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

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

Sorry being slow, you mean Mike ? Ray ? or the arguments ?

[hicskis]

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

This is why i'm having fun -

A Statement of Claim sets the broad basis for a claim - the nity gritty takes place in the court.

This as i see it is the most powerful case out there because it really gets to grip and focuses on the new arguments. MSE, Govan Law, Raymond Cox QC know that - how many other cases out there have that kind of backing.

[Amethyst]

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

Mike has done a very good job on the publicity/propaganda front.

Ray Cox gave his opinion on the feasibility of using CCA and UTCCR. CCA came out on top. Neither are sure things by any means. He was employed for 1 week to write an Opinion. Thats the end of his involvment unless he is instructed further.

MSE are not involved in the case at all other than they instructed Mike to instruct Ray.

Mike / Govan Law are a solicitors firm who do a lot of good work for people in hardship/difficulty and who have been passionate about the bank charges case for a long time. Yes it is good news that the claim has got through the first round with Mikes assistance, but also this week a claim has also got through and been amended and awaiting defence also on CCA and UTCCR, also in Scotland, without Mike or Ray or MSE, and the next hearing on that is April. There are also a number of cases in England which are awaiting defences following acceptance (by court and defendant) of amended claims.

Personally I'll wait to get excited, AND wait before publicising anything, until we know the outcome of one of the cases that goes past defence to a full hearing.

[hicskis]

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

OK we will wait - and we can leave it at that for now. However i will make a tiny wager with you Sharon - i will buy you dinner if i'm wrong:

1. All cases whether in England or Scotland based on the new arguments before this one will lose.

2. Govan Law's case will also not succeed.

3. This will be an end to bank charge reclaiming.

3. Changes in how global finance are controlled and governed will occur at that time to the benefit of the Uk as a whole.

We can only wait and see.

[Amethyst]

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

OK we will wait - and we can leave it at that for now. However i will make a tiny wager with you Sharon - i will buy you dinner if i'm wrong: Look forward to it with glee.

1. All cases whether in England or Scotland based on the new arguments before this one will lose. Don't see why this one is so important STILL.

2. Govan Law's case will also not succeed. Agree if it is based on the example statement of case and there are no specific individual issues in the claim, maybe even if there are, I'm on a 50/50. The banks will through more at defending this BECAUSE Govan (or ANY solicitors) are involed a lay person with individual issues has more hope IMO.

3. This will be an end to bank charge reclaiming. Disagree, maybe for some, remember the cases ARE individual now - a lot rests on the individual relationship between A bank and A customer and how things have operated by both parties.

3. Changes in how global finance are controlled and governed will occur at that time to the benefit of the Uk as a whole. Already happening.

We can only wait and see.

xxxxxxxxxxx oh and we have already pulled a couple people out after submitting new POCs - we WILL only let a case go forwards where there IS a case and will not push anyone forward to help the campaign if it is likely to be to the detriment of that claimant. If someone is determined to proceed regardless of the multiple warnings or risks then of course we will assist as much as we are able, that is why we are here.

[EXC]

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

The Scottish Affairs Select Committee have published their report and conclusions to their Banking In Scotland enquiry.

This is the committee that heard evidence from senior Lloyds director, 'Honest' Archie Kane who told the panel of MPs that HM Treasury were involved in discussions in the lead up to the test case, a claim the Treasury subsequently denied. But at least Honest Archie was forthcoming enough to tell us that ''The industry has generally come to an agreement as to how much it charges'' for unauthorised overdrafts, but despite this cosy arrangment he proudly described the retail banking industry as ''extremely competitive''

Look under 'Fair Treatment of Customers' http://www.publications.parliament.u...0/7006.htm#a18

[Amethyst]

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

ChubbasDad v Alliance & Leicester - successfully opposed strike out in court yesterday - help? AL - hearing beginning March - strike out app from bank hearing - Legal Beagles

[Amethyst]

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

OFT let consumers down AGAIN on Overdraft Charges - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[righty]

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



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.



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

Agreed Sharon but by using it aren't we only doing what the money lenders have been doing for years in their fight with consumers namley claiming something is highly significant including quoting county court judgments as if they set precedent etc, so why not gild our lilly a little

[Amethyst]

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

In the strike defences yes - POC's no.

[natweststaffmember]

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

FTAdviser.com -

I would comment but I don't want to miss the bus for work

[EXC]

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

Was doing some research for ed. and thought I'd post up this snippet from Crow during the HoLs transcripts at 83 (25/6/09) - my bold:



Mr Vos's debit/credit customer, it is strange to hear coming from the advocate for the one defendant institution which actually provides, as clause 1 of its terms and conditions, that you can be expelled from the society for incurring an unauthorised overdraft, it is strange to hear him submitting that there could be any suggestion that unauthorised overdrafts are incurred in the normal performance of the relationship between the financial institution and the customer.

Appendix part 1, page 575, clause 1 of the FlexAccount terms and conditions:

"Your FlexAccount is a share of Nationwide. It will give membership rights to the account holders. We will ensure your membership will continue if you are overdrawn up to an agreed limit. Your membership may be withdrawn if you overdraw without agreement or in excess or exceed an agreed overdraft."

My Lord, as I say, that is a highly relevant factor in assessing whether or not a customer would regard a charge that he incurs, thereby risking being expelled from the society, as being a charge which is incurred in the normal performance of the contract and which he would readily recognise as being paid in exchange for a service which is being given to him. It frankly defies commonsense to portray him that way.

This also ties back in with the point my Lord, Lord Phillips, has made a number of times about the question of contractual drafting, because one of the points that we would also wish to make is that, until relatively recently, the banks generally had terms and conditions which looked much more like Nationwide's now. Nationwide is the outlier in still having a condition in this sort of term.

If one looks at paragraph 62 of the judgment at first instance, page 46 of appendix 1, the judgment rightly records:

"Until recently, all of the banks included in their documentation statements indicating that unarranged overdrafts on current accounts are not permitted, and Nationwide indeed still does."

Then he gives some illustrations -- Barclays' terms:

"You must keep your accounts in credit unless we agree an overdraft with you."

Abbey:

"An unauthorised overdraft occurs, if, without our agreement, you overdraw your account or exceed the limit. If you overdraw your account when we have not
given you an overdraft, you are in breach of these conditions."


It is entirely true to say that the banks have been drafting themselves -- the majority of the banks, not Nationwide -- away from this kind of language, but in our submission, that kind of cosmetic presentational device cannot affect the true nature of the underlying relationship.

So we would submit -- and it is going to be particularly relevant because, as your Lordships will be aware, an awful lot of the County Court actions for which this provides the test case are going to be based on historic terms of the banks, which would still have included exactly that kind of provision.

So, in our submission, it is highly material to bear in mind that the banks have clearly intentionally been drafting themselves away from presenting these charges as being, in a non-technical sense, penal and trying to present them as being fees for considering whether or not to grant an unauthorised overdraft.

[EXC]

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

On request the OFT provided us with hard copies of all the banks' terms and conditions ''that were the subject of the judgment by Justice Andrew Smith on 24 April 2008''. In other words all the T&Cs that were considered in the test case - a file of some 14 folders that poor Amethyst had to stagger home with from the last meeting.

I'll upload an index of the files shortly.

[Amethyst]

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

EXC theres one already Legal Beagles Consumer Forum - View Single Post - Banks Terms and Conditions copies available 2006/2007/2008

[EXC]

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

I'll get my coat..