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

[Angry&Informed]

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

That was my plan too Lumi

[Budgie]

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

People may already be aware that I am ever the optimist.

But after having had a chance to reflect on the judgment ( which I have read once and am now working my way through in greater detail ) I believe that in a few months time we may actually all be looking back on today as a positive outcome to the "first" test case.

What we have potentially avoided is a terribly long drawn out ( 2nd stage ) court case to determine whether the actual charges themselves are unfair.

I personally believe that the MSE comment that the OFT made a mistake by focussing the "first" test case on too narrow an issue is a valid one.

One thing is certain that although the "first" test case is now at an end. There will be subsequant litigation, either by the OFT or by millions of indiviudal Consumers based on aspects of UTCCR1999 that have not yet been considered
by the Courts. Those other aspects are backed up by other regulations and Acts that are pretty sure to have the banks quaking in their boots.

Let the banks have their victory today, we will still win the war !!!!!!

[Luminol]

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

but is it the right plan? sometimes I get lost with this?

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Right can anyone give me a link to the laws that apply to this case here Im going to read up about it, I want to study Law soon, so I hope i can digest this stuff! (and I might just go into this side of it!)
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Nobody?

[Budgie]

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

UTCCR1999

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Cheers

[Budgie]

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

Two words which we will be hearing a lot in the coming days, weeks and months.

IMBALANCE + DETRIMENT

[jules2008]

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

I am very disappointed by todays ruling in the courts to favour the banks as many are but i dont think we should give up the fight. I for one have joined a credit union but they cannot offer the same service as a bank at present because not enough people have joined but i hope that this will change.
did people know that with a credit union you would be treated as a share holder and if the bank makes a profit YOU would get a bonus i cannot for one understand why more people do not support their local credit union then you would soon see the high street banks change their tune.

can i make a point can this judgement not be appealed as the banks would of done if they lost?

[Luminol]

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

Does anyone have any comments on my plan to reclaim under section 5 once theyve responded to my original claim under section 6?

Is it too early am I getting ahead of myself again?

Comments welcome

Lumi x

[Sapphire]

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

Ok peeps I've refrained from posting my thoughts but here goes.

I believe that this has just been one small battle in one large war, ok its a set back BUT all is not lost, there are many clever people reading, digesting and working out a way around all of this and will come up with a game plan pretty soon.

I know that a hell of a lot of people will now be worrying because they've been saying 'the accounts in dispute' and now that won't be accepted anymore, but I'm sure that something can be done even if its completing and sending in an I & E sheet and negotiating comfortable repayments for the meantime, not easy in the present climate I agree but its the best we all can do for the moment.

So hang on, sit back and try to relax and think about it this way, ok so you're not going to get your money back soon but in the meantime its all adding up and with the 8% interest it better than any savings plan I can think of in Britain at the moment.

Oh and the OFT say they will announce their next move in December (allegedly) well its December next Tuesday so not really that long to wait is it.

(((((((((((Hugs)))))))))))) for you all.

[Angry&Informed]

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

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.


Anybody know why this wasn't our focus much earlier. Both points seem entirely spot on.
?

[ed.]

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

From this site's POC

6: The terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8.

Will people CHILL! NOBODY has used Reg 6!!!!

[Luminol]

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

Sorry if Im a bit thick, I didnt do a POC, just a letter to the bank stating:

I now understand that the regime of fees which you have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law and contrary to consumer regulations. If you say that they are not, then will you please demonstrate this by letting me have a full breakdown of the costs to which you have been put by as a result of my breaches, in order to reassure me that your charges really do reflect your costs.

Additionally, it has now been confirmed that your particularly high level of penalties are considered to be unfair per se by the OFT who reported on the 5th April 2006 and are therefore presumed to be unlawful in the absence of specific proof to the contrary.

So....if I havent mentioned any section of the law, what bearing would this judgement have on my claim?

Thanks in advance, I am chilled Ed promise was just surmising!

Lumi x

[Mochamoo]

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

Ok peeps I've refrained from posting my thoughts but here goes.

I believe that this has just been one small battle in one large war, ok its a set back BUT all is not lost, there are many clever people reading, digesting and working out a way around all of this and will come up with a game plan pretty soon.

I know that a hell of a lot of people will now be worrying because they've been saying 'the accounts in dispute' and now that won't be accepted anymore, but I'm sure that something can be done even if its completing and sending in an I & E sheet and negotiating comfortable repayments for the meantime, not easy in the present climate I agree but its the best we all can do for the moment.

So hang on, sit back and try to relax and think about it this way, ok so you're not going to get your money back soon but in the meantime its all adding up and with the 8% interest it better than any savings plan I can think of in Britain at the moment.

Oh and the OFT say they will announce their next move in December (allegedly) well its December next Tuesday so not really that long to wait is it.

(((((((((((Hugs)))))))))))) for you all.

My thoughts exactly but so much more eloquently put

[askl]

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

Does anyone know if Andrew Smith's conclusion that NatWest's 2001 charges are capable of being penalties, still stands?