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

Morning all,

QUOTE:" I have tried this argument - I believed that the High Court case dealt only with charges/T&C from 2001-2007 and pre 2001 charges were therefore not covered by judgement: in particular, my understanding of 'historic terms' was not every term ever written but just the non-current terms submitted in the High Court case (every bank submitted its current terms (defined as 'current terms') and also a sample of earlier (post 2001) terms which were defined as 'historic terms'). So a ruling on historic terms only covers post 2001 terms. The judge in my case thought otherwise and that the Supreme Court judgement covered all bank charges from the year dot - even though my bank had previously stated charges=costs and charged on breach of contract, with breach of contract being unpaid item."

I am not happy about this but...."

Just a quick thought on this sentence in the post by oldbloke2013...."even though my bank had previously stated charges=costs and charged on breach of contract, with breach of contract being unpaid item."

With great respect to all I cannot quite see how a Contract between two parties can be breached in this fashion. This is my reasoning:

A meets with B and they agree that A will deposit money with B.
B pays money out on behalf of A.

In my humble view B breaches the Contract, not A, because:

B has agreed to pay out sums of money for A, on the basis that A will have given B the funds to do so PRIOR to the payment being made by B.

However, A has no money deposited with B to cover any payment, but B still pays out money on behalf of A when a request by a third party for money from A is received, even though A has not deposited money with B.

I say that B creates the breach of contract and not A. Any thoughts anyone??

Best wishes all

Dougal

I'm not sure who's quotes these are but I'll try and answer the points.

The test case didn't deal with historical T&Cs issued further back than around the year 2000 because the case was brought under the 1999 UTCCR regulations. The regulations wouldn't apply to T&Cs issued earlier.

The first instance hearing dealt with what Justice Andrew Smith described as ''a representative sample'' of historical T&Cs, which were all listed in the High Court Order of 28 October 2008 http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/per...rder241008.pdf

On oldbloke's point, a penalty isn't defined in law by how it is described by a bank. Ultimately what defines a penalty or not is a court by way of the contractual analysis of a judge.

[Amethyst]

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

Who are the loan company ?
If they are known to you then is the loan repayment included in your DMP or is it a payday loan type company ?
How was the money taken from your account - continuous card authority, direct debit ??
On your statement/transaction list can you see the six payments coming out, and can you see them being refunded, then taken out again? It might help to type out what shows on your statement.

Also I will move these posts to their own thread so they don't get lost on this massive thread - I'll do that in the morning.

Hi everyone,

I'm needing help, so anyone who can give me any advice would be greatly accepted.

First of all the long winded story!!!!!!!!

On Friday I went to Asda to do a shop, my card declined. I went to the cash point as I new I had funds available. When I done a balance I was over my overdraft. I phoned Barclays to be told between 1-6am a loan company had taken six transaction totalling £886. After 8 hours or being passed from pillar to post I had money refunded.

At this point I asked the bank to put a stop on this company collecting any future payments as I was under a DMP, to pay them back. The bank did this.

On Sunday I go to the bank again £886 gone from my account this time the bank refusing to refund the money, stating the date I asked them to refund payments to the company is the date the company requested payment, I don't see how this is possible.

Where do I stand under BCOBS, do I have a case to sue the bank, and if so how do I get the ball rolling

Thanks

Andrea