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

[kev2b3]

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

I am sure that the OFT and the banks know the judgement outcome by now so where are all the damm leaks when you need them.

[EXC]

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

Hi Guys a newbie on here,

Interesting to read this news on the Bank charges case. Quick question. If, IF the OFT does agree that Bank Charges are unfair, and the Banks want to appeal this decision, then won't they have to pay more interest on the bank charges that are on hold, making this worse for themselves. Or they will more than likely appeal to have the ruling overturned.

I hope i make a bit of sense.

Thanks

Rhys

As Amethyst confirmed interest will continue to accrue until the point your refund is made.

On the issue of the bank's appealing the OFT's final assessment that the charges are unfair, this is what we believe will happen:

Although the OFT can take a view, only a court can make a legal ruling that the charges are unfair or not and the OFT have repeatedly said this.

At some point after the Supreme Court judgment the OFT will give the banks their final view on unfairness and will seek - as they are obliged to - voluntary compliance from the banks. If the banks don't comply the OFT will then apply to the courts for an injunction to prevent the continued use of the terms based on their view that the charges are unfair. The banks will contest the injunction application and it is at this point that the court must rule on the fairness of the terms & charges in order to grant the injunction or not and it is these proceedings which form the 'substantive issues' of the test case ie are the charges legally unfair?

Interestingly in any contested proceedings brought under UTCCR the burden of proof lies with the seller or provider to prove that their charges are fair, rather than - in this case the OFT - having to prove that the charges are unfair. This was always one of the main advantages over bringing a test case on penalties where the burden of proof would be on the OFT to prove the charges were actually penal under common law.

This seems to be the standard procedure for enforcing the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations by a regulator as in the case of OFT v Foxtons Estate Agents. In that case the original injunction application failed but the OFT had the decision overturned in the Court of Appeal.

[EXC]

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

We have in many ways already won...

You bet we have Abbey Owner Throws Down The Banking Gauntlet | banks | abbey | supreme_court | Kleinman | Sky News Blogs

[ROBSTER]

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

Of course not, we have much more guidance and regulation and the OFT will be looking at charges under competition rules. Can you seriously see RBS upping their £5 to £35 again and consumers standing for it ?

More-over can you see HBOS reducing their fees to £5 from £35 if they were that confident of winning.

Also why are Barclaycard rolling over to pay (contractual interest included) if they had any inclination that the banks would win and there be a read across to Credit Card Charges?

Still I'm keeping them crossed!!
:beagle:

[Budgie]

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

You bet we have Abbey Owner Throws Down The Banking Gauntlet | banks | abbey | supreme_court | Kleinman | Sky News Blogs

Aha, watch this space !!!

How will the other banks respond to that ?

Maybe the true beginning of, rather than the end of free banking then ?

[Budgie]

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

Hmmmmm

Just a few thoughts.

Is the new "zero" account from Abbey and the likelihood of similar accounts springing up from all the other banks over the next few weeks possibly going to make any planned 2nd stage litigation in the test case a non-starter?

IE, How could a Court decide upon what is a future level of fair or unfair charge if there isn't actually a charge to consider? Clever move from Abbey Eh!

Ok, there is still the matter of a few billion quid of historical charges, limitation and compensation to resolve but those issues were never likely to be covered in the 2nd stage litigation anyway. Those matters will be resolved via representative action on behalf of Consumers.

I suspect that the banks losing the Supreme Court appeal is now a given, after all I am fairly sure that Abbey already know the result and if they had won their appeal I don't believe they would have gone ahead and introduced a "zero charges" account. Why should they ?

[Amethyst]

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

Market forces....apparently Bud

Abbey first to launch Fee Free banking - for mortgage customers only... - Legal Beagles

[Budgie]

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

MARKET FORCES

- the interaction of supply and demand that shapes a market economy


BULL****

[ROBSTER]

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

Hmmmmm

Just a few thoughts.

Is the new "zero" account from Abbey and the likelihood of similar accounts springing up from all the other banks over the next few weeks possibly going to make any planned 2nd stage litigation in the test case a non-starter?

IE, How could a Court decide upon what is a future level of fair or unfair charge if there isn't actually a charge to consider? Clever move from Abbey Eh!

Ok, there is still the matter of a few billion quid of historical charges, limitation and compensation to resolve but those issues were never likely to be covered in the 2nd stage litigation anyway. Those matters will be resolved via representative action on behalf of Consumers.

I suspect that the banks losing the Supreme Court appeal is now a given, after all I am fairly sure that Abbey already know the result and if they had won their appeal I don't believe they would have gone ahead and introduced a "zero charges" account. Why should they ?

I think they or at least thier QCs would have had copy of the draft 7 days before issue so that would be correct.

If they had announced a new account with £100 a time charges I would be a little more concerned about the out come..but I'm happy with £0 charges for now!!!

[EXC]

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

Is the new "zero" account from Abbey and the likelihood of similar accounts springing up from all the other banks over the next few weeks possibly going to make any planned 2nd stage litigation in the test case a non-starter?

IE, How could a Court decide upon what is a future level of fair or unfair charge if there isn't actually a charge to consider? Clever move from Abbey Eh!

It would have no relevance on the test case as, after all, the test case is all about the 'relevant charges' and not about irrelevant accounts

The show must go on in terms of future charges regardless of banks offering fee-free banking as the legal principles established by the test case are needed to ensure that charges don't ever creep back in.

[natweststaffmember]

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

I think we should remember that this fee free banking is only if you have a long term commitmant to the bank ie mortgage account. Now, the cynic in me says that those who are already incurring huge charges would not be affected by this since they would be declined for a mortgage and so it would be aimed at those who occasionally made an error on their banking.

[Budgie]

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

It would have no relevance on the test case as, after all, the test case is all about the 'relevant charges' and not about irrelevant accounts

The show must go on in terms of future charges regardless of banks offering fee-free banking as the legal principles established by the test case are needed to ensure that charges don't ever creep back in.

I agree with that Exc.

I guess it would be necessary for all banks and for all account types managed by those banks to be converted to "Zero" type accounts for the Cause of action to totally disappear.

Also, the majority of Consumers would I believe actually be happy with some form of charge.
It's just that the present or historic charges were not generally perceived to be fair.
However, if Abbey are able to offer an account with NO charges then one does have to wonder whether there actually need to be any charge whatsoever for any bank or any account type.

[Amethyst]

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

Well there have to be some kind of controls on this account, and my concern is that these limits and controls will not be transparent.

eg withdrawal of overdraft if not paid in certain time / invisible floor limit and how thats decided and applied.

Its going to be extremely difficult to properly analyse the account until the full T&C's are available.

[EXC]

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

I think what Santander are trying to do is use this current account product as a loss leader to sell other products as the press release indicates it's only open to existing Santander customers.

Clearly this type of account would attract those who would otherwise have incurred charges and with the initial emphasis on Abbey mortgage customers it may be that they see a gap in the subprime mortgage market.


Santander Zero Current Account will be available to anyone who currently holds a mortgage with the bank, or opens one. The deal will be available to all customers of Abbey and Bradford & Bingley when the two banks become Santander. It will be extended to Alliance & Leicester customers when it rebrands to Santander later in 2010.

[Luminol]

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

I don't know if any of you saw my post, or if it really has any relevance, regarding this discussion,

Legal Beagles

Basically about a survey I did for a large Market Research Company, about 'new' bank accounts.

Feel free to have a look..

Lumi x