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

Ame,

Are you sure you really want to get started on a "good faith" discussion ?

[Amethyst]

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

[ROBSTER]

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

Good points Budgie,

(& Amethyst)

My concern is the time it COULD take (although I would absolutely agree that legal clarity is required in particular in the case of historic charges).

My faith in the OFT legal team has been somewhat challenged by the out come of the SJ appeal.

I probably should have included LBs and CAG (amongst others) in the reply to Wales on line article
but the fact ML is a humble jurno to trade added impetus to the reply.

[Amethyst]

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

lol, probably not but think we should.....

I think the angle MSE and co are taking is that the cross subsidisation wasnt declared at time of contract so is contrary to good faith, however i dont agree with that (barring the fact the banks only came up with the cross subsidy argument at the HoL and had a different story at the treasury committee meeting) simply because basically Ryan Air don;t have in their contracts for full price fairs that the full price fair is subsidising their cheap £1 typee fairs (which is entirely differnt but just illustrates cross subsidy is standard business practise and not ever been ruled on that it should be disclosed in advance as far as i am aware) (unless I am looking at it too simply)

Legal Beagles

[Amethyst]

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

Ok, I am not the best person to be looking at legislation I'm afraid, so don't shoot me down ( just trying to help)

If the charges are for a 'service' that the bank are giving us, does this not now come under the supply of goods and services act?
In particular s 15.
15.
Implied term about consideration.
— (1) Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge.

(2) What is a reasonable charge is a question of fact.

So for a court to determine whether it is reasonable, would the banks not have to disclose the actual cost to them?

Yep I agree with that.

[EXC]

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

lol, probably not but think we should.....

I think the angle MSE and co are taking is that the cross subsidisation wasnt declared at time of contract so is contrary to good faith, however i dont agree with that (barring the fact the banks only came up with the cross subsidy argument at the HoL and had a different story at the treasury committee meeting) simply because basically Ryan Air don;t have in their contracts for full price fairs that the full price fair is subsidising their cheap £1 typee fairs (which is entirely differnt but just illustrates cross subsidy is standard business practise and not ever been ruled on that it should be disclosed in advance as far as i am aware) (unless I am looking at it too simply)

I couldn't agree more. There is no contractual (or otherwise) obligation on the part of the banks to disclose their business model and there is nothing in UTCCR that could relate to it. After all it is the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and by any stretch of the imagination UTCCR cannot apply to 'terms' that don't exist in the contracts at all.

BTW Ame I couldn't post on the Bank's Defences thread for some reason so I've e-mailed em to ya.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Im soo confused

[Tools]

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

okthanks EXC now im so confused my post doesn't even make sense if Ame is confused i have NO chance ....ill be happy to sit and wait for sombody else to figure before my head explodes who makes all this stuff up, can't they make it lame mans terms.

ditto

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Not much happening today is there, Well earnd rest...or deliberating?

[natweststaffmember]

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

Not much happening today is there, Well earnd rest...or deliberating?

Not everything happens in front of a watching audience.....

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Thats Deliberating then ;p

[Jester]

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

Not everything happens in front of a watching audience.....

I'd have phrased it as ' A watched pot never boils' myself

[natweststaffmember]

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

Unfair Bank Charges Still Fair Game to Claim
Dec 2 2009
The Supreme Court case which last week disappointed millions of bank customers hoping to be refunded overdraft charges does not spell doom and gloom for the consumer, according to financial claims management company.

The company has announced that the verdict, which overturned earlier court rulings allowing the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the fairness of charges for unauthorised overdrafts, will not leave the reclaim of unfair charges dead in the water and that millions of customers are still eligible to claim back unwarranted charges from financial institutions.

They said: In our mission to bring justice to the consumer we were very disappointed with the judgement. Despite the Supreme Court ruling there are still valid legal reasons to pursue new and existing claims.

Consumers should be aware that claims against unfair credit card charges, Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) and unenforceable credit agreements remain unaffected by the ruling and customers that have had over limit, late payment, default or other admin fees charged to their credit cards are still fully eligible to claim. Most importantly, people can make claims on cards they no longer have.

The legal issues involved are of much greater complexity than have been presented in the media and one of the problems with the judgment is the court have stuck rigidly to the terms of what was being appealed. In April 2008 the High Court Judge found that what is known as the excluded assessment construction of the Regulations should be adopted, as opposed to that argued by the bank which was what is known as the excluded term construction of the Regulations. Such finding was not part of the Appeal in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. Consequently the issue of fairness is still very much alive.




I have removed all mention of the claims management company that was within the link and am not posting the link either.

[Centium5000]

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

Well I've now finished reading all 22 pages to this thread and, boy, am I glad I did!

It never occurred to me when I was discussing the legal points with EXC and natwest over at MSE that I'd hit the motherload, the guys who are really fighting this. I should have!

Thanks for the invite to these forums - I appreciate all the hard work you've been putting in and it's good to see there's a forum to discuss this without banal interruptions every 5 minutes.

...but this isn't just a kiss a** post, something 'clicked' with me as I spent the 4 hours reading through the posts...

I think I can see a way of cutting this Gordian Knot without recourse to all the technicalities the banks would like us to get tangled in.

It's a direct result of their arguments in court too, which is quite poetic!

It comes down to the common law concept of 'mistake' and I believe the banks have created an unarguable position for themselves. Also, it may be grounds to amend PoCs that were based upon UTCCR Reg. 6 and that could even work in your favour.

Sorry to leave you hanging, but I'll post a full explanation tomorrow - I don't think I'll do it justice at 3 o'clock in the morning!

For now, I'll just say two things: 'common mistake' and 'uncorrected unilateral mistake'.

Tomorrow guys, and thanks again. :grin:

[Knight_Templar]

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

Well I've now finished reading all 22 pages to this thread and, boy, am I glad I did!

It never occurred to me when I was discussing the legal points with EXC and natwest over at MSE that I'd hit the motherload, the guys who are really fighting this. I should have!

Thanks for the invite to these forums - I appreciate all the hard work you've been putting in and it's good to see there's a forum to discuss this without banal interruptions every 5 minutes.

...but this isn't just a kiss a** post, something 'clicked' with me as I spent the 4 hours reading through the posts...

I think I can see a way of cutting this Gordian Knot without recourse to all the technicalities the banks would like us to get tangled in.

It's a direct result of their arguments in court too, which is quite poetic!

It comes down to the common law concept of 'mistake' and I believe the banks have created an unarguable position for themselves. Also, it may be grounds to amend PoCs that were based upon UTCCR Reg. 6 and that could even work in your favour.

Sorry to leave you hanging, but I'll post a full explanation tomorrow - I don't think I'll do it justice at 3 o'clock in the morning!

For now, I'll just say two things: 'common mistake' and 'uncorrected unilateral mistake'.

Tomorrow guys, and thanks again. :grin:

Intrigued!!!