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

[natweststaffmember]

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

I might have a look at that later on but I doubt they have covered the issue of manual payments. Furthermore, I would have thought that the idea of opting in is one that can happen once the cheque guarantee scheme ends next year.

[Bankstormer]

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.

Any Idea how this went?

[natweststaffmember]

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

There is no news at all about the Govan Law Centre case on their website or anywhere else on the tinterweb as such.

[Jester]

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

There is no news at all about the Govan Law Centre case on their website or anywhere else on the tinterweb as such.

In which case it either failed, or produced nothing of note as yet. I am sure that if a stunning victory had somehow occurred against the banks, then forums such as these and also the news sites would be rife with the news !!

Let's hope that it is the latter - that there is no news to note as of yet and that the case will be further discussed down the line.

[Bankstormer]

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

So It is still happening then, and we will only know when it has finished?

[natweststaffmember]

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

In which case it either failed, or produced nothing of note as yet. I am sure that if a stunning victory had somehow occurred against the banks, then forums such as these and also the news sites would be rife with the news !!

Let's hope that it is the latter - that there is no news to note as of yet and that the case will be further discussed down the line.

Or the judgement was deferred to a later date. I'm sure that when they know they will publish it either way.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Govan Law Centre

For about the third or fourth time in the last week, the above is their website and telephone number(not that I am going to call them).
Perhaps keep your eye on the Scotsman newspaper online will produce the results or looking at other forums who might know.
If you haven't bookmarked GLC then do so and check it every day, which I do myself.

[orc]

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

In which case it either failed, or produced nothing of note as yet. I am sure that if a stunning victory had somehow occurred against the banks, then forums such as these and also the news sites would be rife with the news !!

Let's hope that it is the latter - that there is no news to note as of yet and that the case will be further discussed down the line.

Hi there

The hearing on Friday was a proof or evidential hearing, thats well documented.

Given the potential issues and extent of evidence/ documents to be considered, it may be some time before there is a definite decision- thats a personal opinion- others may view differently. We don't know yet how much time has been set aside.

You can however subscribe to updates on the Govan Law Centre Blogspot, which will send you immediate notification of any change to the blog, by subscribing here (you will also get updates on non bank charge issues- so be prepared for that). That way, you will get the news as soon as Govan updates their web site:

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

[orc]

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

I am sure that if a stunning victory had somehow occurred against the banks, then forums such as these and also the news sites would be rife with the news !!

Let's hope that it is the latter - that there is no news to note as of yet and that the case will be further discussed down the line.

Thet sure can't take away our hope. They will never get that.

[orc]

I discovered this post by Wendy on MSE, which I thought people would like to be made aware of. I have no way of knowing if this is correct or not.


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...&postcount=168

[Amethyst]

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

If so it wouldnt suprise me as its what happened with AngryBank's scots case which was due in for diet on 15th April. They wanted it upped to ordinary cause so we had to pull out as couldnt risk it financially .... I am sure Mike will let peeps know if anything important/positive happens.

[Amethyst]

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

Hopefully this may help some people get their heads around the Scots cases, at least from the banks defence angle - have taken off first paras of the banks defence which relate to UTCCR - this part is regarding the CCA arguments....

4. Denied. In relation to the pursuers averments regarding section 140A of the consumer credit act (the CCA) it is explained and averred that no challenge to charges may be brought under s.140A of the CCA where those charges were debited to the pursuers current account prior to 6 April 2007. Reference is made to the consumer credit act 2006, schedule 3 paragraph 14.

Accordingly in so far as the pursuer seeks to challenge charges from prior to that date his averments are irrelevant. Averments regarding unarranged overdraft fees from 6 April 2007 are made below. As regards returned item fees, a challenge against returned item fees based on s140A of the CCA is irrelevant.
Returned item fees were debited against the pursuers account not as a result of an agreement to provide credit. On the contrary, these charges were debited at a point at which the defender had refused to provide credit facilities to the pursuer. No credit agreement was entered into between the parties in relation to which a returned item fee was debited. Accordingly no challenge can be made against returned item fees under the CCA.

As regards unarranged overdraft fees from 6 April 2007, it is explained and averred that the first step in considering the pursuers challenge is identification of the relevant credit agreement. It is explained and averred that the current account agreement between the pursuer and defender is not a credit agreement in terms of the the CCA.
At the point at which the banker/customer contract was entered into between the parties it was not possible to say whether the relationship would result in indebtedness of the pursuer to the defender. Thus at the point which the current account was opened there was no agreement to provide credit. The current account agreement was not therefore a credit agreement in terms of the CCA.

The crdit agreement to be considered was the agreement entered into between pursuer and the defender on each occasion at which the defender agreed to provide credit facilities. In the context of the current action an agreement was entered into on each occasion when the defender agreed to the request of the customer for previously unarranged overdraft facilities.

However, although for the purposes of s140 of the CCA that is the relevant credit agreement, it does not follow that the unarranged overdraft fees debited on each of those occasions should be considered to be the price payable for the provision of that credit.
The unarranged overdraft fees are part of the package of remuneration payable to the defender for the whole range of services made available by them (as are the returned item fees). Accordingly in so far as the pursuer contends that the cost of the unarranged overdraft fees is excessive compared to the events giving rise to them no relevant issue under s140A of the CCA arises.

It is further explained and averred that in relation to the merits of the challenge under s140A against unarranged overdraft fees debited to the pursuers account from 6 April 207 the relationship between the pursuer and the defender is not unfair.

In deciding whether the relationship between the parties was or is unfair the court must have regard to the factors provided for at s140A(1)(a) to (c).

As regards (a) there is nothing unfair in the banks terms. As regards (b) and (c) it is explained and averred that the defender has not exercised its rights unfairly. Reference is made to the findings of the OFT in its December 2009 statement to the effect that “banks generally order the sequence of payments where possible in a way that is not harmful to or even benefits the interest of customers”. The said statement is produced and held to be repeated herein for the sake of brevity. In so far as the pursuers criticism concern a lack of competition such criticisms are not a relevant consideration under s140A of the CCA.

It is further explained and averred that in deciding whether to make a determination under s140A the court is required to take into account all matters it thinks relevant. It is explained and averred that the court ought to take into account the whole of the services made available to the pursuer under the banker customer contract. Reference is made to the averments in answer 3 which are held to be repeated herein brevitatis causa.

[EXC]

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

If so it wouldnt suprise me as its what happened with AngryBank's scots case which was due in for diet on 15th April. They wanted it upped to ordinary cause so we had to pull out as couldnt risk it financially .... I am sure Mike will let peeps know if anything important/positive happens.

I think they're carrying on anyway. But despite the claimant receiving legal aid they could still be liable for the defendant's costs.

[orc]

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

Thanks for posting that. Need some time to digest it, but first impressions don't look favourable.

[Amethyst]

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

An interesting point / theory was put forward by the Bank of Cyprus (case since settled in claimants favour but for a minimal sum to cover court costs only) which is also relevant to the scots case. Attached a point from their defence below. Not sure whether any one is really interested in reading all the banks defences we have had in on cases which have now ended. Obviously we have made the decision that historicals are history, but if others want to continue and are not simply relying on a single scots case to decide whether to go on, then they may be of use so let me know and I'll get them all together somewhere publicly. Or even if anyone wants to talk about the legalities and arguments in the cases.

[Amethyst]

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

Chancellor George Osborne is expected to announce later that the Bank of England will be given the key role in regulating the UK financial sector.
In his first Mansion House speech, he is tipped to return this power to the Bank at the expense of the Financial Services Authority (FSA).
Before the election, Mr Osborne had suggested he would abolish the FSA.
However he is expected to say that the FSA will continue to have the role of supervising individual banks.
The FSA has come in for criticism for not doing enough to prevent or limit the crisis in the financial markets.

........................