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

[tryingmyhardest]

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

Hi

This is my first post on here.

As like a great many of you I am greatly disappointed with the decision handed down today however not greatly surprised.

I find the Courts reference to the charges being a great source of profit for the banks quite annoying, It therefore strikes me that they would prefer to see the money remain with the banks (some largely government owned) and not returned to the customer who could then inject this money back into the economy.

However I was wondering if anyone knew anything about the below?

The judgement says:
“However, the charges might still be open to assessment by the OFT on other grounds under
Regulation 5.”


Reg 5


Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.

I know for one that my account was not individually negotiated, when i asked to set up a current account i was simply given a standard form to complete and the account was set up under these terms.

Do I have grounds to challenge on these terms?

cheers

[righty]

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 )

The usual spin from the BBA
The court has NOT ruled on charges its ruled the OFT cannot decide on them which ain't the same thing at all

[Mrleelee]

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

Anyone else read this as a big 'f off' to all those who reclaimed?

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.

Smug gits.

[jibbsy1912]

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

The FSA has just lifted the waiver on charges! This must mean that we can start going to the the courts like before? Its only a defeat against the oft not us!

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Really where is that Red? So we can go on an claim just like before? but wont the banks just say get lost nothing you can do now? On a personal note, you stated before that people who have negotiated fees cant claim really etc etc, well my Gran open my account about 15 years ago for me so does that count?

[Angry&Informed]

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

FSA lift waiver:

FSA statement following the Supreme Court ruling on bank charges

[orc]

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

FSA statement following the Supreme Court ruling on bank charges





25 November 2009
In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment today in the bank charges test case the Financial Services Authority (FSA) can confirm that its waiver has now lapsed.
The waiver was granted during the test case so that firms did not have to deal with complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges in the eight-week-period required under FSA rules while the outcome of the court case remained unclear.
Firms can now resume processing consumers’ complaints in accordance with the FSA’s complaint handling rules.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

"It is clear that in the past, banks were not thinking enough about their customers. That needs to change for the future.

Thats a Smack in the face aswell, " WE couldnt give a crap about customers before, but no you've noticed and robbed all we can we might make changes"
I bloomin hate the banks smug...people...Whats the likly hood of sending in a claim and getting it now about 1%?

[MrsSkint]

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

Does anyone know where we stand if we have put our accounts on "hold"? I have about Ł600 worth of overdraft that I'm paying off at Ł10 per month. Will HSBC be able to demand ALL that money back at once?

[ROBSTER]

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

FSA lifting waiver only means banks can now start belting out partial settlements "in full and final" without having to offer additional redress at the end (unless we are already here) of the OFT test case.

It's the stay at court I want to see lifted by the Master of The Rolls

[PocketTheDifference]

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

What does Stay at Court mean? and without having to offer additional redress at the end (unless we are already here) of the OFT test case.
What does that mean SOrry

[ROBSTER]

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

All on going cases in Courts around the land were stayed (put on ice) pending the outcome of the test case.

Thats down to the judiciary and nothing to do with FSA or OFT.

(Banks now have 8 weeks to invite customers to FXXX OFF)

[stewie082]

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

I dont want to play this game anymore!!!

Perhaps I should hand the whole lot over to some "no win - no fee" company and be done with it... Let them fight it out.

On one hand I really want to fight the good fight, and on the other I should never have got my hopes up because I fell kind of empty....This sucks. I should have never allowed myself to get so involved.

Stew

[PocketTheDifference]

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

I Still don't quite understand what your saying really, I havnt got the info to be able to comprehend, So people who already ahve claim will now get a settlement or a letter saying get lost, and what about people who havn't yet sent one, I cant remember how far I got with mine now!!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
I agree with you, I felt emptiness when I found out the whole system failed the people who built it! oh well no victory for the common folk! AGAIN. (But i 100% agree with all the people who think it would boost economy!!)

[ed.]

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

Folks - just a quick point considering the ever accurate press are declaring the end of the world:

62. There is a further general point to be made. It seems likely that many of the
customers who have challenged Relevant Charges have done so on the basis that they are
excessive for the individual services to which they relate. They have treated the Relevant
Charges as being levied in exchange for those services.

Ok there's a little more to it than that with penalties etc BUT the banks have just won an argument that ABSOLUTELY nobody was using.

Bear that in mind eh!

Disproportionately high fee for failure to honour obligations is totally different from high fee for services rendered.