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

Surprised with that Exc - could've sworn the FOS has upheld a portion of complaints prior to now?

So could I so I've just called them again for clarification and that is indeed the case - that no bank charge complaints have ever been 'upheld' by the FOS.

There is a distinction between complaints that have 'different outcomes' (to the outcome of the original complaint to the bank) and those 'upheld', but if the they had published their complaints data (as they now do) for the pre test case complaints, no 'successful' bank charge complaints would have figured in them.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Typical.!!

[ed.]

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

Very surprising - must just be passage of time and thinking of either bank claims or more likely credit card claims, but I am surprised by that. Learn something new everyday lol

Cheers for that!

[Amethyst]

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

hardship cases have been in the different outcomes part I guess but they are based on charges being imposed while in hardship and checking complied with banking code and fairness - which is probably where we think bank charge cases have been upheld - but again banks settled when asked to by the FOS or they agreed the bank had done every thing they could.

The banks wouldnt let court look at the charges and wouldnt let FOS look at them preferring to settle - they only agreed to the test case because they were forced to - what were the alternatives on the table at the time ?

[Centium5000]

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

Over on MSE forums, very interesting ref. CCA:

kjetilniki
MoneySaving Newbie


Join Date: Nov 2008
Post Count: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts



i note that Martin's QC has taken up my thought on s140A-D Consumer Credit Act as being a way forward. i am dubious aabout tRegulation 5 arguments.

if people are interested in seeing the result of s140B CCA challenge in different circumstances then can read just published Patel v Patel [Sorry as a new user you are not allowed to post with links. This is done to stop spammers clogging up the site. Please edit your message below to continue]
on the web at bailli which is an org address searching under citation [2009] EWHC 3264 (QB)

The judgement is at:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3264.html&query=(2009)+and+EWHC+and+3264&method=bo olean

Basically the DJ looked at how the 'unfair relationship' had developed, both before and after the agreement and outside the 12 year limit.

Great reading. kjetilniki strikes again.

[charitynjw]

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

I know how you feel one****edbank_customer. However...

When the people who are 'robbing' us are more powerful than those who protect us, the protectors have to tread very lightly.

Money makes the world go round and banks make money. The government can make laws to arrest, fine or confiscate - the banks can collapse an economy. (The best legal system money can buy, eh? lol)

In light of this, the OFT and the courts are doing a sterling job. Their main remit is 'fairness'.

The FSA (and the government at large) are also responsible for 'financial stability' - if the FSA had jurisdiction over these charges, which might come first 'stability' or 'fairness'?

It's very frustrating, but unless the balance of power can be restored in favour of government, private institutions (banks) will continue to take what they want, when they want and how they want.

How can we make a start on that? Ame's post is a good starting place:

Which? Future of Banking Commission - Legal Beagles

The more this topic is in the public eye, the more likely we can do something about it.

cnjw :grin:

[Amethyst]

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

Response to my request for a copy of the FOI that gave up the 950k figure -
I can confirm that we hold information relevant to your request. If you follow the link below you should be able to see a copy of the request which led to the story, as this has recently been published on our website: http://www.oft.gov.uk/about/freedom/publication/previous/ . You also asked if OFT intends to release any comment on the issue. In our earlier press release on this matter - see http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/137-09 - we said that a further announcement is likely to be made in December so I can only suggest you regularly check the OFT website for an update.

and here we are http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/fre...FOIA-74278.pdf

Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/74278 – 10 December 2009

Summary:
Request for information concerning the Bank Charges Test Case

Request:
The total costs of legal fees, incurred or expected, by The Office Of Fair Trading over the three court cases involving The Office Of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Clydesdale Bank PLC, HBOS PLC, HSBC PLC, Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Nationwide Building Society, and The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group PLC.

These cases are dated:
24/04/2008 - Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London: The Office of Fair Trading – and – Abbey National PLC and 7 others (Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 875 (Comm)

24/04/2008 – High Court)

26/02/2009 – Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London: (1) Abbey National PLC, (2) Barclays Bank PLC, (3) Clydesdale Bank PLC, (4) HBOS PLC, (5) HSBC Bank PLC, (6) Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, (7) Nationwide Building Society (8) The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group PLC – and – The Office Of Fair Training (Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 116 26/02/2009)

25/11/2009 – UK Supreme Court, London: Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v Abbey National plc & others (Appellants) [2009] (UKSC 6 On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2009] EWCA Civ 116)”

Response:
We understand from your request that you are seeking the total cost of OFT’s external legal fees relating to the above cases. Accordingly, I can confirm that the OFT holds
information falling within the scope of your request. We estimate that the OFT spent just over £950,000 on legal fees for the court cases the OFT has taken on this issue.

Duty to provide advice and assistance:
In July 2007, the OFT, seven banks and one building society, and the Financial Services Authority, signed a litigation agreement with a view to bringing a test case to resolve the
relevant legal issues concerning the fairness of unarranged overdraft charging terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. At section 5 of the litigation agreement, each party agreed to pay its own costs associated with the proceedings.

Copies of the litigation agreements1 can be found at
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_res...marketstudies/completed/personal/personal-test-case/personal-documents
1 The Royal Bank of Scotland Group entered into the agreement on 26 July 2007, a day
after it was signed by the other signatories.

[Amethyst]

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

Think they can do a little better than an estimate.

[Amethyst]

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

What improvements (or not) have been made in PCA market since November 2008 ? - Legal Beagles

Just a reminder we REALLY want input on updating the PCA report response

[EXC]

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

Some breaking news

OFT to reveal bank charges next move 'on Tuesday' - MoneySavingExpert News

[Amethyst]

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

Some breaking news

OFT to reveal bank charges next move 'on Tuesday' - MoneySavingExpert News

pmsl - shall we tell them

I did post it over there as soon as I first read Hansard yesterday morning, but must have gone by the by lol.

(have told them anyway courtesy of Budgie)

[Centium5000]

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

What improvements (or not) have been made in PCA market since November 2008 ? - Legal Beagles

Just a reminder we REALLY want input on updating the PCA report response

Did LB have the opportunity to respond to the BIS Consumer Credit Directive consultation?:

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50962.pdf

It only lasted 8 weeks instead of the usual 12 so it looks like it was a bit of a rush.

Just concerned that they propose 'light touch' regulation for Overdrafts and over-running, e.g.:

17.3 The CCD permits a lighter regulatory touch for overdrafts where the credit has to be repaid on demand or within 3 months (Article 2.3) as compared with other credit agreements falling within the scope of the CCD. Article 2.3 details the specific provisions that will apply to such overdrafts- these are Articles 1 to 3, Article 4(1), 4(2)(a) to (c) and 4(4), Articles 6 to 9, Article 10(1), 10(4) and 10(5), Articles 12, 15, 17 and finally Articles 19 to 32. In particular, three of these Articles include provisions which are specific to this type of agreement. These cover pre-contractual information (Article 6), contractual information (Article 10.5) and post-contractual Information (Article 12).

Unauthorised overdrafts

17.4 Article 18 of the CCD refers to overrunning current accounts - meaning a tacitly accepted overdraft whereby a creditor makes available to a consumer funds which exceed the current balance in the consumer’s current account or the agreed overdraft facility (Article 3 (e)).

17.5 Under Article 18, where at the time of opening a current account, there is the possibility of overrunning being allowed, the CCD requires that the consumer be advised of the borrowing rate, charges and conditions under which the borrowing rate or charges may change.

17.6 In the event of a significant overrunning exceeding a period of one month, the creditor shall inform the consumer without delay, on paper or on another durable medium,
- of the overrunning;
- of the amount involved;
- of the borrowing rate;
- of any penalties, charges or interest on arrears applicable

There's plenty more in the linked doc, quite a lot for an 8 week consultation!

Did LB get a chance to input?

[natweststaffmember]

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

Ive always liked this video, explains it all nicely:

Money as Debt

Although Im sure some of it is propaganda?

Lumi x

I have never hated as much that video since the day I have seen it. In fact, I want to dance on the future grave of the producer, narrator and everyone connected to with it.

Slightly on topic again, on what basis are the FOS declining UTCCR 1999 complaints? Is it on Regulation 5(1) or is it on regulation 6.2(b)?
There is a difference, surely?

[EXC]

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

Slightly on topic again, on what basis are the FOS declining UTCCR 1999 complaints? Is it on Regulation 5(1) or is it on regulation 6.2(b)?
There is a difference, surely?

Don't know yet but they're still offering a lifeline to some as someone got this today:

"I am writing regarding your complaint to us about the unautorised overdraft chares made to your current account.

The Office of Fair Trading brought an important legal "test case" to establish if it could assess whether the amounts the banks were charging were fair. As part of this legal "test case", the Court was also asked to consider whether these types of charges amounted to "penalties".

As you know, we decided not to deal further with bank charges complaints until the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading's "test case" made the law clearer. This letter is to tell you what happened during the legal case, and to let you know why it now looks as though we will be unable to help you with your complaint.

Put simply, during the course of the legal "test case" the Courts ruled that these sorts of charges:
1. did not generally amount to penalties; and
2. cannot be challenged on the grounds they are too high.

This means the the Office of Fair Trading lost it's case. The legal action ended in a decision by the Supreme Court - the highest court in the United Kingdom - on 25 November 2009. The decision, and a summary of it, can be found on the Court's website (at www.supremecourt.gov.uk)

In the light of these decisions by the Courts, and the information you have already provided I do not consider that the Ombudsman could uphold your complaint, and so I propose to close our file on your case.

However, if there are individual factors or circumstances particular to you - or to the way your bank operated your account at the time the charges were made - which you feel should be taken into account, then please write and let me know by 31st December 2009, so we can assess whether they are likely to make a difference.

There is more information about our approach to complaints about bank charges on our website (at www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html).

Yours sincerely

[natweststaffmember]

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

Now that is very interesting terminology, re imbalance within the contract....hmmmm. Is there any legs on the argument that multiple charges on the same day creates imbalance, ie 3 items returned unpaid and immediate charges creates imbalance?