OFT WIN

[argentarius]

Re: OFT WIN

Ian Pollock has put a bit of it quite well Slow Progress On Bank Charges - Legal Beagles

Cheers tuttsi x

It's a good article.

And it's brought this interesting quote from the judgement to my attention:

"The payments would not be so recognised by the typical customer when he opens a current account with a bank, and they are not generally so presented by the banks in their terms or other documentation," he added.

One could read that as saying that, if the way banking contracts and documentation are structured was changed, the banks' argument relating to a package of services for a package of charges could be considered legitimate.

Surely that's presenting a massive opening to the banks - change the contracts (again) to make the "package of services" thing clearer, and bob's their uncle - the charges are exempt from UTCCR?

Frankly, I can't see that it's any different doing that to doing what credit card companies do - charging a huge APR but waiving the interest if you pay, in full, by the due date.

The equivalent for current accounts would be to charge a huge monthly fee for a package of services which includes unlimited amounts of transactions, but to waive that fee if you comply with certain conditions - e.g. stay within your agreed overdraft limit.

Can anyone suggest why such an agreement should not be legally binding on both parties?

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

The problem is that those on low income once they find themselves in problems then still owe the charges even if they are then able to change bank accounts . Lets not rake over old ground argentarius. You know as well as I do there are those who genuinely need help and those that need to take responsibilty - lets concentrate on the former. because from what I have sen in a lot of cases the banks are not.

Lets move forward not back - and if you think we will fail then you are entitled to your opinion but lets try and do something constructive.

I am sure Ame has on lots of occasions offered the above advice as that is the kind of person she is.:tinysmile_grin_t:

[scoobydoo]

Re: OFT WIN

[quote=argentarius;58937]It's a good article.

And it's brought this interesting quote from the judgement to my attention:One could read that as saying that, if the way banking contracts and documentation are structured was changed, the banks' argument relating to a package of services for a package of charges could be considered legitimate.

Surely that's presenting a massive opening to the banks - change the contracts (again) to make the "package of services" thing clearer, and bob's their uncle - the charges are exempt from UTCCR?


I am sure you are right - the banks will find a way to re-word T&C futher to protect themselves - but that does not alter the fact that pending cases refer to past charges and T&C

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

I might be completely off track, and I think I said the same earlier on, from what I have read the Judge is looking at the principle and actuality of the charges as opposed to the wording on the T&Cs when deciding against the penalty and for the UTCCR - and the massive PIL discussions are pointing the way to the banks for rewording the T&Cs to fit in with what the actuality of the charges are. Thus I think the same would be applied to historic as well as present T&C's.

ie. its never been a penalty charge, the banks were wrong to call it such......... type thing.

What do you think?

[Mochamoos]

Re: OFT WIN

Hypothetically -What would happen if the courts said the charges are fair and the banks could keep them. Would the banks try to claim the reclaimed charges back?

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

They can't with the majority of them as they were given as ''gestures of goodwill without an admission of liability'' (thats my understanding anyway)

[Kafka]

Re: OFT WIN

No because I don't think they admit to repaying charges at all.

They always call the payments a gesture of goodwill, effectively a gift that is not bound by any contractual obligation to repay.

[tomterm8]

Re: OFT WIN

in terms of F&FS, then that's it they can't reclaim them.

In terms of judgements, unless they appeal within the required time, they can not appeal further.

I must say, I'm reading through the judgement, and agreeing with the Judges view on Penalty charges, which is a surprise.

[Budgie]

Re: OFT WIN

[quote=scoobydoo;58940]

It's a good article.

And it's brought this interesting quote from the judgement to my attention:One could read that as saying that, if the way banking contracts and documentation are structured was changed, the banks' argument relating to a package of services for a package of charges could be considered legitimate.

Surely that's presenting a massive opening to the banks - change the contracts (again) to make the "package of services" thing clearer, and bob's their uncle - the charges are exempt from UTCCR?


I am sure you are right - the banks will find a way to re-word T&C futher to protect themselves - but that does not alter the fact that pending cases refer to past charges and T&C

I have just finished reading through the judgement twice today and interestingly have formed a pretty similar opinion.

This judgement actually means absolutely nothing to me and also to the majority of other Claimers as our claims are / were based on historic terms. Additionally my previous Bank Accounts against which I have one stayed claim and one claim at LBA stage were both HBOS Cardcash accounts and these are specifically excluded from the judgment ( para 38 ) along with virtually all of the other BASIC accounts.

38. Further I have not considered in this judgment two accounts of HBOS plc (“HBOS”): (i) the Cardcash account, which has not been offered to new customers since March 2005 – in November 2007 HBOS announced that customers with a Cardcash account were being transferred to a mainstream current account or an Easycash account; and (ii) the Intelligent Finance account, which has few customers and is essentially a mortgage offset account.

So to be perfectly honest I think spending anything other than the time I have already spent on this judgment is a total waste of my most precious resource ( time ). To my point of view This judgment does nothing other than confirm that the PRESENT terms and conditions are NOT exempt from an assessment as to fairness under UTCCR 1999. The Banks will NOW further amend their terms and conditions taking into account all the lessons they have learned from the test case and generate a position whereby they will win the inevitable appeal ( as far as the present and future terms are concerned ).

I am pretty confident that the now more eagerley awaited supplemental judgment wrt HISTORICAL terms and in my own particular case even more eagerly anticipated supplemental judgement wrt historic terms for basic accounts will have a similar result as far as UTCCR1999 is concerned. IE That they are not exempt from an assessment of fairness under UTCCR1999. I believe there is also a very high probability that the banks may not be as succesfull as far as the penalty charge aspects are concerned in relation to Historic terms and conditions and in particular the historic terms of basic accounts. After all that was the whole reason they all frantically redrafted terms and conditions after the test case announcement, to avoid or / and cloak the penalty charge aspects under common law.

So end result, we will all resume our stayed claims and should basically expect to receive back all our historic charges with interest etc etc. However and perhaps more importantly, the Banks will have secured a situation whereby they are able to recover what they pay back in the future by having won ( after appeal ) the exemption from regulatory control over their charging regime and who will end up paying those inevitably higher charges, yep you guessed it, us.

Conspiracy theory may be but hey, let's see what happens.

BTW - I presume that Judgments in respect of the Historic terms and the basic bank accounts will follow shortly and in time for discussion at the case management conference on 22nd May. I couldnt find any detail as to timescales for these in the judgment. However the Judge did say on the final day of the test case that he would hope to issue guidance perhaps within one month of his initial judgment.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

I must say, I'm reading through the judgement, and agreeing with the Judges view on Penalty charges, which is a surprise.

me too


and Budg - can't help feeling you are being very optimistic but I hope you are right on the historical charge aspects.

I agree that theres not a great deal we can do to change the outcomes, but to have as many people as possible read the judgement through carefully and put considered opinions forward can only help us in the understanding of the way to go for the future and what to advise people who are currently mid claim.

[EXC]

Re: OFT WIN

Do you mean suceeded in court ? - not many as far as I know

Or outside court?

Jan

I meant being offered a refund, or at least partial refund, out of court.

[Budgie]

Re: OFT WIN

I agree that theres not a great deal we can do to change the outcomes, but to have as many people as possible read the judgement through carefully and put considered opinions forward can only help us in the understanding of the way to go for the future and what to advise people who are currently mid claim.

I totally agree and I haven't given up. LOL Already started reading through again for the third time, even though I said I wouldn't LOL. Some of the posts on here have been hugely absorbing as well ! I totally agree on the suggestions regarding the hardship effort and will try to lend a hand.

Judgment does actually read quite differently each time I read though it . Anyone else found the same thing?

Budgie

[argentarius]

Re: OFT WIN

The problem is that those on low income once they find themselves in problems then still owe the charges even if they are then able to change bank accounts . Lets not rake over old ground argentarius. You know as well as I do there are those who genuinely need help and those that need to take responsibilty - lets concentrate on the former. because from what I have sen in a lot of cases the banks are not.

I agree 100%, scooby. I'm not seeking to raise old issues or talking about responsibility for incurring charges; just acknowledging Amethyst's point that it's possible to avoid bank charges entirely even if required to receive payment via a bank account, if you choose to run your life that way.

I am sure you are right - the banks will find a way to re-word T&C futher to protect themselves - but that does not alter the fact that pending cases refer to past charges and T&C

I agree again. Indeed, the strangest thing about the test case was that it got diverted away from the most relevant Ts & Cs and onto the latest ones which affect a tiny proportion of the charges in question.

It would actually have been far more productive for the judge to examine a single example of each bank's old (say 6 years old, given statute limitation) Ts & Cs and made a ruling based on them, and then as a separate issue dealt with the current situation.

Indeed, I am not sure that there isn't a valid case for another test case for "old" Ts & Cs because otherwise the situation for them remains in limbo.

I might be completely off track, and I think I said the same earlier on, from what I have read the Judge is looking at the principle and actuality of the charges as opposed to the wording on the T&Cs when deciding against the penalty and for the UTCCR - and the massive PIL discussions are pointing the way to the banks for rewording the T&Cs to fit in with what the actuality of the charges are. Thus I think the same would be applied to historic as well as present T&C's.

ie. its never been a penalty charge, the banks were wrong to call it such......... type thing.

What do you think?

Do you mean that you think the "old" conditions will effectively fall under the judge's ruling on "present" conditions because the wording will be ignored in favour of the principle and actuality? If so, that's an interesting view. I'm not sure I agree particularly given my impression that the judgement is saying that it would be possible for the banks to re-word to get the charges onto a "package of services" basis.

Hypothetically -What would happen if the courts said the charges are fair and the banks could keep them. Would the banks try to claim the reclaimed charges back?

As others have posted, I think there's no chance they will bother.

I have just finished reading through the judgement twice today and interestingly have formed a pretty similar opinion.

This judgement actually means absolutely nothing to me and also to the majority of other Claimers as our claims are / were based on historic terms. Additionally my previous Bank Accounts against which I have one stayed claim and one claim at LBA stage were both HBOS Cardcash accounts and these are specifically excluded from the judgment ( para 38 ) along with virtually all of the other BASIC accounts.

38. Further I have not considered in this judgment two accounts of HBOS plc (“HBOS”): (i) the Cardcash account, which has not been offered to new customers since March 2005 – in November 2007 HBOS announced that customers with a Cardcash account were being transferred to a mainstream current account or an Easycash account; and (ii) the Intelligent Finance account, which has few customers and is essentially a mortgage offset account.

So to be perfectly honest I think spending anything other than the time I have already spent on this judgment is a total waste of my most precious resource ( time ). To my point of view This judgment does nothing other than confirm that the PRESENT terms and conditions are NOT exempt from an assessment as to fairness under UTCCR 1999. The Banks will NOW further amend their terms and conditions taking into account all the lessons they have learned from the test case and generate a position whereby they will win the inevitable appeal ( as far as the present and future terms are concerned ).

I am pretty confident that the now more eagerley awaited supplemental judgment wrt HISTORICAL terms and in my own particular case even more eagerly anticipated supplemental judgement wrt historic terms for basic accounts will have a similar result as far as UTCCR1999 is concerned. IE That they are not exempt from an assessment of fairness under UTCCR1999. I believe there is also a very high probability that the banks may not be as succesfull as far as the penalty charge aspects are concerned in relation to Historic terms and conditions and in particular the historic terms of basic accounts. After all that was the whole reason they all frantically redrafted terms and conditions after the test case announcement, to avoid or / and cloak the penalty charge aspects under common law.

So end result, we will all resume our stayed claims and should basically expect to receive back all our historic charges with interest etc etc. However and perhaps more importantly, the Banks will have secured a situation whereby they are able to recover what they pay back in the future by having won ( after appeal ) the exemption from regulatory control over their charging regime and who will end up paying those inevitably higher charges, yep you guessed it, us.

Conspiracy theory may be but hey, let's see what happens.

BTW - I presume that Judgments in respect of the Historic terms and the basic bank accounts will follow shortly and in time for discussion at the case management conference on 22nd May. I couldnt find any detail as to timescales for these in the judgment. However the Judge did say on the final day of the test case that he would hope to issue guidance perhaps within one month of his initial judgment.

I would be very surprised if the final situation is what people on here probably want, i.e. charges restricted to a low level. I think it's just a matter of time before the banks re-word their contracts such that they achieve the level of income they deem that they need.

[righty]

Re: OFT WIN

Hypothetically -What would happen if the courts said the charges are fair and the banks could keep them. Would the banks try to claim the reclaimed charges back?

NO the payment wasn't compensation it was a gesture of goodwill......a gift..........freely given...........often just before they closed your account

Does the post office account referred to have the facility for DD's to be set up?

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT WIN

The Post Office Card Account (POCA) doesn't no. Its a benefits In cash Out only account.