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

[Amethyst]

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

Dear Sir or Madam,

ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxxxx

I am writing with regards to the alleged outstanding debt owing on my account. You will be aware that I consider the debt to be in dispute as the majority/whole of this sum is made up of disputed charges and interest charged thereon.

I dispute that these charges are lawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 1999 and I previously notified you of this in my letter dated XX/XX/XXXX.

In your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx you have informed me the amount outstanding on the account is £xxxx.xx . The amount I calculate you have taken in unlawful charges and interest on those charges is £xxxx.xx. In addition I am claiming from you a sum of compensatory interest equal to 8% per annum which brings the total disputed amount to £xxxx.xx .

I have no intention of reneging on any part of this account which may be legitimately incurred debt. As a gesture of goodwill, and without accepting liability for this debt, I propose that you accept an interim repayment plan. and that you place a hold on further charges and interest being added to the account.

I propose I make payments to you of £xx per calendar month, the first payment is enclosed, until such time as the dispute is resolved. Once this dispute has been resolved, if in my favour, you will continue processing my complaint, and if in your favour we will review repayment arrangements for the alleged debt. To be clear I currently dispute whether this sum or any is actually owed to your company and I am simply offering a reasonable solution in the interim whilst the dispute is considered.

I would like to make you aware of The Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance in which it states: putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive This includes: Ignoring disputes about whether money is owed and refusing to freeze action if the debt is in dispute.

I therefore hope to receive your full co-operation in this matter and would like to request a written response to that effect.

Yours Sincerely



Your Name

[MrsSkint]

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

Yes, that's the letter I used a while ago - I'm already paying them back £10 per month. I just thought that with yesterday's decision, is the account still in dispute? Sorry for being such a numpty but I don't really know what to say to the bank if they ring again!

[Amethyst]

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

pmsl well thats okay then, nahhh keep paying the £10 and if they contact you again say your position has not changed as the dispute has not been resolved.

People who have not been repaying anything if they get contacted then they can use that letter to hang things up a while until the position is clear.

[MrsSkint]

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

Glad to see you cheerful again Ame xxx :tinysmile_twink_t2:
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Changing the subject - just realised you guys had a cafepress shop!! Had a good old look around and seen some fab T.Shirts with Legal Beagles on them. Gonna get one tomorrow when I get paid and wear it with pride!

[natweststaffmember]

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

I have to say I was wearing mine yesterday when I got the text from the Court of the decision. I think I went through a lot of the emotions people went through. I think swear words were in mind and that sinking feeling as well. That is when I started reading the Judgement and realised that this decision was NOT entirely the clean sweep win that perhaps some financial institutions and some people may have wanted us to see it as. The battle goes on.
What I would say is that we need to be careful on what we do initially. Remember, the OFT and the Banks' have had the judgement for 1 week more than we have and they have not yet revealed their hand(apart from LloydsTSB who will have to be dealt with as and when they attempt to lift the stays and their reasoning for doing so).
Furthermore, there are sites stating sue them and/or get your stay lifted NOW. Let's not come up with a knee jerk reactions and take time to read the judgement and think about it. I know everyone wants to see action IMMEDIATELY and our impatience could lead to mistakes. Remember, you get your case struck out and that could the end of your claim so keep calm and stay patient.
Let's wait for either the strike outs to be seen and battled against and(hopefully beforehand) see what the OFT are going to do now.

[EXC]

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

Good post Nattie and one of the few you make I can actually understand!

[crashbandicoot]

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

Yip, I agree with the general consensus...let's wait and see what happens. Where we've waited so long, what difference is another few weeks going to make? This way we can look at all options carefully and decide the best course of action.

A night's sleep does wonders...I was feeling a bit gutted and angry yesterday (as were most) but today, having thought about it, and read through other posts and comments of hope, I am feeling far more positive now.

They want a war, they can have one!

Crash

[h2thedizzle]

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

first of can i just say thanks to everybody who writes here i am only 21yo and i can never get a satisfactory response for banks (from my experience any young person isn't even givin them time of day) bt u's help arm me with some facts and points so i can at least put up a fight. i hav the bank of scotland chasing me for my overdraft which was £100 but is now over £400 which is all charges they agreed to stop putting charges on if i started making payments bt before i could i was hit with £63 in two charges. If anybody has any advice for me i'd be forever greatfull. I also have a sugestion I have heard this being the biggest public movement since the poll tax riots i'm not saying lets riot bt how about we the public take control once again. I kno this is to much forsome people but why those of us who can take our money out of banks take our saving out of banks i've been looking into it and there are other way to get by your daily life I know it is a bit time consuming but i dont think the banks would hold out for long if we to action

[Sapphire]

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

Stop using the account, stop all transactions ie direct debits etc so no more charges get added.
Then get yourself another basic account for your transactions the Nationwide do an excellent Flex account.

Write to your bank an make an offer to pay the debt off, only what you can afford mind.

Then sit and wait there are people working on this and there should be some answers as to the way forward in a week or so.

[Amethyst]

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

Just an important point - the banks can't apply in bulk to strike out all claims, they have to apply individually, and claimants will be notified (they should actually receive a copy from the bank of the application but on past experience thats unlikely) The courts need to behave properly and any strike outs can be contended - BECAUSE they are not based on 6(2) anyway. As far as the MOJ are concerned every case is on its individual merits unless we here different from Moore Bick.

IF ANYONE RECEIVES A STRIKE OUT APPLICATION OR NOTIFICATION PLEASE CONTACT US ASAP.

[Budgie]

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

Thanks Ame.

Probably just worth reposting this from Exc this morning


FW: Bank charges line

Attached is our line on the bank charges case.

Regards

Helen Fernandes

Senior Public Information Officer

Judicial Communications Office

Directorate of Judicial Offices for England and Wales

Room 11:07, Thomas More Building

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

tel: 020-7947- 7836

A spokesperson for the Judicial Communications Office said:


"The judgment is quite lengthy and the parties to proceedings currently pending before the courts will no doubt require time to consider its implications for their own cases. Where proceedings have been stayed it is for the parties in the first instance to consider what steps to take in the light of the judgment and, if they think it appropriate, to apply to have the stay lifted and for any further orders. Now that the legal position has been clarified it may be that the parties can reach agreement on what steps should be taken. If they cannot, applications will have to be made to the court. Judges will consider such applications individually and make whatever orders they consider are appropriate in the case before them."

[Not_Watson]

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

Hi,

Could someone advise please:

My case is stayed at the moment.

The relevant bit from my PoC is:

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) and the common law.

Phew ! (had to type that, as I can't locate the original file quickly...)

Anyway - here's my question: As I have not mentioned 5(1) of UTCCR [or 6(2) for that matter] should I write to the court to amend my Particulars of Claim to include a clarification at the end of my section b) worded to inform which section of UTCCR I am relying upon ?

Sorry this is a long-winded post, but I originally got my PoC from CAG and it was way back in May 2007, so there may well be a fair few people in the same boat as me, wondering what to do.

I completely understand the advice to "DO NOTHING" yet, but want to be prepared for when the strike-out letter arrives.....

Thanks in advance.

(feeling a bit more optimistic again today !)

[Budgie]

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

There are probably thousands of stayed claims with that exact same wording.

4(a) Refers to the default penalty aspect which is no longer relevent.
4(b) Is just a general reference to common law and unenforcability in respect of UTCCR1999 so as you are not referring to UTCCR1999 reg 6 (2) specifically it's basically fine.

You will have the opportunity to submit a revised POC when and if you are contacted by the Court or the bank. There is no point in rushing ahead in doing that now.

People are working behind the scenes on revised POC's and Witness Statements to counteract either strike out or dismissal attempts by the banks.

So basically the advice is stay put but let us know if you receive any communication from either the bank or the Court.

More detailed information will follow as soon as the situation is clearer.

Budgie

Hi,

Could someone advise please:

My case is stayed at the moment.

The relevant bit from my PoC is:

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) and the common law.

Phew ! (had to type that, as I can't locate the original file quickly...)

Anyway - here's my question: As I have not mentioned 5(1) of UTCCR [or 6(2) for that matter] should I write to the court to amend my Particulars of Claim to include a clarification at the end of my section b) worded to inform which section of UTCCR I am relying upon ?

Sorry this is a long-winded post, but I originally got my PoC from CAG and it was way back in May 2007, so there may well be a fair few people in the same boat as me, wondering what to do.

I completely understand the advice to "DO NOTHING" yet, but want to be prepared for when the strike-out letter arrives.....

Thanks in advance.

(feeling a bit more optimistic again today !)

[Not_Watson]

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

Thanks Budgie.

I'll do exactly that.

[EXC]

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

Some of you might like a quick break to relieve the uncertainty of everything and take in some light entertainment, provided by the BBA's Eric Leanders.

His 'stranded on the motorway without any petrol' example for justifying a £30 service charge is something to behold.

Default Viral Title Player