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

[Amethyst]

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

Let's play spot the obvious mistake:

Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahhh looks who's at the bottom - Colin Power - ex Cartel/CCLS employee on about the 99.9% green files on Moneybox last weekend....

[EXC]

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

From Today's Times:

PRESSURE GROWS FOR FAIRER COSTS
BRITAIN’s banks will come under pressure to keep unauthorised overdraft charges at about £10 when the Office of Fair Trading publishes its report on current account penalties this month, writes Kathryn Cooper.

The industry had been charging as much as £35 when cheques or direct debits bounce. However, it is understood the OFT will declare that a “fair” limit is closer to £10 — a level the government supports. While banks are under no obligation to cap their charges following the Supreme Court defeat of the OFT’s challenge against overdraft fees last year, industry sources said the statement would put pressure on banks to avoid excessive charging.

A source close to the Treasury said: “We’ve made it clear that banks need to agree a fairer and more transparent system of charges for the future. A £10 charge would be roughly right.”

One bank told The Sunday Times: “We have accepted that we will need to make some amendments to satisfy the OFT — although most of the changes will apply on new accounts rather than to existing customers. We have already brought down our charges considerably.” Virgins threat to free banking - Times Online

[enaid]

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

Well not very fair for existing customers, especially for those that can not change banks for one reason or another.
Also the knock on effect of the so called 'charges brought down considerably' is still very much evident for some, as we have seen.

Virgin is one of several new players hoping to shake up the high street following the credit crunch, alongside America’s Metro Bank, Tesco and the Post Office.
We can only hope that these have had all their charges and T&C's vetted for fairness etc, before they hit the general public.

[TUTTSI]

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

What is with this saying 'new customers only' it really annoys me that you could have been with your bank say 25 years and paid all the excessive charges but a new customer will have better privelidges than you. Where is the loyalties in this?

So then everyone moves one step right or left to change bank account? absolute madness IMHO?

quote=EXC;152495]From Today's Times:

PRESSURE GROWS FOR FAIRER COSTS
BRITAIN’s banks will come under pressure to keep unauthorised overdraft charges at about £10 when the Office of Fair Trading publishes its report on current account penalties this month, writes Kathryn Cooper.

The industry had been charging as much as £35 when cheques or direct debits bounce. However, it is understood the OFT will declare that a “fair” limit is closer to £10 — a level the government supports. While banks are under no obligation to cap their charges following the Supreme Court defeat of the OFT’s challenge against overdraft fees last year, industry sources said the statement would put pressure on banks to avoid excessive charging.

A source close to the Treasury said: “We’ve made it clear that banks need to agree a fairer and more transparent system of charges for the future. A £10 charge would be roughly right.”

One bank told The Sunday Times: “We have accepted that we will need to make some amendments to satisfy the OFT — although most of the changes will apply on new accounts rather than to existing customers. We have already brought down our charges considerably.” Virgins threat to free banking - Times Online [/quote]

[charitynjw]

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

'Historic' penalties.....sorry, 'charges for services' (my bad!) have been reduced dramatically.
But what has changed re the banks' 'reasonable' costs in determining these charges? New technology? Paid monkeys? Cross-subsidy from bankers' bonuses?
I understand that you cannot challenge the price, but surely this would indicate that the charge was excessive & therefore penal in it's nature, not 'liquidated damages'?

[hicskis]

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

I guess this will apply to new contracts therefore new terms and conditions of account and not to preexisting contracts that would have to be substatively modified. If you want to be under the new rules - then switching accounts would be necessary - read the small print.

I hoped that the likes of Virgin, as they seemed to be working with the Government, would introduce free banking but it looks as a whole like these new entrants are bringing competition and will force change in other ways.

Unfortunately that will probably mean fee based accounts which is OK if you need car insurance, cheap cinema tickets and the like - doesn't help me as i live overseas and the last thing i want is to be paying the bank a monthly subscription and receiving sod all interest.

However i have my account for now so lets hope that isn't changed or by then i can chose an account from someone that is free when in credit.

I'm sure in the end there will be something for everyone.

[hicskis]

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

Anyhows - we kinda digressed.

I posted a link to Govan Law Centre's amended Statement of Claim - here it is again:

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/02/...s-amended.html

Any feedback on their strategy?

[natweststaffmember]

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

Anyhows - we kinda digressed.

I posted a link to Govan Law Centre's amended Statement of Claim - here it is again:

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/02/...s-amended.html

Any feedback on their strategy?

I think that is specifically for Scotland at the moment so probably no english claimants should use it for now.

[Amethyst]

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

It's the same as MSE's template but geared for Scots courts ?

[hicskis]

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

Maybe Nattie - but a thought niggling in my head, call it gut instinct if you like - is why Scotland?

Or should i say why did MSE, Govan Law, Raymond Cox lean this way.

This claim is against Bank of Scotland (LLoyds Group) - significance?

Where does our Prime Minister come from - is it Scotland?

We're dealing with a part owned Government Bank - i think of the consequences (politically) of an unfavourable decision on BOS (which could be engineered) - what that could mean?

Now we're dealing with my gut here - but i lean again towards the global picture - and i would watch the news that breaks parallel to - on any decisions or developments in this case.

My gut says - this case will be used (politically) to bring about global change.

You only have to look at the consequences if the bank were to lose.

[Amethyst]

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

Oh and, any one thinking of weirdly adding in Sharp v BOS in their POC / Defence of Strike out submissions for court - Don't. It isn't case law or anything, it is simply new particulars of claim submitted and awaiting defence. A hearing in Scotland is called a Proof, it's basically the evidential hearing.

Proof / proof diet / proof hearing Also referred to as a diet of proof, this is a court hearing at which evidence is heard from witnesses before the sheriff makes the final decision.

S'ok to mention it if you like in informal letters to the Defendant to say something like other courts have accepted the new arguments and asked Defendants to defend, but then theres a mulitude of English cases in the same position, which I also wouldn't put in any formal applications etc. The case stands on its own merits and there is no need to rely on cases at a similar stage to yours. Wait until someone actually wins in court (or loses) before relying on the cases as persuasive authorities.

[natweststaffmember]

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

Maybe Nattie - but a thought niggling in my head, call it gut instinct if you like - is why Scotland?
If you look at the terminology of the actual link you provided it is Scottish court terminology. With Govan Law Centre based in Scotland, that might be the reason.
Or should i say why did MSE, Govan Law, Raymond Cox lean this way.

This claim is against Bank of Scotland (LLoyds Group) - significance?
There may be claims in the English courts that we may not be aware of so significance is only based on knowledge or coverage.
Where does our Prime Minister come from - is it Scotland?
Yes, but David Cameron will be from England when he takes up the post after the next general election
We're dealing with a part owned Government Bank - i think of the consequences (politically) of an unfavourable decision on BOS (which could be engineered) - what that could mean?
Minority owned btw since 52% of it is owned privately, I believe(may have to double cheque the figure of shares HMT have in Lloyds Banking Group).
Now we're dealing with my gut here - but i lean again towards the global picture - and i would watch the news that breaks parallel to - on any decisions or developments in this case.
Global or simply UK wide, remember globally no one is bothered.
My gut says - this case will be used (politically) to bring about global change.
I think you need a transplant of the gut. Globally no one really cares about internal english/scottish/welsh law on banking contracts
You only have to look at the consequences if the bank were to lose.

They would appeal, wooohooooooo!

[Amethyst]

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

Okay heres the sentence people have been talking about (elsewhere) adding in their POC/Defence to strike

The Claimant respectfully draws the attention of the Court to a very recent decision in the Glasgow Sheriff Court on the 19th February 2010 – a bank charges case against the Bank of Scotland [BoS], the Sheriff accepted that the burden of proof was upon the Defendant bank to prove the fairness of their Charges and has ordered the BoS to disclose the information to do so. The solicitor in this case was Mike Dailly of the Govern Law Centre

Firstly it's Govan Law Centre.

Secondly I treble checked with Mike because I thought I was missing something major on this, yes it is great PR for the cause, but thats about it.

Dear Sharon

That statement is not correct; and because amending is a discretionary matter for each judge, I would not refer to other cases, better to simply set out the new/refined legal grounds, and explain that these are necessary in light of legal developments from the Supreme Court decision in the OFT case etc.,

Mike


Mike Dailly
Principal Solicitor

As people seem to need it from horses mush as it were.

[hicskis]

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

I completely agree - but this case is where the legal minds are resting at the mo.

It's what's behind the Statement of Claim that matters.

The news "around" the hearing will be fun.

[natweststaffmember]

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

I completely agree - but this case is where the legal minds are resting at the mo.

It's what's behind the Statement of Claim that matters.

The news "around" the hearing will be fun.

There might be cases that go to that stage before June so let's be thankful that one case has gone to evidential stage but let's not over hype the case otherwise if the case is lost, everyone will say its a conspiracy again.