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

[EXC]

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

Apparently there was a documentary on BBC 4 last week BBC - BBC Four Programmes - The Highest Court in the Land: Justice Makers in which Lord Phillips is reported to have said that despite his judgment, he thought that bank charges were unfair.

Unfortunately the programme isn't available on BBC iplayer and the clips from the website don't contain the quote.

I'd be grateful If anyone could track it down and in the meantime I'll ask the Beeb for it.

This documentary is available on iPlayer now.

Fast forward to 34.00 to see the section on the test case decision BBC iPlayer - The Highest Court in the Land: Justice Makers

Does the footage in the courtroom bring back some depressing memories, Ame, or what?

[EXC]

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

OFT PCA update.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/rep...March_2011.pdf

[EXC]

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

3.16 The OFT also asked PCA providers to supply data on revenue earned
from UOCs during 2010 and how this had changed since 2009 and the
level of UOCs. We are pleased to note that:

• the average unpaid item charge level levied by major PCA providers
in Great Britain fell from £17 in March 2010 to £14 in March 2011
(this is down from approximately £34 in 2007 ),16 and

• the total revenue earned from consumers incurring UOCs from the
largest banks in Great Britain fell from approximately £2.5 billion in
2009 to £2.0 billion in 2010.17 Reduced income from unpaid item
charges makes up the largest part of this reduction.

[EXC]

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

34 'Breathing space' for personal customers will be referred to in the Lending Code in the
following terms:

'Where a not-for-profit debt advice agency has formally notified a subscriber that the customer
is in serious discussion with them on a draft debt repayment plan then the subscriber should
suspend collections activity related to the customer's current account, credit card and/or
unsecured personal loan while these discussions continue, provided that they are concluded
within 30 days.

In exceptional circumstances where discussions are progressing but have not been concluded
within the initial 30 days the debt advice agency can ask the subscriber for an additional 30
days breathing space.'

[leclerc]

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

Jonathan Sumption QC for the Banks confirmed as one of the two new Supreme Court judges to be appointed.

Sumption, Wilson confirmed as new Supreme Court justices | News | The Lawyer

[leclerc]

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

Supreme Court New Appointments: Sumption and Wilson UKSC blog

Both appointees here.

Press release is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/pr_1105.pdf

[charitynjw]

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

Will he be able to sit on any 'Banks'-type cases that might reach SC, or would there be bias?

[leclerc]

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

Will he be able to sit on any 'Banks'-type cases that might reach SC, or would there be bias?

He can sit on any case that goes to the Supreme Court.

[EXC]

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

The Consumer's Forum (formally Penalty Charges Forum) have produced a new POC for reclaiming bank charges.

I wouldn't recommend it.

[Amethyst]

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

Is that a completely new one (sounds awfully familiar) or their old one rehashed with their new name? Section 140 is very much dependant on personal circs and actual occurences which I can't see any space to add, and the rest, well. To me it looks like anyone trying to use this would be struck out almost immediately. But I suppose at least they are still having a go -have they actually had any success with BC claims since the OFTvAbbey judgment? I'm sure we'd have heard about it if so. I hope they are pushing it with massive warnings about costs and so on.

Actually what's happening with Govan's cases? - haven't heard a great deal about them since Feb.

And what's with the name change, ok Penalty Charges might be a little irrelevant now, but isn't CAG also called The Consumer forums....or does the plural being on Consumers rather than Forums make it entirely different ?

[EXC]

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

Is that a completely new one (sounds awfully familiar) or their old one rehashed with their new name? Section 140 is very much dependant on personal circs and actual occurences which I can't see any space to add, and the rest, well. To me it looks like anyone trying to use this would be struck out almost immediately. But I suppose at least they are still having a go -have they actually had any success with BC claims since the OFTvAbbey judgment? I'm sure we'd have heard about it if so. I hope they are pushing it with massive warnings about costs and so on.

Actually what's happening with Govan's cases? - haven't heard a great deal about them since Feb.

And what's with the name change, ok Penalty Charges might be a little irrelevant now, but isn't CAG also called The Consumer forums....or does the plural being on Consumers rather than Forums make it entirely different ?

Yep it's completely new. The thrust of it seems to be based on the notion that because the terms are not negotiable they are unfair but that challenges the entire concept of standard term consumer contracts that exist in every corner of our lives.

The 'using the new POC' guide is rather brief:

Dear Members
I have designed these POC’s to enable you to submit a legal argument to a court to claim back your bank charges. However, you must note these have not been used before.

Essentially your argument is based on the fact that the court must examine the contract for unfair terms, this mean the burden of finding any unfair terms is on the court not you, However, your POC has highlighted some terms that you think the Court may want to examine in great detail when its inspecting the contract. Effectively your saying all the terms you have highlighted in your POC are unfair.
A KEY POINT
It is for the Bank to prove that its terms are fair and not for you to prove they are not.
WARNING
You must note there is no guarantee expressed or implied that you will, WIN. In law every case is assessed on its own merits.
I would recommend that you submit your claim for a hearing in the small claims court, as costs are very limited.

I must stress I would first of all put all the arguments in the NEW POC’s to the finical ombudsman as a compliant first, and even send a copy of your complaint to FSA and write to your MP stating that your disgusted that the coalition has done nothing to stop the unlawful practice of bank charges.

Stayed claims
You need to submit an application to have the stay lifted and permission to amend your POC’s the form you need to do this is the ( N224) Once that application has been approved you can then submit the new POC’s designed for claims that were stayed.


I don't know why they've changed their name or whether the plural will suffice to distinguish it from CAG.

I think the first Govan case is due to be heard in August.

[leclerc]

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

having started to read the POC do you think the wording "when the claimant chose to make payments despite insufficient funds being available" point 2 should be amended because that kinda seems to indicate that money was spent in full knowledge of it not being made available?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Furthermore point 9 goes onto point 1 which is clearly point 10(that's the really picky bit outta the way)
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Page 4, point 5(a) would the fact that you have the right to cancel the agreement within a given timescale negate this argument?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Point 15 page 7 is countered by the OFT report which shows cross subsidy and that bank charges are not the main income related to current accounts.

[leclerc]

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

The Panon case I think is merely stating that the court can look at protecting a consumer even if the consumer is not present in court. The case is one where a Romanian woman contested that a clause in her contract was unfair yet she was in a different jurisdiction to where the complaint was filed and could not get to the court where the claim was being contested for various reasons. The court cannot simply dismiss the case because she failed to go to court.

[leclerc]

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

part 20 page 8 I don't think it does state about the burden of proof on the defendant. The Confidis is about limitations, the Oceano is about jurisdiction and the Panon case is about determination of facts when the defendant has no way of appearing in the court where the case is being held, to be honest, it's a kinda Oceano type case.

[Fortinbras]

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

"I'm taking my ball home!"

New POC for Reclaiming Bank Penalty Charges?