Mance, and I agree with it. For the reasons he gives, I would dismiss the appeal.

LORD RODGER

2. I too have had the advantage of considering in draft the opinion prepared by Lord

Mance. I agree with it and, for the reasons which he gives, I would dismiss the appeal.

LORD MANCE

3. The appellant, Mr Louca, is a Cypriot national whose arrest in England and

surrender to the Federal Republic of Germany for trial of six alleged offences of tax
evasion is sought by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Bielefeld pursuant to a
European Arrest Warrant dated 14 July 2008. The warrant was on that date certified by
the Serious Organised Crime Agency (“SOCA”) pursuant to s.2(7) of the Extradition Act
2003. Mr Louca challenges its validity on the ground that it contains no reference to two
previous European arrest warrants (likewise certified by SOCA), but refers only to a
domestic German arrest warrant. A reference to any previous European arrest warrants,
was, he submits, essential under s.2(2)(a) and (4)(b) of the 2003 Act, which, read
together, require a warrant to contain “particulars of any other warrant issued in the
category 1 territory for the person’s arrest in respect of the offence”. Senior District Judge
Workman rejected Mr Louca’s challenge on 11 September 2008, and the Divisional
Court, in a judgment given by Dyson LJ, dismissed his appeal on 27 November 2008.
4. The two previous European arrest warrants were issued and in turn superseded in
a manner that appears not uncommon in relation to requests by overseas authorities for
the arrest of suspects in England. The first warrant was dated 14 September 2006 and led
to Mr Louca’s arrest on 9 April 2008. Shortly thereafter it was withdrawn, Mr Louca was
discharged from further proceedings on it, and a second warrant dated 23 April 2008 was
issued on which Mr Louca was again arrested on 25 April 2008. That warrant amplified
the description of Mr Louca’s alleged involvement in the offences and contained other
minor changes. It was in turn withdrawn, Mr Louca was again discharged from any
proceedings on it, and it was replaced by the subsisting warrant dated 14 July 2008, upon
which Mr Louca was again arrested and which is now before the Supreme Court. The

Page 3

wording of the subsisting warrant differs from that of the second warrant only in the

insertion of the words which I have italicised in the time-frame and places of commission
given for the alleged offences: “From a few days before the 23rd April 2003, till the 8th
of April 2004” and “Minden, Seckenhausen and other places in the Federal Republic of
Germany, including the borders of Germany”.
5. Part I of the 2003 Act, in which s.2 appears, falls to be read in the context of the
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the
surrender procedures between member states of the European Union (2002/584/JHA; OJ
2002 L190, pl). This is a “ground-breaking measure intended to simplify and expedite
procedures for the surrender, between member states, of those accused of crime
committed in other member states or required to be sentenced or serve sentences for such
crimes following conviction in other member states”: Dabas v High Court of Justice of
Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6; [2007] 2 AC 31, para. 4, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill.
Although article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union makes framework decisions
“binding upon member states as to the result to be achieved but [leaves] to national
authorities the choice of form and methods”, a national court must interpret a national law
“as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the framework decision in
order to attain the result which it pursues and thus comply with article 34(2)(b)”: para. 5,
per Lord Bingham citing Criminal Proceedings against Pupino (Case C-105/03); [2006]
QB 83, paras. 43 and 47.
6. The Framework Decision provides inter alia:

Article 1(1):

The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a

Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member
State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal
prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.
…..

Article 2(1

): A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable

by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a
detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a
sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences
of at least four months.
……”

Article 8(1):

The European arrest warrant shall contain the following

information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex:
(a) the identity and nationality of the requested person;

Page 4

(b) the name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address

of the issuing judicial authority;
(c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other
enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the
scope of Articles 1 and 2;
(d) the nature and legal classification of the offence, particularly in
respect of Article 2;
(e) a description of the circumstances in which the offence was
committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the
offence by the requested person;
(f) the penalty imposed, if there is a final judgment, or the prescribed
scale of penalties for the offence under the law of the issuing Member
State;
(g) if possible, other consequences of the offence.”
The annexed form contains boxes for completion, including:
(b) Decision on which warrant is based:
1. Arrest warrant or judicial decision having the same effect: …..
Type: ……..
2. Enforceable judgement: …………….
Reference: …………..”
and
“(f) Other circumstances relevant to the case (optional information):
(NB This could cover remarks on extraterritoriality, interruption of periods
of time limitation and other consequences of the offence)
…………”
7. In the present case, box (b) of the form was completed in the European arrest
warrant (as in the two withdrawn warrants) with a reference to a domestic warrant issued
by the Bielefeld County Court reference 9Gs 2740/06 dated 27 July 2006 for Mr Louca’s
“imprisonment on remand”.

Page 5

8. In

Ruiz v Central Criminal Court of Criminal Proceedings No 5 of the National

Court, Madrid [2007] EWHC 2983 (Admin); [2008] 1 WLR 2798, Dyson LJ in an obiter
dictum rejected a prosecution submission that “the enforceable judgment, etc. [referred to
in article 8(1)(c) of the Framework Decision] is the domestic warrant on which the index
EAW is based” (para. 26). The words in article 8(1)(c) “coming within the scope of
Articles 1 and 2” in his view precluded that submission, on the basis that Articles 1 and 2
were only concerned with European arrest warrants. The actual decision was that article
8(1)(c) and s.2(4)(b) were only concerned with currently enforceable warrants. However,
Dyson LJ’s view that they were also only concerned with European arrest warrants was
adopted in Zakowski v Regional Court in Szczecin Poland [2008] EWHC 1389 (Admin).
That was a case on s.2(6)(c) of the 2003 Act, which mirrors the language of s.2(4) in
relation to the situation of a person unlawfully at large after conviction. Maurice Kay LJ,
with whom Penry-Davey J agreed, held that s.6(2)(c) “should be construed as referring
only to other EAWs issued in respect of the offence” (paras. 25-26).
9. In his judgment in the present case, Dyson LJ reconsidered the position and
concluded that the interpretation of ss.2(4)(b) and 2(6)(c) proposed in Ruiz and adopted in

Zakowski

was wrong. His reasoning covered five points: (i) the Framework Decision does

not in article 8(1)(c) use the phrase “European arrest warrant”, as it does consistently
elsewhere when referring to such a warrant; (ii) the concepts of “an enforceable
judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision” cannot easily be
understood as limited to an European arrest warrant; (iii) the phrase “coming within the
scope of Articles 1 and 2” can and should simply be understood as meaning that the
enforceable judgment, arrest warrant or other enforceable judicial decision must be “for
the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or
detention order” and be “issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member
State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12
months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for
sentences of at least four months”; (iv) one European arrest warrant is most unlikely to be
based on another, and (v) there is no point in requiring such a warrant to contain
information about an earlier European arrest warrant on which it is not based, and on
which reliance is no longer placed.
10. On this basis, the present Divisional Court held that article 8(1)(c) and ss.2(4)(b)
and 2(6)(c) are concerned with domestic judgments, arrest warrants or other decisions,
and not with any other European arrest warrant issued in respect of the alleged offending,
still less one which has been withdrawn. Before the House in July 2009, Mr Conor
Quigley QC had to accept the first part of this conclusion – inevitably so, in my view, in
the light of the first four reasons given by Dyson LJ and also having regard to article
8(1)(c) of and box (b) in the form annexed to the Framework Decision. It is entirely
understandable that the Framework Decision should require a European arrest warrant to
set out its jurisdictional basis in the domestic law of the issuing state.
11. Mr Quigley submitted, nonetheless, that the latter part of the Divisional Court’s
decision does not follow, and challenged Dyson LJ’s fifth reason. There is a purpose, he

Page 6

argued, in also requiring evidence of any other European arrest warrant, even if

withdrawn, because this could constitute the basis of, or be relevant to, a decision by the
executing court to set aside or consider whether to set aside the subsisting European arrest
warrant as an abuse of process. He relied upon the statement by Bingham LJ, as he was,
in R v. Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrates ex p. Ellison [1990] RTR 220, 227 that:
“If any criminal court at any time has cause to suspect that a
prosecutor may be manipulating or using the procedures of
the court in order to oppress or unfairly to prejudice a
defendant before the court, I have no doubt that it is the
duty of the court to inquire into the situation and ensure that
its procedure is not being so abused. Usually no doubt such
inquiry will be prompted by a complaint on the part of the
defendant. But the duty of the court in my view exists even
in the absence of a complaint.”
12. In support of these submissions, Mr Quigley pointed to various recitals in the
Framework Decision. Under recital (8), “the execution of the European arrest warrant
must be subject to sufficient controls”; under recital (10), its mechanism is “based on a
high level of confidence between Member States”. and under recital (12), the
“Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised
by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union” and “does not prevent a Member State from applying its
constitutional rules relating to due process”. Mr Quigley noted that, under Article 8(1),
“The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in
accordance with the form contained in the Annex: …..(g) if possible, other consequences
of the offence”. He suggested that, in order to give effect to all these provisions,
ss.2(4)(b) and 2(6)(c) must be understood as embracing not only domestic judgments,
warrants or decisions, but also prior European arrest warrants, even if withdrawn.
Otherwise, mutual confidence would not be promoted and the executing court would not
be able to inquire into whether there had been any abuse of process.
13. In my opinion, this is to seek to make bricks without straw. The words “if
possible, other consequences of the offence” and box (f) in the annexed form “Other
circumstances relevant to the case (optional information)” do not carry the obligatory
connotation for which Mr Quigley argues; the note to box (f) lends no support to Mr
Quigley’s case; and there is no reason to read ss.2(4)(b) and 2(6)(c) in the 2003 Act as
intended to require the executing court to be informed by the European arrest warrant of
one (and only one) point - the existence of another European arrest warrant - which
might, in some conceivable case, be of some conceivable relevance to an argument of
abuse of process. The duty which a criminal court may have, if prosecution authorities
appear to be committing an abuse of process, is no basis for reading either the Framework
Decision or the 2003 Act as requiring the inclusion in a European arrest warrant of that or
any other information on which a defendant wishing to raise an argument of abuse of

Page 7

process might conceivably wish to rely. Ss.2(4)(b) and 2(6)(c) are designed on their face

simply to give effect to article 8(1)(c) and box (b) in the annexed form. Other “due
process” factors are comprehensively covered by ss.11 to 20, dealing with double
jeopardy, extraneous considerations, passage of time, age, hostage-taking considerations,
speciality, earlier extradition to the United Kingdom and trial in absentia, as well as by
the general safeguard in s.21 that the judge must decide whether surrender would be
compatible with the European Human Rights Convention rights.
14. The unreal consequences of the appellant’s argument in this particular case also
need no stressing. Mr Louca was arrested under the previous European arrest warrants,
and he and his advisers were fully aware at every stage of their issue and withdrawal.
Their withdrawal and the changes made in successive warrants lend no support to any
suggestion of abuse of process. (Arguments based on oppression due to passage of time
and interference with the right to family life were mounted, unavailingly, in the courts
below.) Mr Quigley was nevertheless compelled by his argument to submit that, however
obvious it might be that the reason for the withdrawal of a previous European arrest
warrant was technical or irrelevant to any question of abuse of process, a new European
arrest warrant would be invalid unless it gave particulars of the previous warrant.
15. The question certified by the Divisional Court is: “Whether the reference to ‘any
other warrant’ in s.2(4)(c)of the Extradition Act 2003 properly construed is a reference to
any other domestic warrant on which the European arrest warrant is based”. For the
reasons given above and those given by the Divisional Court, the answer is that the
reference is to any domestic warrant on which the European arrest warrant is based, and
not to any other European arrest warrant which may have been issued on the basis of any
such domestic warrant. Mr Louca’s appeal falls to be dismissed accordingly.

LORD COLLINS

16. I too agree with the opinion prepared by Lord Mance, and I would dismiss the

appeal.

LORD KERR

17. I also agree with the opinion prepared by Lord Mance, and I would dismiss the

appeal.

still wrong one mate

[Tools]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Just to be clear on hardship claims.

As has always been the case a hardship claim is not a claim under the UTCCR and does not depend of the test case.

If you are suffering from hardship the bank should treat you sympathetically under the new BCOBS regulations and this includes reducing/stopping/refunding charges if taken whilst in period of hardship if the contribute to your financial difficulties.

[Curlyben]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Here's the judgement fresh off the site..

(sorry about the other one)

[davidl]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

This In my eyes is fantastic news the court only ruled that the oft cant investigate the charges they never ruled they were fair get your claims in the court and go solo who needs the fing oft anyway

[TANZARELLI]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I just rung the supreme court to point out the link was wrong and they are aware and are working to recify it at the moment so it should be there soon.

nice one CB

[Tools]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

The campaign should be remarkably proud of itself. We have not failed, we have succeeding in bringing the banks to account for their actions and assisted many thousands of consumers to stand up against the institutions which often in times of difficulty set about to push you down rather than assist you. Since the campaign began in 2005 we have seen massive changes in financial regulation, OFT guidance, investigations in to the way banks treat consumers and things HAVE improved and WILL continue to do so.

This may be a bad day for those of you with claims on hold in the court or who were depending on refunds of these charges, and we are very very disappointed and saddened that the court has made this judgment.

Just look at the Debt Collection guidance and regulations, irresponsible lending investigations, credit card reviews etc etc ..... so much has improved and is ongoing. The OFT will keep working on our behalf for fairness in the industry and banks WILL NOT be able to just start whacking their charges back up to previous levels - consumers, government and the regulators will not stand for it.

However this is NOT the end by any means and we shall continue fighting for fair treatment of customers and fair charging systems in all areas.

Love you all, and thanks every one for all your support. Onwards and Upwards.....

Amethyst xxxx

[Ruby]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

As said in one of my previous post - power in numbers - if I lived anywhere near London I would be tempted to organise a demonstration outside Downing Street. Much like with the poll tax I'm probably being too passionate.