OFT WIN

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

Justice Smith basic accounts don't have overdraft facilities unless the banks want one.............so my question is..............what's to consider?

[EXC]

Re: OFT WIN

Although he considered basic accounts during the hearing, they wern't relevant to his judgment. Megan Murphy is the Financial Times court correspondant and very nice too!

[tomterm8]

Re: OFT WIN

hi

sorry i just meant general what we expect in life no human rights legislation or anything. sorry to confuse

im just a concerned citizen

common law always made sense to me but all this statute and regulations doesnt make sense to me

if you do something you shouldnt its a breach of promise of contract for whatever reason result if you hurt someone its made right in law thats pay them there loss broken hearts are not so simple :-)

thats why i like simple common (sense) law

borgbaiter

There is no obligation that common law should necessarily have anything to do with common sence.

the unfair terms regulations say, in essence, that a contract has to be fair if it is not individually negotiated between the parties.

[argentarius]

Re: OFT WIN

Yes but no but.

The biggest part of the "no but" is that the UTCCR says:

(2) In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the assessment of fairness of a term shall not
relate-

(a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract, or

(b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in
exchange.

Essentially UTCCR has nothing to do with setting a fair price for goods or services. This was a major part of the banks' argument - the price of an overdraft or a bounced DD or whatever was part of the price or remuneration for the service of providing a current account.

As I've said previously, I struggle with understanding how anyone believes UTCCR can be used to define a "fair" price for banking services - because UTCCR is not about defining "fair" prices, as this section of it demonstrates.

[EXC]

Re: OFT WIN

As I've said previously, I struggle with understanding how anyone believes UTCCR can be used to define a "fair" price for banking services - because UTCCR is not about defining "fair" prices, as this section of it demonstrates.
[/size][/font]

It dosen't define it but I'm not sure that was the point. UTCCR relates to 'unfair terms' as the name suggests. If an unfair term relates to the price of that term then the two are wedded.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

Okay could do with a hand on understanding this bit.

372. I therefore accept the OFT’s submission that if a Bank declines to pay upon a Relevant Instruction, it supplies no, or no relevant, services by way of considering, processing or otherwise dealing with it.

DD payments that are not paid.

They are not a service. so no service fee
They are not a breach of contract. so no penalty fee nor liquidated damages.


So, okay being a bit dense today, does that mean they can charge whatever they like or they are not entitled to charge anything at all.

[EXC]

Re: OFT WIN

It reads to me that they can't charge at all. If he's saying there is no service, there can be no charge for one.

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

(b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in
exchange

does the case below show that you may have misunderstood or just picked out one statement in isolation?




Fairer terms for online I.T shoppers


Following discussions with the OFT, dabs.com plc (Dabs) has agreed to amend unfair terms and conditions regarding returns and refunds in its consumer contracts.
Dabs supplies computers, software and electronic goods directly to customers in the UK via its website. The company's old terms and conditions of sale contained a number of terms that the OFT considered unsuitable in a consumer contract, and that raised concerns under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) and the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations (DSRs).
The terms and conditions that the OFT wanted Dabs to amend included those that:
* excluded the company's liability for errors in the descriptions of goods,
* limited the company's liability for faulty goods sold, by making the consumer pay cost of carriage to return items,
* imposed time limits for notifying the company of defects in goods, and
* made refunds under the DSRs conditional on the return of cancelled goods.
Following discussions with the OFT, Dabs has agreed to delete or revise its unfair terms, and agreed to introduce terms that are fairer and comply with the UTCCRs and DSRs.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

most likely.

Reading through the whole judgement you get through and think you understand it clearly, then further on it appears to contradict what you thought you understood....I think I will put it down for the weekend and pick up on Monday when my heads clear.

I'm quite concious of trying not to read into it what I would want to see. If you know what I mean.

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

I meant post 78 about Uttcr. but know what you mean:tinysmile_aha_t:

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

pmsl:faint:

proved my own point totally there then

[EXC]

Re: OFT WIN

During today's 'moneybox' on radio 4, the BBA's Eric Leanders said that ''ultimately, only a court can decide if the charges are fair'' - meaning that the banks will make a legal challenge against any OFT ruling that they are indeed unfair. As the OFT are the authority, not to mention an arm of government, I would imagine that this would take the form of a judicial review. This would of course be in addition to the inevitable appeal the banks will make to Justice Smith's judgment last Thursday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainf...adio4/moneybox

[Budgie]

Re: OFT WIN

OK, somehow need to get this thread back on topic.[Edit by Tools, totally agree with you Budgie so have moved our off topic posts here>OFT Test Case - as it happens - Legal Beagles]

I have a question !

It regards BASIC ACCOUNTS which have never had any form of overdraft facility. In particular and or for example Halifax CARDCASH accounts from 1999 and 2004 which are either now closed accounts or have had no transactions since before the Test Case was announced.

What do people think about trying to ( a) Get a stayed claim lifted for this type of account following the Test Case Judgment and (b) Starting a new claim with an included deny a stay letter included following the Test Case Judgment.

Budgie

[Kafka]

Re: OFT WIN

This gets my vote

I think we should be trying to probe every crack here to see what happens. There's nothing to lose if there are charges to reclaim anyway

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

Budgie

a) Stays are not to do with what type of account - stays are for overdraft/bank charges - still UTCCR to consider on them and stays still in place because the case is not completed.

b) The stay wont be lifted because its a basic account - Justice Smith hasnt looked at basic accounts so I don't see why that should be a reason for the stay not to be imposed/kept.


Also re this historic terms/current terms my thoughts are the Judge has looked at the essence of the charges, and we are picking on the wording (correctly maybe but even so). Whether they call it an unarranged overdraft or a penalty charge the essence is the same. You ask them to give you money you don't have, they charge you for it (whether they supply or not).

I do think the Judge is right to look at the essence/principals of the actual charge trigger as opposed to how the banks have worded their T&C's. Once the essence is sorted legality wise then the T&Cs can be bought into line. Think thats where the fault is.

Don't know if I agree with myself on this but thats the way I'm thinking historic terms will be going - hence the huge discussion in the case of PIL in T&C's.