Co-op being naughty

[EXC]

Re: Co-op being naughty

But tell me, if we can't use BCOBs and PSRs can't, for the most part, be used by an individual then is it right to consider CCA and the unsullie part of UTCCR?

The CCA only applies to the provision of credit and I'm not sure what you mean by ''unsullie'' but UTCCR only applies unfair contract terms and not issues about how a contract performs.

[leclerc]

Re: Co-op being naughty

True the process had been adhered to but is there no 'sanctity' of the agreed level of payment?
But surely using the level of payment cited at the initial setup.
The bank do NOT receive the level of payment that you have agreed to. If the DD is with a large company then they have set the DD up at their end ie through the AUDDIS system i have mentioned above in the post. The bank as such process payments automatically, ie that if there is a DD set up on your account and the reference number is correct then ANY amount can be withdrawn from your account. If the reference number is wrong then the payment is rejected as "no authority held". If the account is stopped for any reason then the reason code will vary but could be for example "payee deceased" which normally alerts companies if they have not been informed already.

At the behest of the utility company I set up a direct debit for an agreed amount(notified by email now vanished).
After 1 month without any notification they 'upped the anti'.

I understood from PSRs that, in such circumstances, it was up to the payment service provider to deal with the payee. If not then its down to me.
I am not sure I understand now because what I have said is that for the reasons stated already, ie that the bank has absolutely no interference in a payment if the reference number is correct and that a Direct Debit mandate is held. The only type of fixed payment that I would 100% trust is as mentioned above, TV Licence, but even moreso a standing order set up by me and controlled by me only. A Direct Debit offers no such control on the amount of money going out.
For the record I'm NOT touchy about what they call any refund (although, Yes, I would prefer that someone own up to an error) and I have NOT turned down any partial refund.
The error is the company that has requested the payment for a higher amount that you agreed with them, ie the utility company. Can I ask another question: was there funds to cover the payment going out IF the correct agreed amount was taken out? Have you had any dialogue with them over this issue?
But tell me, if we can't use BCOBs and PSRs can't, for the most part, be used by an individual then is it right to consider CCA and the unsullie part of UTCCR?

On the forum here, there is the issue of UTCCR's covered by a QC opinion. I would add that Marc Gander of CAG received a copy of that opinion because I emailed him a copy myself so that users of his forum could be informed not by my opinion or by an opinion of an unqaulified professional but by a qualified and well respected QC.
With regards to the bank charges themselves, the issue of CCA and bank charges remains untested as does the untested UTCCR's as such.
Let me be blunt, and refer to moneysavingexpert who state that the arguments have not been tested in court and they have had zero successes. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/rec...-charges#legal
To date, Govan Law Centre has not had any "published" successes ie wins that have not been subject to a confidentiality agreement. To get a success you have got to argue something that does not involve the price of the charges or cost of the charges otherwise you hit UTCCR and OFT test case verdict throws out your case. That is one of the most difficult things to argue, ie price/cost of the charges.


I want to add one thing, I've been on the forums since 2006 and some people have been determined to push things all the way and have lost. I do not want YOU to lose any case but the issue here is to a degree over who has caused the charges.
Did the bank fail to follow your instruction as it saw it? They had a "live" authority from you to transfer money to the utility company and no amount is specified on DD mandates as they can be variable payments.
Did the bank change the amount of the Direct Debit? No, because they have no authority to do so since the agreement is between you and the utility company.
The bank was asked for money that was not in your account so returned the payment and charged you. Now, one thing I will say is that some comments you have mentioned that they said to you were a little off hand.

[EXC]

Re: Co-op being naughty

On the forum here, there is the issue of UTCCR's covered by a QC opinion.

Anthony Scrivener QC post Supreme Court opinion on bank charges http://www.legalbeagles.info/Bankchargesopinion.pdf
Supplement on UTCCR 5.1 http://www.legalbeagles.info/Bankcha...supplement.pdf

[kennyh]

Re: Co-op being naughty

Many thanks EXC. I expect these opinions will govern any decisions I make - not about this d/d which is 'small beer' but longstanding recovery of bank charges of a much greater magnitude and a different bank.
leclerc re#17 above. Yes there were sufficient funds to meet the original DD (which, incidentally, I set up using a customer facility on line).
I did, of course, mean'unsullied' (an unfortunate typo) meaning those bits of UTCCR that are relevant and not necessarily those (forever tainted?) by OFT incompetence.

[leclerc]

Re: Co-op being naughty

Many thanks EXC. I expect these opinions will govern any decisions I make - not about this d/d which is 'small beer' but longstanding recovery of bank charges of a much greater magnitude and a different bank.
leclerc re#17 above. Yes there were sufficient funds to meet the original DD (which, incidentally, I set up using a customer facility on line).
I did, of course, mean'unsullied' (an unfortunate typo) meaning those bits of UTCCR that are relevant and not necessarily those (forever tainted?) by OFT incompetence.

Kennyh, we've been in this game a long time in terms of consumer forums and I was at the February 2009 hearing in London, shortly after I had been sacked from NatWest, with a judgement which meant the banks had lost their case and I was jubilant that day after the start to the year I had had. The Supreme Court changed all that and so any small cracks in the door is one that I have followed and followed and followed but those cracks a few and far between.
I rejoice in how far the bank charges campaign came and how close we came to changing things and we certainly have done but the reclaiming of bank charges for me, as it stands currently, is not a goer because simply the tools needed for success are not there due to the Supreme Court decision in November 2009. As you can see from the MSE links, they have seen zero successes. The Govan Law Centre case, at least one them, was settled out of court with a confidential agreement so we have no way of knowing what swayed the bank to settle apart from avoiding any case that would go before a court or even reputational risk.


I want to add a note to yourself because it may be interesting for you to know. There is a court case ongoing in Australia at the moment on the same topic and they will face the same hurdles here except that there has already been OFT v. the banks as a template. I have to say I have not seen the recent updates(cos I have not looked) but that one is a class action one.

[leclerc]

Re: Co-op being naughty

In fact it is also taking place in New Zealand: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10871599

[leclerc]

Re: Co-op being naughty

And Australia are also going down the lines that may be of interest to you albeit it is the australian version of a bank charges case: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-0...t-case/4246052

From my early reading of it, this will explore their version of the CCA act issues that might be thought of here.