Banks V OFT in the Supreme Courts

[Colin Power]

I don't think that this is a major blow to the consumer, mainly we can still look to challenge the validity of the charges under S5(1) of the UTCCR 1999.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Banks V OFT in the Supreme Courts

"Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

A Warm welcome to the forums and I have quoted in full UTCCR 1999, section 5(1). Thanks for the post.

[helpmeclaim]

Re: Banks V OFT in the Supreme Courts

Makes you wonder!!

Ok the OFT have done a good job to date. But god dam how did they miss this and not use it as well. On reading it seems very easy to think yes this is a very important part of the UTCCR why did they not use it????

Anyway they didn't so not worth moaning about i guess!!.

I now see the banks rejecting claims people re-issuing 14 day letters with section 5(1). Then the banks getting together with FSA, OFT and another waiver put in place while another 2 years court case goes on in regards to section 5(1).

Then round 2 unless they round it all into 1 case.

Nightmare really. I don't see the banks giving out a penny in partial settlements when they know they could drag in on for another 2-4 years.

But stranger things have happened as everyone says lets just wait and see what happens over the next few weeks.

We may yet be pleasantly surprised, sorry just woke up with my head in my cornflakes!!