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

[Budgie]

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

As well as totally agreeing with the reasons Exc has put forward it may also actually be much more tactically astute to wait for the court to contact you rather than the other way around.

The Court may, of their own volition, attempt to dismiss your claim or they may act in response to a request from the Defendant. Either way the Court will have to write to you advising you of your options which would usually include allowing you a short period of time within which to dispute their decision or order.

So just to confirm the message.

IF YOU HAVE A STAYED COUNTY COURT CLAIM - YOU NEED NOT AND SHOULD NOT DO ANYTHING AT THE PRESENT TIME.

[grimberz]

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

just started a new thread but might be relevent here, lloyds tsb state on their website:

'We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.'

??

[Amethyst]

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

The BBA are having a chat with the banks about the cases in court, they can't ask to dismiss the claim while the stays are on hold (apologies if moorebicks come back already I havent read back yet) - anyway we've asked about possible costs against consumers if any claims are struck out and put forward the 'PR' view how awful that would be, so thats being discussed with the banks at the moment.

As I think Bud and EXC have said don't do anything with court cases yet.

I have seen some sites have a new POC and are advocating submitting an application to amend POCs immediately - we do not support this course of action currently.


(edi: just read back a few posts and see EXC has already said this lol sorrry, I'm pooped )

[pinknico]

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

On the Natwest website the one section they don't appear to have changed is the court case section, otherwise their stance on FOS claims and claims with the bank is:


"NatWest and the other banks involved in the test case are currently in discussions with the regulators to ensure that the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion"

and

"NatWest and the other banks involved in the test case are currently in discussions with the FSA and the Office of Fair Trading (‘OFT’) as to whether, following the Supreme Court judgment, there remain any outstanding issues requiring resolution."

[natweststaffmember]

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

It makes no difference Garyt to Credit Card reclaiming as far as I am aware.

A Warm Welcome to Legal Beagles by the way.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/new...m_campaign=box


HERE WE GO AGAIN LOL!!!

I think this is the regulation he is mentioning:
Regulation 5 in full:

"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."

[ed.]

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

Advising on lifting stays? WHY. The OFT could announce they are ploughing forward with action under Reg 5 next so what's the point in trying to lift a stay?

As for TSB's comment, they're doing a Berwick again aren't they.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Tools, could you elaborate on the BCOBS regulations?

Is it possible someone could expand on the hardship issue and BCOBS?

[Amethyst]

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

Most of our claims are based on reg 5 (1) btw.

While discussing this earlier on, one of my main concerns isnt the legalities of the case I am much more concerned about the way the courts and banks are going to handle this judgment.

As we know courts tend to go off in their own direction, and I'm concerned that courts will see a bank charges claim and go, ''ok thats out then as the supreme court said so'' and strike/dismiss the claims, without even looking at the ACTUAL claims. So thats what we need to counter, rather than the judgment as such.

(I hope that makes sense guys)

[Amethyst]

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

Is it possible someone could expand on the hardship issue and BCOBS?

Tomorow we will post in detail about BCOBS and hardship.

What people have to remember is that the test case only made the regulators LOOK at how the banks were treating people in hardship, and tell the banks to actually treat them properly - we have always argued they should treat people sympathetically under the banking code, and now BCOBS, and THAT is what peoples hardship claims have been based on - the test case part was secondary and the refunds given have not been due to the test case but due to the banks obligation to treat customers properly in hardship..... so that should continue.


(If you do a search on BCOBS on this site there is a decent thread looking at them and explaining the impact of the new regulations)

[fuzzybrain]

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

This is from Abbey's Website:

Update on progress with OFT test case
Bank Charges – Supreme Court judgment – Update 25 November 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.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT - UPDATE 25 NOVEMBER 2009
Seven banks, including Abbey, and one building society are engaged in a High Court test case with the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") to decide the legality of unarranged overdraft charges.
On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court issued its appeal judgment on the first stage of the test case process.

The Banks are currently considering the implications and further details about the judgment will be published shortly.

As previously agreed with the Financial Ombudsman Service and the FSA, customer complaints relating to unarranged overdraft charges will currently remain on hold. The Banks will continue to ask County and Sheriff Courts to keep cases relating to unarranged overdraft charges on hold until the test case process is concluded.

Please continue to refer to our website for further information. We will continue to post updates to keep customers informed of progress.

[Amethyst]

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

CAG have said this ''I understand that the Judicial Press Office has advised Claimants to write and request a lifting of their stayed claim.''

When we spoke to the MOJ earlier they were awaiting the decision of Justice Moore-Bick regarding stayed claims. Has anything come back from him as yet ?

Stay lift applications based on 5(1) havent succeeded before and theres no reason why they should now. Lets wait for the courts before leaping in face first.


Anyway, amusing article - The Daily Mash - WEREWOLVES WIN RIGHT TO TEAR YOUR HEAD OFF

BRITAIN'S werewolves today won the right to tear your head off, rip open your chest and hungrily devour your still-beating heart.

In a surprise move the Supreme Court ruled that the werewolves' relentless, blood thirsty carnage was within the law and should not be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading.

[Judge mental]

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

My two pennies –

Disappointed? Of course

Surprised? No, given that the OFT have, during the last 2 years, conceded ground to the Banks to the point that the eventual matters under consideration were limited to the one argument where the Banks had a chance of getting a judgement in their favour. The OFT began to lose the plot when they decided not to appeal the penalties issue.


When the dust settles, new battle lines will be drawn and fresh challenges put before the courts (how long before the next FSA waiver?).

I echo the calls for a calm, considered approach to the next steps and through gritted teeth we all will have to endure the initial imaginative claims and propaganda from the Banks.

This is nothing more than a setback, delaying the inevitable, eventual outcome. The disappointment felt by the masses should be limited to the fact that the whole process now needs to be started again on new ground.

This should now also be heading back into the political arena given that the OFT do not appear to have the Laws to perform their duties as they wish (based on todays ruling)

Whilst not wishing to add to the air of despondency, I am sure the Banks will now be considering the potential to challenge the OFT cap on Credit Card Charges.

[fuzzybrain]

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

Going by the statement Abbey have made they seem to think that there is more to come and stays will stay in place.

Personally i'm doing nothing until the court tells me to - a stayed case is still a case in courts and sooner or later this will all work out right.

Why go in head first and stir up trouble when we don't know what kind of trouble we are stirring or how to resolve it???? i've learnt my lesson the hard way!!!

[natweststaffmember]

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

LloydsTSB are the only bank so far that appear to say that they will pro actively look for the county court cases to be struck out.
Until advice is given to the lower courts then we are currently in a time of reflection and mulling over the decision.

As a complete aside, I have not seen any news on telly of the case, and I have only read bits and pieces in the press. It's too early to have any major thoughts on today's decision. Stay positive and






Apologies for the humour but I had to do it.....and it is an important safety message for the kids out there

[Amethyst]

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

lol you in particular certainly have honey, sometimes it is best just to go with the flow rather than swim manically against the tide. (Thats not defeatist btw just the most sensible course of action at the moment- next few days waiting won't kill us anyhow)