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

[Not_Watson]

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

I (luckily) am not suffering financial hardship [well, at least not in the sense of a hardship claim] - with the help of family, hard work and forums I managed to climb out of the hole. I have not received a charge since December 2006 - I just really wanted my money back (£10K plus interest).

I am suffering from injustice though - this should never have been allowed to get this far - with two judgments in the OFT's favour it is an absolute abomination that this has happened today.

I agree - this does actually feel a bit 'predictable' actually.....

"Open your eyes people - it's a big club - and we're not in it - oh, and by the way, it's the same club they beat you over the head with every day". (George Carlin)

[spacey2930]

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

Can anybody say if this means the 'stay' in the county courts has been lifted or no longer applies and that we have just gone back to the point we were at before the test case came about at all?

[orc]

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

still wrong one mate

Sorry. That was not intentional.

There appeared to be changes happening on Supreme court web site- as hinted at by Curly Ben.


This is a shocker but its important Everyone regroups and considers the implications of this.

NB It is not necessarily over.

Best of luck to you all.

[Ruby]

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

Tools, could you elaborate on the BCOBS regulations?

[MrsSkint]

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

Yeah Power in Numbers Ruby - I live near London BTW. If anyone wants to organise a demonstration - I'M IN

[TANZARELLI]

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

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/137-09

[crashbandicoot]

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

Just reading this off MSN News:

High Street banks won their appeal today over unauthorised overdraft charges.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the seven major banks and a building society, which had challenged High Court and Court of Appeal decisions that the charges come under "unfair contract" rules and are therefore subject to regulation by the Office of Fair Trading.

Today's result was awaited by tens of thousands of customers whose refund claims have been frozen while the test case went through the courts.

Key dates in the overdraft battle

Handing down the unanimous ruling today Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "It may be open to the Office of Fair Trading to assess the charges under other criteria."

Customers who go into unauthorised overdraft or breach their agreed limit have been charged as much as £35 or more for a single bounced payment. Campaigners claim the actual cost to the banks could be as little as £2.50.

If the banks had lost the test case, it could have cost them £2.6 billion a year in lost revenue and led to their having to make refunds of up to £1 billion.

Before refund claims were frozen, banks had already paid out more than £559 million to customers who complained about "rip-off" overdraft charges.

But many of the high street banks have already changed the structure of the fees they charge people who go into the red, with or without permission.

The test case to decide the legal issues thrown up by the dispute was brought jointly by the OFT and Abbey, Barclays, Clydesdale, Halifax Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB, which are now part of the same group, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland Group and Nationwide Building Society.

Lord Walker, one of the five Justices of the Supreme Court who heard the case, pointed out that the outcome of the appeal "may cause disappointment and indeed dismay to a very large number of bank customers who feel that they have been subjected to unfairly high charges in respect of unauthorised overdrafts".

But he said that as Lord Phillips had explained it was not the end of the matter and Parliament "may wish to consider the matter further".

Lady Hale said: "The banks may not be the most popular institutions in the country at present, but that does not mean that their methods of charging for retail banking services are necessarily unfair when reviewed as a whole."

Explaining the reasons for allowing the appeal, Lord Phillips said that the relevant charges are, as the banks argued, charges that require their customers to agree to pay as part of the price or remuneration for the package of services that they agree to supply in exchange.

The British Bankers' Association welcomed the ruling.

It said: "The Supreme Court has today confirmed that the banks' unarranged overdraft charges are an important part of current account services which the banks provide to their customers and that the amount of those charges is not assessable for fairness.

"The banks acknowledge the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court to allow their appeal in respect of these charges.

"We recognise this issue has been of real concern to a large number of our customers and we are pleased that this decision now brings clarity for all parties.

"The banks will work with the regulators to ensure that the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion.

"We will also continue to work together with the OFT in connection with its on-going market study."

But for the Government, Sarah McCarthy Fry, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said: "Consumers, who have been waiting a number of years, will be extremely disappointed with this outcome.

"It's clear that in the past, banks were not thinking enough about their customers.

"That needs to change for the future.

"While the decision on past charges has not gone in favour of consumers, we are determined to ensure the system is made fairer in the future.

"The Government will work with the OFT and Financial Services Authority to reach a new framework for fairer bank charges going forward."

Kevin Mountford, head of banking at moneysupermarket.com, said: "There is no doubt that this is a setback for the OFT and for the million or so customers who are trying to reclaim their bank charges.

"We expect the OFT to continue to try and press for a system where the costs of running the current account system are spread more fairly across all customers.

"In truth banks have already started to respond to this - for example, we've already seen a big move from banks towards so-called packaged accounts where you pay a monthly fee but get added benefits such as travel insurance thrown in.

"We expect this trend to continue and, in return for fairer overdraft charges, banks could introduce transaction fees, or monthly and annual fees."

Malcolm Hurlston, chairman of the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, said: "It is a scandal that the costs of banking fall unfairly on people in debt and the improvident and (we) call on banks to charge more transparently."

[righty]

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

Believe me the fat lady ain't sung yet, this ain't over by a long shot
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Would some now like to consider the Francovitch Principal in the ongoing fight with the banks & the failure of the OFT

[Angry&Informed]

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

"It is a scandal that the costs of banking fall unfairly on people in debt and the improvident and (we) call on banks to charge more transparently."

I could not agree more. Once again the little guy gets trampled. Where is the justice? Ha! as if we ever lived in a just country.

[Curlyben]

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

Here's the actual announcement from the HoL: BBC News - Court rules on bank charges

[orc]

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

Here is a statement from the British Banking Association:

http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopo...?d=145&a=16922

Supreme Court Statement


25/11/2009


The Supreme Court has today confirmed that the Banks' unarranged overdraft charges are an important part of current account services which the Banks provide to their customers and that the amount of those charges is not assessable for fairness.


The Banks acknowledge the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court to allow their appeal in respect of these charges. We recognise this issue has been of real concern to a large number of our customers and we are pleased that this decision now brings clarity for all parties.
The Banks will work with the regulators to ensure that the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion. We will also continue to work together with the OFT in connection with its on-going Market study.
Please refer to the BBA's and individual Banks' websites for further information.
For further information, please contact:
BBA Press Office (020 7216 8989 )
Out of hours (020 7216 8888 )

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Ahh, My first post, HI all to Start with get all the niceities out the way, No for Well My name tells all, Its ok for these Lords to say LOSE! Where as we all bottom end of the food chain sit here thinking, urhh what happen? Surely they are allowed to appeal like the banks did? I cannot belive this, and reason with us with the follow up, we endevour to make changes for the future, YOUVE ALREADY ROBBED US, Gut wrenching really i do feel physically sick about it would have had about £4000 back and would have CLEARED ALL y debts really!! I would have been straight and life back on track instead, they get to sit on my money Still, This long for this decision!!

[garyt]

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

Hi

Does this decision in the supreme court have any effect on the process of reclaiming credit card charges.

Thanks

[crashbandicoot]

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

Hi to all newcomers, and welcome! Obviously the ruling has come as a disappointment to all of us, but at least this is the best place to be for keeping informed of the latest developments in this saga.

Watch this space, as no doubt there will be plenty of feedback from the team soon

Thanks LB!

Crash

[righty]

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

Please don't lose sight of the fact that this WAS NOT a win for the banks it WAS a defeat for the OFT in that they (the OFT) cannot decide what is fair so its for individual consumers to go back to the courts init rather than the being able to rely on the OFT