Tweet
Could somebody please confirm the current legal position in plain English.
After the Supreme Court ruling am I right to understand that penalties still apply to the old contracts when the b*nks use the term 'penalty fee', or 'additional administration charges/fees'. In the High Court case the Judge Smith ruled out the later use of common law, except where the UTCCRs don't protect the consumer. If you use reg 5 aren't you protected because it creates an inbalance and because it is not an individually negotiated contract.
My current POC was lodged with the CC the day before the stays were given (a bit of bad luck). It's based on the common law Dunlop (and other cases) and also the UTCCR reg 5.
In my POC I included Abbeys terms and conditions and having checked them they make no reference to "penalty fee" or "additional administration charges/fees".
on another point couldn't it be argued that the terms and conditions are contra preferentum because of thei ambiguity?
Apologies for such a long winded first post.
Thanks
DT
After the Supreme Court ruling am I right to understand that penalties still apply to the old contracts when the b*nks use the term 'penalty fee', or 'additional administration charges/fees'. In the High Court case the Judge Smith ruled out the later use of common law, except where the UTCCRs don't protect the consumer. If you use reg 5 aren't you protected because it creates an inbalance and because it is not an individually negotiated contract.
My current POC was lodged with the CC the day before the stays were given (a bit of bad luck). It's based on the common law Dunlop (and other cases) and also the UTCCR reg 5.
In my POC I included Abbeys terms and conditions and having checked them they make no reference to "penalty fee" or "additional administration charges/fees".
on another point couldn't it be argued that the terms and conditions are contra preferentum because of thei ambiguity?
Apologies for such a long winded first post.
Thanks
DT
Comment