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

[Not_Watson]

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

Thanks Exc - for being honest and saying what I think we all knew to be the truth.

I find myself not in financial hardship, but, like very many good hard-working people on this and many other forums each month is a tense battle right up to mortgage day.

Once I dug myself out of the mire and stopped accruing charges on charges on charges on charges, I decided that it was time to get even - and in my first round, I did get even with Lloyds bank - they took me almost to the court steps (in terms of timing) and I actually instructed the court bailiff to collect what was mine - needless to say, they paid up a few minutes before the close of banking business on that day - and even paid my court fee for the bailiff.

The very next day, I turned my attention to my NatWest account and discovered almost twice as many charges (over £9k) and within a working week, I had the ball rolling and progressed through LBA to filing at county court. I was 10 days away from the final deadline, when I firmly believe they would have paid up, when the OFT announced its case in conjunction with the banks.

Now I am a skeptic (I freely admit this) but this just seemed strange to me - the OFT in cahoots with the Banks - basically it felt very much like the two generals had got together and decided exactly how many troops they would leave in no-mans-land. I felt pretty positive at times - the first decision and the second confirming decision to name but two. However, I always had this nagging suspicion that something was just not right. Then the final appeal was allowed, even after the second judgment basically denied the right to appeal - this was the point at which I think I knew things were on the slide. I still followed the case with the hope that one day, I would be able to put a buffer back into my bank account (I wasn't going to fritter this money away - I was going to just make our lives easier for a while).......

I remember that final judgment day as clearly now as if it was yesterday - finally the disbelief set in - after 2 and a half years and all of this messing around the little man had finally been crushed - that was it - no more hope.

I only have one opinion regarding this whole 'test' case - it was a half-baked farce - a fix - loaded - skewed - a smokescreen - unfair (there's an idea !) - plain wrong (several ways of expressing that one opinion !).

The OFT have lost the reputation they once had - when I hear anything about the OFT nowadays, I simply smile to myself - they have no power any more.

Thanks to this consumer protecting body (the OFT), here is one consumer who feels far less than 'represented' - I feel completely conned.

The people who administer this site are the salt of the earth - hearts of gold - and I firmly believe that they did genuinely think that the case would be successful - and I know that their advice and time is second to none. Congratulations to all of you - the number of people you have helped is immeasurable - for every registered member of this site, there must be several who just dip in for advice and empower themselves and go off with their eyes wide open (at last) - we cannot thank you all enough for this. I certainly had my eyes opened by this and other sites (this one in particular though) and I thank my lucky stars that I found this site when I did.

Thank-you all for your help.

I am sorry it didn't work out - and I hope that everyone in trouble because of these bank charges survives to tell their tale - unfortunately, I imagine there are numerous souls that have lost everything because of this - it's disgraceful - truly horrific.

My best wishes to all on here.

Jon

[EXC]

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

Can't find the thread where this was being discussed now but anyway, the issue was the proposal that Tom Brennan put forward to the Lib Dems - prior to the election - that would grant the OFT the power to assess unfair terms without the need for a court to decide if they had the right to. Apparently the proposal made it into the Lib Dem policy document.

This issue was discussed at the last 'Future of Banking' meeting in March - sponsored by Which? - between the excellent John McFall and the cringingly useless Lord Miners.

It's the top video and starts at about 71 minutes in Our Events | Future of Banking

With the Future of Banking's commission chairman, David Davies - a Tory and one of the senior panalists, Vince Cable now in power it's more likely now that their findings will be listened to by the coalition.

The report and it's recommendations were originally meant to be published prior to the election but I understand that it is now due for publication ''mid June''.

[orc]

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

Thanks for info.

Here is link to previous post where you mentioned this.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...8&postcount=18

[Bankstormer]

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

Isn't there an individual case due to be heard in scotland this month?

[orc]

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

Hello Bankstormer

The first case (as there are several) is in Glasgow Sheriff Court this Friday 11 June, assisted by Govan Law Centre's Mike Dailey.


Here is a copy of a post by GLC, Mike Dailey, posted on CAG on the subject.


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2781582

20th February 2010, 17:13 #2 (permalink) GLC
Basic Account Holder
Help the CAG!!
Download our toolbar

Our auction sniper is now live. Try it for free
Cagger since : Oct 2007
Posts: 6



Re: Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges
We secured a bit more than permission to amend Michael; it might be helpful to give a more detailed explanation.

Yesterday's hearing took place with the fully amended Statement of Claim (amended POC) and amended crave before the court, and previously intimated to the bank's solicitors. Which may explain why counsel for the bank objected so strongly to the orders we sought, and hoped to get the case dismissed.

The court was taken through the new ss.140A-B CCA case, and the substantially revised reg.5 case, and full legal argument took place in light of same. The bank was ordained to lodge defences in light of the new and revised grounds of claim, and a full evidential hearing was fixed.

The reason we have said 'Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges' is twofold.

(1) Now that the court has accepted the new legal grounds, and appointed an evidential hearing on those grounds, the effect of this evidentially and tactically is very significant. Section 140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides as follows:

(9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.

What this means is that the Bank of Scotland now has to prove its charges are fair in relation to price (under s.140A of the CCA). If you go back to pre-July 2007, that never happened. It always for claimants to prove charges were unfair, which historically was never easy given the banks failure to disclose their true business model etc.,

Tactically, to place the bank under more pressure, we can enroll an application to ordain the bank 'to lead' at the evidential hearing i.e. we create a prima facie presumption that the charges are unlawful, which the bank can rebut, but the onus is on them, evidentially, to do so, and we can insist that they lead their witnesses and evidence first. We are entitled to do this, given the court has accepted the new grounds of claim.

Now, you wouldn't expect us to go into any more details - as our duty is to our client - but we believe we can show on the balance of probabilities that the charges were excessive, and if so, unfair under the CCA. We also have a pending claim to effectively ban the imposition of future charges - so this is considerably more powerful than a simple payment action (which is all we had pre-July 2007).

(2) The second reason for our description of this development, is that we believe it is important to counter the fact the banks have convinced most people it's now impossible to challenge their charges as unfair and unlawful. But more on that if we can secure a number of victories - which I believe we have reasonably good prospects to do so.

Mike

[natweststaffmember]

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

Govan Law Centre: Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges
From their own website.

[orc]

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

Thanks Nattie

Wonder how this will pan out- probably a last throw of the dice.

From the above link to Govan Law Centre:

Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor at Govan Law Centre said:

"Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November's Supreme Court's decision. Of course, the Supreme Court itself had explained that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and that is what Sheriff Baird has permitted our client to do today at Glasgow Sheriff Court".

"But besides a challenge under reg. 5 of the UTCCR, the Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act. That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair. Given that our banks have admitted they subsidise 'free-if-in-credit banking' by squeezing more money out their poorest customers through bank charges, they will now have to defend the indefensible. And, they will have the added problem that we are asking the court to prohibit them from imposing future charges under the CCA".

"In a nutshell, our new arguments are hugely more powerful than the ones deployed by the OFT in their unsuccessful test case. Evidentially, the new arguments require the bank to prove their charges were fair - which is tactically significant for consumers. The new arguments not only enable consumers to seek a refund of past charges, but entitle them to ask the court to prohibit future bank charges. That is hugely significant, and in many respects, we believe the new bank charges campaign is going to be a tougher propsect for the banks than the pre-July 2007 campaign. And of course that previous campaign saw refunds in excess of £1bn for consumers across the UK - so we are incredibly optimistic".

[natweststaffmember]

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

Orc, remember that pre April 2007 charges would not fall under the CCA argument he is doing so it may not help those who have cases stayed or previously stayed in the county courts.

[orc]

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

Orc, remember that pre April 2007 charges would not fall under the CCA argument he is doing so it may not help those who have cases stayed or previously stayed in the county courts.

Thats what I thought, but read this BBC article- is it wrong, are her charges all post April?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8528209.stm

".................However, a Glasgow woman, Jennifer Sharp, whose case has been on hold since 2007, revived her case last Friday at the Glasgow Sheriff Court.

New claim
Despite opposition from the Bank of Scotland's barrister, Sheriff Baird allowed Ms Sharp to amend her legal claim in the light of the Supreme Court judgement.
Her lawyers put forward a new point, arguing that under a 2006 amendment to the Consumer Credit Act, there had been an unfair relationship between her and her bank, which was illegal......................."

[Amethyst]

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

her case has been on hold since 2007, so I'd expect majority of her charges are pre April 07, although there may well be a large number post April 07 however if the charges(overdraft) remained outstanding from pre April 07 to post April 07 then it is likely to be covered by the cca. Its one of the areas needing clarification by the court and I expect the maths will be quite complicated as bank accounts are in and out of overdraft whether or not charges are applied, and its the overdraft thats important as to whether the cca applies and whether the new 140a kicks in or not.

[EXC]

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

Although it goes without saying that I hope this case succeeds, it's worth bearing in mind that the last 2 bank charge test cases handled by this solicitor didn't get anywhere, despite the eye-wateringly expensive Raymond Cox QC acting for the claimants.

[Jester]

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

Isn't the Govan Law Centre bank charges hearing taking place today ?

[natweststaffmember]

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

Keep your eye on their website cos I will be keeping my eye on the telly for the footie

Govan Law Centre

[orc]

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

I phoned Govan Law Centre at 14.05 but they have no update from Mike Dailey who has not returned there yet. The lady confirmed that their web site will be updated once there is news on this proof (or evidential) hearing.

[EXC]

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

Their no is (tel) 0141 445 1523. Perhaps if a few of us phone it will encourage a speedier update on what happened.

Or perhaps it might really naff them off. Not a good idea.