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

[PocketTheDifference]

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

lol that sounds....TYPICAL!?

[EXC]

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

Right, but for historics, there was no 'price' because there was no service. It was explined as straight reimbursement for costs.

I know what you mean but how the bank explained the charge doesn't effect how the charges now stand in law. As Ame pointed out there may be a case for misrepresentation but establishing the charge costs versus the charge is irrelevant in the consideration of whether misrepresentation occurred.

[Smasher]

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

Thats the misrep argument I think Smasher. Cloaking was chucked out basically when Smith ruled they werent penalties (which he did on historics and current).

So rather than us saying the banks are saying they are service and they arent they are penalties - we say the bank misled us into thinking they were penal when they were part of the bank account price so we were misled .....


so its cloaking backwards.

Gotcha, gawd there are so many angles!

I'm just still in a bit of a rage over historics lol. I just can't fathom how a company can tell outright lies to their customers, profit obscenely from it, plead in a subsequent case over revised terms that previous terms were indeed complete lies and be untouchable for it, even though there are cases still active that basically amount to a challenge to a lie..

[Amethyst]

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

Arguments in PIL

1: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

The 'new' argument looks at the whole contract you have with the bank and says that it is unfair to customers because the banks have a lot more power than customers and that they use that power to the detriment of the customers. The banks chose when and how much you will borrow and how much it will cost you. They also chose when you can't borrow, and it is uncertain when that is, and how much it will cost you for them to decide that. It excludes arguments based on how much the account costs or different charges are.

2: Consumer Credit Act - Unfair Relationship

This only looks at overdrafts and again says the banks have the power and control over the lending by way of overdrafts and that is detrimental to the customers.

3: Competition Act

This argues that the banks all got together and decided on the amount they charge customers for overdrafts and the systems they use to administer overdrafts.

4: Misrepresentation

This argues that the banks KNEW the charges were part of the charge for having an account but told customers that they were additional charges payable when you do something wrong. This may have affected the behaviour of customers when using their account.

5: Undue Influence (common law)

Basically that customers 'trust' the banks and the banks use this to sell stuff and lend money that isnt needed or wanted to make themselves more money.

6: Penalties revisited

The OFT didnt appeal Smiths Judgement and we think they should have.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

I totally Agree with you smasher I just can't get my head around it. as plain as day and im sure NOBODY else would get awawy with it in the world and would probably be locked up for it. How is it that they can blaitantly say they where lying a few years back but thats ok....

[Smasher]

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

A copper once told me - "The law is an ass" (He is a mate btw, I wasn't a naughty boy, honest! ).

[PocketTheDifference]

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

The Law just changes to suit those who can benefit! it is an ass (out of curiosity what would have made him say that...? )

[Smasher]

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

I got burgled a couple of years ago, all my music gear which I use in part to make a living, got nicked. I tracked it down (thanks to ebay and dumb crook) and caught the guy myself. Even though I did all the investigation work, got his address, got him to try to sell me all of my gear and handed it to my local burglary squad on a plate, they still couldn't make up their mind if they wanted to do anything about it because they might be seen to have coersed me!
Thankfully, they did and I got it all back.

Sorry, miles off topic. Or maybe not, as perhaps it further illustrates that common sense, right & wrong do not = the law, sadly..

[rhysjames250]

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

Afternoon guys, it's a friday. yyyaaaayy!!

I have a memory like a sieve, but i seem to remember a gentleman who was meeting with the OFT to put his arguments across of using a different path to argue that bank charges were unfair. Anyway, I think Natty on his behalf wrote what had gone on in the meeting with the OFT, and he explained that he mentioned two good cases in which he thought the OFT could use to argue that the charges were unfair, and he explained how he thought that the OFT were inpressed with his views. Yet he wasn't allowed to publish the total conversation as he had made an agreement with the OFT to keep this confidential. I am intrigued whether the people in the know, have been told what his ideas were, and if they are being looked into.

Belated Happy New Year!! ONWARDS!!

Rhys

[Amethyst]

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

Have a read of this LB meeting with the OFT to discuss way forwards in Charges investigations - Legal Beagles

Think you are talking about Stephen Hone from Penalty Charges who met with them a couple days after the meeting outlined in that link ? Martin Lewis from MSE also met with them that week.

[rhysjames250]

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

Yeh Stephen Hone sounds like the man. The feedback from that conversation brought a little smile to my face, and I felt like things were going to turn out ok.

[PocketTheDifference]

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

Oh how wrong we can all be then ?

[natweststaffmember]

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

I am not sure I wrote anything myself, but I have contracted the memory like a sieve so link please to refresh my cold and snow battered brain

[rhysjames250]

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

OOOOPPPPPSSSSS. Mistaken identity!! it was EXC. Out of 40 pages, i randomly picked 30 and there it was, just like magic.

This is Stephen Hone's account of his meeting with the OFT as posted on Penalty Charges:

******************

Well I was up at 4:40am and reached London at 10:15am, arriving at the OFT head office for 11:20. Upon my arrival I was met by David and Lisa who worked in the same department. David informed me he was in charge of the UTTCR investigation, and the market study.

The OFT asked me not to write up the questions they asked me, but they had no objections to me reporting on what I said. I agreed to this, therefore as a man of my word I will not write the question they asked but just the answer I gave.


Question 1 was-----------

I advised the OFT that the legal argument they had used seemed to be totally based on what the banks wanted. They replied, and although I understood what they were saying, I did not agree. However, since that is now history and I had little time with them, I moved quickly on.

I then advised the OFT on a number of different legal arguments that could be used to continue with the case. These ranged from using CCA, to even a possible argument under the Human Rights Act, in a limited number of claims (I must say they seemed to like this bit).

I then said yes, it is not under your remit to bring Human Rights claims, but this is why I suggest that consumers are added to any claim brought by the OFT, so that any QC instructed has the ability to bring in all the legal arguments - those within the OFT’s remit and those for the consumers that he would also be representing (again the OFT appeared to like this).

I also said that there are still at least two ways that claims can be brought under Regulation 6 of the UTTCR. Well the look on their faces said it all - it was clear that no other consumer group had raised these arguments and they had been totally overlooked. It was clear to me that I needed to spend time on this, so I spent a good 25 mins going through this in detail with them. Without saying what the OFT said, I will just comment that is was 25mins well spent.

On Regulation 5, I said that their concerns were wrong and that their views on why this had limited application were incorrect: there are a variety of arguments that could be used without having to rely on 6(2)b again. I got the feeling that my arguments had touched on new ground with them.

We went though a number of different scenarios (with them playing devil’s advocate) and I found all of these easy to counter, so a QC should find any counter argument very easy to overcome, providing he can think at the level of people who are on very limited income. Again, I highlighted why it was essential to included consumers.

I then went on to say that the OFT should look at the sworn statement of many defences during the Test Case, as banks had sworn under a Statement of Truth (well the solicitors on their behalf had) that the cost of these charges were a true reflection of the costs involved, when quite clearly from the evidence presented at the Supreme Court, this was not the case. These actions could be looked at as perjury.

Without saying what the OFT said, they smiled.


Question 2
I said to them that if they didn’t bring further action, there will be a public outcry and that it is important that consumers know what the OFT’s position is sooner rather than later.

I then said that if money is the only real concern to the OFT then that should not prevent them: we would lobby the Treasury/Government to make sure that the OFT were given the funds they need to fight the banks, without the OFT having to risk not having the funds to do other important investigations and enforcement work.

I also said that the OFT needs to consider the public opinion if they failed to recommence litigation, leaving the public to bring proceedings on their own initiative. If this happened, then the damage to the OFT’s credibility would be profound.


There were a number of other minor issues covered, but I think the essential elements have been covered above.

Personally, I got the feeling that the OFT were very worried about the cost of continuing and made comments that even if it cost the OFT £20 million it would be worth it, because if the OFT won, then the banks would pay their costs and the consumers would see the return of the billions taken from them in unlawful charges. If the OFT did not win, well at least there would be clarity, and we then could just concentrate on getting the Law amended.

One thing that was clear: the OFT will continue to fight in one way or another. This brought a good conclusion to leave the meeting with.
__________________
I'm going up the country, baby, don't you wanna go. I'm going to some place where I've never been before

I'm going, I'm going where the water tastes like wine. We can jump in the water, stay drunk all the time

I'm gonna leave this city, got to get away. All this fussing and fighting, man, you know I sure can't stay

Now, Baby, pack your leaving trunk, you know we got to leave today. Just exactly where we going I can not say. But we might even leave the U.S.A. 'Cause it's a brand new game, and I want to play

No use of you running or screaming and crying . 'Cause you got a home as long as I've got mine

[Amethyst]

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

Well the OFT said No didnt they and have dropped the investigation.