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

[PocketTheDifference]

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

I didnt think about it that way actually, my charges are "suposidly" paying for others banking Im owed lots i would say at least 2-3k in charges, so Im paying all that to the phat bankers for som1 else, surely thats a legal point.
Can I ask one of the team somthing, That court case was it basically saying when you open your bank account that customers where aware of charges so should apply!?

[Sapphire]

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

Thats it hun, just carry on with the tenner and tell them so and that you can't afford anymore.

Happy shopping xx

[MrsSkint]

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

Thanks - Will do!!

[Amethyst]

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

I didnt think about it that way actually, my charges are "suposidly" paying for others banking Im owed lots i would say at least 2-3k in charges, so Im paying all that to the phat bankers for som1 else, surely thats a legal point.
Can I ask one of the team somthing, That court case was it basically saying when you open your bank account that customers where aware of charges so should apply!?

pretty much yes, its basically saying the charges form part of the price or renumeration for the overall package of services so can't be assessed for fairness as regards their adequacy.

[Amethyst]

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

Mrs Skint

If you do speak to them yes argue £10 is all you can afford and find out why they are chasing you suddenly when you are already paying an arrangement.

Don't agree to anything else just listen and see what they have to say, stick to the original plan, claiming isnt out the window just remember that and you will be fine. If you need to say anything about claiming say you are waiting for the ofts decision before making any changes to the current arrangement.

that makes sense ?

[PocketTheDifference]

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

pretty much yes, its basically saying the charges form part of the price or renumeration for the overall package of services so can't be assessed for fairness as regards their adequacy.

What If i didnt open my bank account myself I wasn't aware of their charges, (cluthching at Straws here)
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Ye could help us out here, see if their trying to demand moeny now this case is final.

[Jester]

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

Umm...who said the case was final ?

[PocketTheDifference]

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

ops already posted that

[EXC]

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

What If i didnt open my bank account myself I wasn't aware of their charges, (cluthching at Straws here)
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Ye could help us out here, see if their trying to demand moeny now this case is final.

I think you are clutching at straws really and in fact Amethyst herself open an account recently for herself and was not given any charges information whatsoever. I'm afraid that at the moment at least the banks are getting away simply by saying that their terms & charges are 'available'.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Are they, Holly cow well my terms are available to them, rekon they want to read em?

Just
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
How long do you think this whole new way is going to take do you think another 2 or a few more years than that. Sorry just excited that you guys are actually looking t foil them again!! And if happens will it have to be like last time, small court, small court, Pine Stripe suit Court??

[mamamia]

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

Hi all, havn't posted anything on here for ages, also have my cases stayed since 2007. Must say you are all doing a great job. I am following everything on this site on a regular basis.
I to was a bit shaken by Wednesdays verdict, but realized straight away that we are all being pointed into another direction, so it definetly not over.

Has anyone been watching question time last night on the BBC? Here to the politicians agree that it is unfair and that we all have been pointed towards other avenues.

So the fight will go on

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Quiet today no new news for us

[Dougal16T]

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

Good morning everyone,

Just a very quick question, HSBC owe me in excess of £6,000.

They have accepted that my case is one of Financial Hardship, and even made a 'gesture' of £1000 recently in order to help me with my liiving costs.

Does the result from the Supreme Court affect my case?

I read somewhere that 'Financial Hardship' cses were not affected - or am I dreaming? (as usual!)

Best wishes to all
Dougal

[Amethyst]

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

They are affected in the same way as all standard claims.

No you do not need to do anything as yet.

You will not have to repay the gesture of goodwill payment.

Is your claim stayed in the courts system too or simply in the banks complaints system ?

[Yoda]

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

I have 2 POC's Abbey & Nat West. THey are both different ( Don't know why,maybe from 2 different forums) Will they need changing?
Thanks

4. The Claimant contends that:
a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not genuine pre-estimates of costs 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 particularly but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1 e); and
ii); the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2 and;
iii) the common law and Case Law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts.
AND

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 Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.