News from the CMC - May (OFT v Banks)

[Froggy]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Can someone briefly explain Nationwide's specific angle again plainly with regards to claims, ie penalty charges/UTTCR?

[righty]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Once again well done you lot:tinysmile_kiss_t4:

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Theres something in the transcripts will try fish it out later @ Froggsicals

[righty]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Legal Beagles - Ali Malek

Thats him - not same one as far as I am aware.

Well I know he lost the last one he's credited with OFT v Lloyds Bank re sec 75 obligations

[CYNthesys]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Must be a coincidence then that they were both born in 1956

[righty]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

twins separated at birth

[enaid]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Is Abbey's QC this Mr Malik, asked Cyn

Ali Malek QC

and different dads or at least a different spelling for sir name, unless I got it wrong again

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

lol different surnames tho. Malik / Malek.
London Immigration Law | UK Asylum Solicitors | Human Rights Legal Firm in London, Citizenship Lawyers in Manchester | Birmingham Immigration Solicitors | Malik Law Chambers of London UK
is the other Ali Maliks firm discussed in the tribunal Cyn posted - deal with immigration issues.


pmsl nelly - snap

[righty]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Isn't one the those an MP & who the police recorded meeting with his constituent in the nick

[righty]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Talk about going off topic:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[pugsley29]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

whilst they may not allow links, I joined legal beagles because I saw it posted on CAG

thanks for the information :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

I'm just wishing I hadn't given away my paper copy of the Apr 24th judgement - PDFs such a pain in the posterior.

[enaid]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

whilst they may not allow links, I joined legal beagles because I saw it posted on CAG

thanks for the information :tinysmile_twink_t2:

yer very welcome pugsley and I hope you find the help and the friendship you need here Enaid x

[Amethyst]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

For Frogella re Nationwide

extracts from Judgement 24th April

80. Although the terms applicable to Nationwide’s FlexAccount do not refer to the customer making a request for an unarranged overdraft, its position when it receives a Relevant Instruction is not, to my mind, materially different from that of the other Banks. Nationwide submits that its terms, and its contract with its current account customers, do not oblige it even to consider extending an overdraft before declining to pay upon a Relevant Instruction given by the customer. Its obligation is simply to process payment instructions, and the Unpaid Item Charge that is incurred when payment is refused is, it is submitted, a fee for processing the Relevant Instruction, not for considering it. It disputes that it is under any obligation such as was described in the Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co case (cit sup). In my judgment, however, Nationwide is obliged to deal with Relevant Instructions in accordance with proper banking procedures, and to my mind that Leggatt LJ described.

Penalties - Nationwide’s terms
316. The OFT’s pleading refers to conditions 49 and 51 of Nationwide’s Terms and Conditions as being capable of imposing obligations or prohibitions on customers and so of giving rise to penalties. However, when considering whether Nationwide’s Relevant Charges might be charged in respect of breaches of contract by customers, I am (as the parties agree) also to have regard to conditions 1 and 14 (reference to these apparently being omitted from the OFT’s pleading in error).

317. I do not consider that any of these conditions imposes any relevant obligation or prohibition upon Nationwide’s customers (rather than limitations on the rights of customers and the corresponding obligations of Nationwide). Condition 1 provides that withdrawal of membership is a possible consequence of the customer being overdrawn without or beyond an agreed facility, but it does not specify that he is or might be in contractual breach in these circumstances. Condition 14 limits Nationwide’s obligation to pay in accordance with the customer’s instructions to when there are enough cleared funds in the account. Condition 49 does not provide that it is a breach of contract to use a cheque guarantee card if payment of the cheque will result in an overdraft (or an overdraft in excess of an agreed facility). It simply makes it clear that as between Bank and customer there is no obligation on the Bank to honour the payment (notwithstanding Nationwide’s obligation to the payee), and that as between Nationwide and its customer the payment does not give rise to an agreed overdraft. The condition does not include an undertaking on the part of the customer not to use his card without having adequate funds in his account or a facility to cover the payment. Condition 51 does not state, and is not, in my judgment, to be taken to imply, that it is a breach of contract for the customer to give a Relevant Instruction (or to give a Relevant Instruction that Nationwide accepts). It acknowledges that the customer might be in breach of contract if, payment having been made upon a Relevant Instruction, he does not “immediately” repay the resulting overdrawing, but the obligation to make immediate repayment of the unarranged overdraft arises only once the account is in debit. No Relevant Charges are payable because of a failure to bring the account back into credit, and the customer’s obligation under condition 51 is irrelevant to whether the Relevant Charges (or the Relevant Terms) are capable of being penal.

318. I do not overlook that in its leaflet “Making the most of your Overdraft” Nationwide states under the heading “What if I know I am going to exceed my overdraft limit?” that “Exceeding your unauthorised limit is a breach of terms and conditions and will incur a charge”. That is not, in my judgment, an accurate statement. The leaflet itself is not a contractual document and does not itself create any contractual obligation or prohibition that is binding upon customers.

[EXC]

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

I want to say a big thanks to Ame and Budgie for keeping you all up to speed on today's events.

Ame for managing to concisely post up the major points from 2 very brief phone calls and Budgie for gettting his head down and typing his summaries while Celestine, MSE Wendy and myself sipped cool drinks and chatted.

I believe we were the frst organisation to release the details of today's events. You did LB proud.