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

I was referring to business claims rather than personal claims and the evidence from the Supreme Court that could be used with business claims if the same terms as such are in operation.

[jax007]

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

Having read the above posts (and not really understanding very much of any of them!!) can someone elaborate on thefollowing please .....................

1) Are NatWest claimants able to reclaim charges (albeit I think if I am correct only from 01-03) on the basis they could be penalties?

2) What is the line on Nat West business customers claiming back charges and are they able to?? Not following the posts at all well on this one I'm afraic!

jaxx

[Amethyst]

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

Having read the above posts (and not really understanding very much of any of them!!) can someone elaborate on thefollowing please .....................

1) Are NatWest claimants able to reclaim charges (albeit I think if I am correct only from 01-03) on the basis they could be penalties?

YES - they have been judged as being capable of being penal - so you can take Natwest on for 2001-2003 charges on the grounds they are penal and must be proportionate to cost - therefore ask they disclose the true costs. However UTCCR does still cover those terms and as such the full 5(1) arguments should be used as well.

2) What is the line on Nat West business customers claiming back charges and are they able to?? Not following the posts at all well on this one I'm afraic!

As above but if you are not a sole trader then you need not worry about the UTCCR element wiping over the common law aspect. Selfishly, I would like to see a sole trader take these into court and see if the bank try argue UTCCR applies because then it opens UTCCR for sole traders (if you know what i mean)

jaxx

Does that help in any way whatsoever lol.

[natweststaffmember]

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

On 1. I would say that not all the terms are capable or being penal but the wording of the terms are important. If anyone has those terms specifically where the triggers for the charges are given then we need to see it posted up to identify the legally penal terms or "suspect" terms. Not all of them may be penalties.

[Budgie]

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

On 1. I would say that not all the terms are capable or being penal but the wording of the terms are important. If anyone has those terms specifically where the triggers for the charges are given then we need to see it posted up to identify the legally penal terms or "suspect" terms. Not all of them may be penalties.

Don't forget the letters that your bank sent you notifying you of the charge and the response that your bank may have sent to you regarding your preliminary letter or LBA ( see my post 583 in this thread )

The contracts themselves may not link the breach with the charge but IMO in my case the charge notification letters and response to preliminary letters certainly do !!! Well certainly to the point that I wish to use it as part of my overall argument together with UTCCR1999 regulation 5 !!!

Budgie

[jax007]

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

so need to dig out those letters if they still exist (!) - and am assuming if the charges run outside the 2001-2003 limits, then you can only claim for that period alone.

And ... am assuming can use same arguments for personal AND business accounts???

Yes Ame ... sole trader.

jaxx

[EXC]

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

If anyone fancies some entertaining Sunday afternoon reading you could do worse than look at this - the text of an 'Inside Money' programme from August 2006.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...he_charges.txt

I love the 'whim of a court?' quip from Bob Egerton. Also on the panel of anti bank charger's is one Ingrid Gubbay - remember that name

[Amethyst]

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

Which? campaigns star moves to Cohen Milstein | News | The Lawyer

[EXC]

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

Which? campaigns star moves to Cohen Milstein | News | The Lawyer

Europe - Lawyers :: Hausfeld LLP

[davidl]

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8398189.stm

Angela Knight from the British Bankers' Association (BBA) called such taxes "populist, political and "PENAL"

Poor bankers.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Good Morning All,
What has one missed over the weekend any new developments or setbacks. Hope all have had a Good weekend on the run up to Xmas.

[ROBSTER]

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8398189.stm

Angela Knight from the British Bankers' Association (BBA) called such taxes "populist, political and "PENAL"

Poor bankers.

Wrong wrong wrong Angela they can not be PENAL they are a "service tax" for the consideration of an increase in the banks lending facility (currently £850,00,000 if you read last months statement Angie!) .

You really should try and budget for these taxes and try not to squander too much on bonus's for managing to take your industry to the edge of the abyss.

PS Don't forget you can get impartial advice "free" in NatWest branches if you're struggling.:santa_wink:

[EXC]

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

----- Original Message -----
From: EXC
To: scotaffcom@parliament.uk
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: Banking In Scotland 9 December



Dear Sir

Re the forthcoming House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee - Oral Evidence Session 'Banking In Scotland' 9 December 2009.

During a previous Banking In Scotland session your committee held in March 2009, your witness Mr Archie Kane in answer to question 366, stated that ''The banking industry has generally come to an agreement that they will charge certain amounts for an overdraft letter''.

Surely this is an unambiguous admission that the banks operate as a cartel to maintain the price of their overdraft services throughout the industry. This is certainly the view of Lord Falconer who stated last week on BBC Question Time that banks do indeed operate as a cartel in imposing these charges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p36jw#p005c7vc Chapter 4.

I would be grateful if your committee would take the opportunity of following up on his answer and asking how exactly this industry ''agreement'' operates.

Kind regards

EXC

----- Original Message -----
From: Scottish Affairs Committee
To: EXC
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:43 AM
Subject: RE: Banking In Scotland 9 December

Dear Nick,

Thank you for sending this through to us. We will circulate this to Committee Members this afternoon so they will have time to consider your suggestions prior to the meeting with Mr Kane on Wednesday.

Best wishes

Briony Potts
Committee Assistant
Scottish Affairs Committee
House of Commons
020 7219 6123
www.parliament.uk/scotaffcom

[EXC]

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

It looks like the committee hearing - above - will be broadcast live on the Parliament Live site from 2.30 tomorrow (Wednesday):

Player


If you can't watch it live it will be archived.

[Amethyst]

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

Excellent will do a reminder bump for people tomorrow for that one.


Also, in the case the OFT do decide to pass it over to the Competition Commission, which I'm not sure if they can or if they will look at it on their own under competition regs, it may be worth anyone who hasn't already having a look over the NI CC report on unauthorised overdraft charges - http://www.competition-commission.or...xt/527_4-6.pdf some quite interesting bits about how charges arent meant to make a profit in there but theres also a part about how they don't collude on pricing simply follow one another as to be out of sync would cause adverse publicity ????