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

[natweststaffmember]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_%28contract_law%29
Googled the idea cos I am nosey

[borgbaiter]

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

hi

is it mistake or misrepresentaion? did they do it on purpose or in error?


Borgbaiter

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Morning, Also can't wait to hear the idea...post early, Any way just to lift peoples spirits with a little giggle, im sure some of you will, and those of you who are with this bank like myself with laugh loud or cry..(P.S its our monety their fighting for)

"""
RBS board could quit if government limits staff bonuses


The directors of Royal Bank of Scotland are threatening to resign if the government stops them paying bonuses of £1.5bn to staff in its investment arm.
They sought legal advice after the chancellor said the government would have the right to veto bonus amounts.
The bank's lawyers say the directors had a duty to make the firm, which is 70%-owned by the taxpayer, competitive and that may mean raising bonus levels."""

[ROBSTER]

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

Morning, Also can't wait to hear the idea...post early, Any way just to lift peoples spirits with a little giggle, im sure some of you will, and those of you who are with this bank like myself with laugh loud or cry..(P.S its our monety their fighting for)

"""
RBS board could quit if government limits staff bonuses


[B]The directors of Royal Bank of Scotland are threatening to resign if the government stops them paying bonuses of £1.5bn to staff in its investment arm."""

Where could they have made that kind of money without us subsidising free banking for all ? LOL

[Luminol]

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

Ive just rung my bank, about a debit payment that I was querying and before theyd deal with that I had to confirm that I understood the 'new' charging structure for overdrafts, guess the staff have been briefed!

Lumi x

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Ive just rung my bank, about a debit payment that I was querying and before theyd deal with that I had to confirm that I understood the 'new' charging structure for overdrafts, guess the staff have been briefed!

Lumi x

What are those then.

[Luminol]

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

Oh the HBoS ones, they were on the one show last night! BBC - BBC One Programmes - The One Show, 02/12/2009, so guess thats why they are asking.

[stewie082]

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

I don't know if this has been discussed as yet, I have avoided the forums over the past few days to get some real work done.

Martin Lewis weekly newsletter paints a grim picture for those planning on claiming back charges. My other half seen this, and is now forcing me over a barrel! She wants me to make a reduced offer to Lloyds and get done with it and forget about claiming.....But I dont want t! But for the sake of the marital home and my washing being done.. Is 10-20% chance worth it? Or is Martin Lewis and Co just limiting damage control and keeping expectations low?


Segment from the newsletter:
Q. What are the chances? The new arguments may yet win, yet it's going to be tough, maybe a 10-20% chance only. So it's safest to plan your finances on getting nothing. But cross your fingers it works!

Any thoughts? If I settle with the bank and pay them a lump sum, I could be limiting chances of the good fight going forward.

[Amethyst]

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

Do you have an outstanding overdraft with Lloyds thats made up primarily of bank charges?

[Luminol]

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

Hi Stewie,

I appreciate your predicament, all I can say is that, in my opinion, I know I cant move forward until I know what OFT are going to say and my bank have been in touch with me, so I know where I truly stand, I suppose in the 'land of legal' it is still early days since the decision.

I imagine that even the banks are going to take thier time deciding thier next step, so thats what Im going to do.

Lumi x

[stewie082]

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

Do you have an outstanding overdraft with Lloyds thats made up primarily of bank charges?

Yup, all charges! They just kept on increasing the overdraft limit to facilitate the charges. It started from £250 worth of charges and is now £1470, all in charges. I have not used the account for 18 months. I agreed to pay £25 a month to service the interest and then finally had the account frozen. But they are playing hardball now.

You can even hear a certain cockyness coming across in the tone of the Indian call centres now, as if to say "screw you".
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Hi Stewie,



I imagine that even the banks are going to take thier time deciding thier next step, so thats what Im going to do.

Lumi x

Lloyds are wasting NO time what so ever!! I got my first call on the 26th and several calls every day since. I got a nice letter yesterday stating they are now going to push forward.

Title: IMPORTANT YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY, ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
(Served Under section 76(1) of the consumer credit act)

Along with this letter was a Information Brochure from the office of Fair Trading informing me of my rights.

Lloyds are the worst of the lot. But I really really like a good fight. I dont want to be shafted, but I can see where my battle axe comes from. She is just trying to protect the family home and limit fallout. She just wants it done with and gone.

I went through a very bad patch with Lloyds a few years back due to gambling (my own fault) and finally back to financial health, so I think its memories she wants to move away from.

Although I was told by a legal buff I should take Lloyds on head to head with the "duty of care" argument. I met with my financial advisor and branch manager to discuss my gambling problems and ways to help me self exclude....The answer was...We will open you up a seperate account to gamble from, heaven to a problem gambler. They rejected my mortage payment due to possible fraud on the account even with cash available, but never once rejected any of the 20-30 online gaming transactions per day.

Ok just want to know if I should pay up or continue and wait in the hot-tub with the rest of my friends.

Stew

[Amethyst]

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

Okay, I have been advising people to organise a repayment plan as a 'gesture of goodwill' in the meantime whilst the issues are clarified.

I would write to them saying that as far as you are concerned your account is still fully in dispute pending the next steps in the litigation and oft investigation - but that in the meantime as you dont wish to avoid your responsibilities you would like to come to a payment arrangement....

I can't boost Martins view up to any more than 50% as things stand but I seriously would try and hang fire for the OFT announcement at least, just take steps to protect your own interests in the meantime.

Re the gambling issue

The answer was...We will open you up a seperate account to gamble from, heaven to a problem gambler. They rejected my mortage payment due to possible fraud on the account even with cash available, but never once rejected any of the 20-30 online gaming transactions per day.

I was reading a report yesterday which I will post elsewhere if I can find it again, not sure if theres much in it to actually help.(god I make some pointless comments some times !)

Found it and no probably not useful but shows things are moving - http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...ber%202009.pdf

[stewie082]

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

Okay, I have been advising people to organise a repayment plan as a 'gesture of goodwill' in the meantime whilst the issues are clarified.

I would write to them saying that as far as you are concerned your account is still fully in dispute pending the next steps in the litigation and oft investigation - but that in the meantime as you dont wish to avoid your responsibilities you would like to come to a payment arrangement....

I can't boost Martins view up to any more than 50% as things stand but I seriously would try and hang fire for the OFT announcement at least, just take steps to protect your own interests in the meantime.

Re the gambling issue I was reading a report yesterday which I will post elsewhere if I can find it again, not sure if theres much in it to actually help.(god I make some pointless comments some times !)

Found it and no probably not useful but shows things are moving - http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...ber%202009.pdf

Thanks Ame, I just went to the looney bin in Harley street for 3 weeks and now sentenced to a 2 meetings a week at my local GA. Best thing I could have done. Should have gone years ago! Yup and its exactly like in the movies. "Hiiiiiiiii Stewieeee"

damm thats funny!

[Centium5000]

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

Right guys, here goes...


The SC ruled that the Relevant Charges were for services rendered, were part of the overall price and that the new language recently introduced by the banks was a description of fact rather than an artificial device.


Well, that was news to us, to the OFT, even to the 80% of in-credit customers who still appear to believe the interest foregone is the consideration for their services while the Relevant Charges are the cost of the other 20% operating in breach of contract.


That means we (and the majority of contracting individuals) had made a mistake.


Now in common law, depending on what kind of mistake has been made, and whether it is fundamental, the contract may be void or voidable or open to a court to make equitable.


There are three kinds of mistake: common, mutual or unilateral. In the first two, both parties make a mistake as to fact – the same mistake or two different mistakes respectively – whereas in the third only one party makes the mistake.


Firstly, I'd argue the following:

• There was a common mistake as to the nature of the Relevant Charges

• This is evidenced by the consumer's submissions regarding default charges, the previous language employed in the terms and submissions on behalf of the bank both to the House of Commons and OFT.

• The mistake goes to the root of the matter as it relates to the amount of consideration (price) payable for performance of the contract overall (as per the SC ruling).

• Alternatively, or in addition, the mistake goes to the root of the matter as it renders the nature of the service contracted different from what was contracted. This is because neither party considered the Relevant Charges to be consideration for services, rather they were for breach or default, and therefore although provided they were not contracted.

• The contract should be void or voidable at the consumer's discretion (if the contract is still capable of performance).

Ah, you say, but the banks will argue that they were not mistaken as evidenced in their Supreme Court defence, that it is a unilateral mistake on the part of the consumer and that they should not be penalised for the other party's mistake.


Well that would be great.


The implication of this is:

• In evidence to the House of Commons, the banks made false representations as to their understanding of the nature of the Relevant Charges

• They were aware of the consumer's mistake in order to be able to echo it and justify their charges on the basis of it.

• They allowed the consumer to continue in the mistake because it was of benefit to them i.e. they would not have to offer competitive prices for the charges as the consumer's mistook them as being related to actual costs incurred rather than part of the main bargain. The customer would also be unlikely to challenge the quality, timeliness, care of execution of the services provided under the Relevant Terms as they would not be perceived as services within the meaning of the Sale of Goods and Services Act.

• This state of affairs has the same effect as misrepresentation in common law, there was no meeting of minds on a fundamental aspect of the contract (either the services to be provided or the overall consideration), ergo the contract should be void.

So banks, which is it? Did we both misunderstand and therefore not agree a contract for those services? Or did you understand and allowed us to continue in our mistake, perhaps even fraudulently misrepresenting it to maintain our perception?


Either way the contract should be void or voidable.


What do you think guys?

P.S. Sorry it took me so long to post that - I didn't get to sleep until 6am thinking about it so I got up late!

[Luminol]

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

Hi Centium and welcome, Im not great with any legal speak tbh, but it sounds a good argument!

Lumi x