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

[EXC]

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

Just a reminder for everyone

Do you think we'd forgotten?

[Tools]

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

No, but explains quite a few things easily for those who do not fully understand.....including me

[Ruby]

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

Hi Amethyst, thanks for your kind words. I know the discussion has moved on however yes I do have an arrangement to repay the remaining O/D amount with RBS, circa £700.

[Amethyst]

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

Hi Ruby,

Thats good then, carry on with that arrangement and hang fire on the rest until we have word from the OFT on its intentions.

If you hear anything else from the bank in the meantime, do let us know.

Ame
xx

[Shazzaw]

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

Quick question guys.

If - and only if - the OFT decide to continue their investigation under section 5 will this mean a completely new court case from scratch and would it be fair to assume a case with subsequent appeals, etc; lasting as long as 2 1/2 years as the current case has taken??

thanks

s

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Hi All, Back froma long weekend and had forgotten abut all these bank charges just catching up on some posting some interesting information on circa, Id like to go around posting thanks to everyone but i havn't the time, so THANKS ALL.

I take it nothing new really then...

I must have read this somwhere but what are peoples opinions on why the OFT won all cases except this last one...?

Thanks and would appreciate the replys.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Surley a new case...as its a new section of law...

[Jester]

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

Interesting write-up on This Is Money website

Bank charges reclaiming court case: Q&A | This is Money

The important points I picked up on are:

The Supreme Court said there was no need to refer the matter to the European courts. It is unclear at this point whether this prevents the OFT from turning to Europe, even though this option would have been open to the banks if they had lost today. For the time being, the OFT's case has fallen completely flat and its upcoming report on the fairness of charges has been robbed of its potential potency.

Can anyone else carry on the campaign?
If the OFT is prevented from fighting on in Europe, an individual – that is an everyday consumer – may be able to take this case to the European Court of Justice and set a precedent that way. Any ruling by the European courts must be adopted by any member states. It is unclear at this time whether this is possible.
The Supreme Court suggested parliament could draw up a new law governing bank charges, however, it is unlikely this would be retrospective, meaning existing charges could not be reclaimed.

All of which seems to indicate that it 'may' still be possible for the OFT to go to the ECJ for a ruling that would overrule the Supreme Court. It says that an individual may be able to do this and thereby set a precedent !!

However, I am bemused why this option would have been open to the Banks if they had lost, but maybe not to the OFT. Suppose the OFT will be investigating whether they can go to the ECJ as this article suggests that the Banks would have been allowed to do so. Don't know what they base that declaration on though.

[Amethyst]

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

its upcoming report on the fairness of charges has been robbed of its potential potency.

I don;t agree with that.

The 'individual consumer' bit - this can be covered by a class/representative action - something which is being strongly lookied into at the moment.

I also don't think it said the OFT can't go to the ECJ, they couldnt anyway the Supreme Court would have had to refer it there but saw no need. Theres no appeal above this decision. They did hint strongly in the judgment it may be sent there on other grounds

I agree, however, that it would not be appropriate
to refer the issue to the European Court under Article 234. I do not believe any challenge
Page 34
to the fairness of the Relevant Terms has been made on the basis that they cause the
overall package of remuneration paid by those in debit to be excessive having regard to
the package of services received in exchange. In these circumstances the basis on which I
have answered the narrow issue would seem to render that issue academic. It may be that,
if and when the OFT challenges the fairness of the Relevant Terms, issues will be raised
that ought to be referred to Luxembourg. That stage has not yet been reached.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

It all seems to suspicious to me...Like the Banks HAVE to win, Inside job and all that, Its totally a stich up, make us all hold out for years to hear anything them BAM the banks just win like that...and now the post above stating Banks could appeal but OFT possibly not fixed!! However won't this make it even more tasty for when you guys knock them out of the park!
(assuming its not all fixed and we never win)

[Amethyst]

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

The OFT case was narrowed to a single argument on 6(2) - this was narrowed by the banks - the OFT I think messed up by allowing that to happen. The other arguments are all there in their original POCs and banks defences/counterclaims but fell by the wayside over the hearings/judgments.

It is still wide open, if it was a stitch up, the door would be firmly closed.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Still Thinking Corruption ;P:beagle::focus:

[EXC]

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

Quick question guys.

If - and only if - the OFT decide to continue their investigation under section 5 will this mean a completely new court case from scratch and would it be fair to assume a case with subsequent appeals, etc; lasting as long as 2 1/2 years as the current case has taken??

thanks

s

It's impossible to say really. But I can't help thinking that any future OFT litigation would have a head start compared to the point at which the test case was first announced in July 2007.

Although the test case itself has run it's course the OFT's UTCCR investigation is still ongoing and it may be that the investigation concludes that the OFT believes there is unfairness under sec 5 (1).

IMHO I think that if there is any more OFT litigation it wouldn't involve a 'test case' as such and would be a case of the OFT seeking an injunction - based on their view - against the banks which would result in the kind of stage 2 litigation that was never reached in the test case.

We can only take heart from the Supreme Court judgment that pointed the way forward for the OFT under sec 5. And in fact actively encouraged the OFT to do just that on the final day of the hearing:

BARONESS HALE: Forgive me, Mr Crow, before you move on, yesterday you were asked: supposing, horror of horrors, that this appeal were to succeed, either in whole or in part, what sort of enquiry might be left to the OFT..............You couldn't take a group of terms and say, "Taken together, do these pass the fairness test?"

MR CROW: One would have to consider each term in the context of the contract as a whole. I guess one could have a several challenge, but I think one wouldn't end up -- it is getting too abstract -- with a collective challenge to the contract as a whole. It would have to be a challenge to the terms severally.

BARONESS HALE: There are several terms that say you pay this for this, and this for this, and this for this, and put together that tots up to something that produces a significant imbalance. That would seem to me to be an extremely sensible sort of enquiry to be made and one which would not lead to some of the deleterious results that others might.

MR CROW: We will certainly give some thought to that. I am grateful.

[Shazzaw]

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

Many thanks EXC,

Just one question - what does 'deleterious' mean??!!

s

(and thanks from me for your ongoing efforts which are giving me some heart as to a possible way forward in the future)

[Jester]

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

Many thanks EXC,

Just one question - what does 'deleterious' mean??!!

s

(and thanks from me for your ongoing efforts which are giving me some heart as to a possible way forward in the future)

Deleterious = Harmful

[PocketTheDifference]

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

quote
"
BROWN SPEECH LEAKED ?

Just found this post on the bitter wallet site. Can any one confirm its providence?

LOL

Watch Brown hijack the issue in a speech tomorrow along these lines:

“we have been accused in the past of being soft on the banking industry but I now believe the time has come to be firm with the British Banking industry, and send this message to them that your Government will not tolerate the systematic profiteering through charges applied which are likely to fall short of the laws of the people of the United Kingdom.

I have today spoken with the Governor of the Bank of England and the chairman of the FSA and asked them in the light of this historic judgement by the (labour appointed) Supreme Court of Justice, to speak to the chief executives of all of the Banking institutions involved in this case to agree with the OFT an arrangement for the systematic return of all of these excessive charges to the British public who have been clearly wronged in this matter.

I have also asked for the British Banking Association and FSA to sit down with the OFT in an effort to agree a way forward with such charges in both terms of price and application.
The days of Bankers unfairly profiteering from the application of unfair charges to the voting public are now over thanks to this government’s intervention through their appointed body OFT.

Please believe me or Ill be fXXXXX at the Polls.”

SINCE the Diligent Mr Brown has again done nothing can everybody even the small labour fans please boycot labour in the polls, for blatantly lying and doing absolutly NOTHING AS USUAL, Cheers for the help in reccesion Mr Brown

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Sorry for the big font wasn't meant to !