Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

[Dougal16T]

I HAVE JUST SEEN THIS:

‘BCOBS case against Santander,

Result dated 4th April 2013 14:21

Re: Bounced Cheque - Cause for Action for Damages?

This is the first BCOBS judgment. Although it has not been fully argued. it is clear that the judge looked at their proposed arguments and decided that they didn't have a chance. This is a good start for BCOBS and maybe others will take a lead from it.

BCOBS is available as a simple action by any customer who has suffered unfair treatment at the hands of their bank. It can be brought as a small claim in the county court.

The BCOBS action has been available since 2009 and as far as I know, no one has brought one before now.

I can imagine that Santander will try to appeal but if they don't or if they do and they lose, then I hope that the judgment will be sent as part of a complaint to the new FCA - who I expect will show their colours and follow the example of the FSA by doing very little about it.

If people started taking BCOBS actions, the fos would very soon start to become their redundant unless they pepped up their ideas a bit.'

Best wishes to all

Dougal

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

The BCOBS action has been available since 2009 and as far as I know, no one has brought one before now.

I know someone who attempted to use BCOBS in a defence just over a year ago, and was told it wouldn't work and had to settle instead.

[Dougal16T]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

I know someone who attempted to use BCOBS in a defence just over a year ago, and was told it wouldn't work and had to settle instead.

Good afternoon
That is it exactly!

This is now and all previous decisions may possibly now be reconsidered or a new claim started in the light of this decision - which was THIS week .

Best wishes

Dougal

[leclerc]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

I HAVE JUST SEEN THIS:

‘BCOBS case against Santander,

Result dated 4th April 2013 14:21

Re: Bounced Cheque - Cause for Action for Damages?

This is the first BCOBS judgment. Although it has not been fully argued. it is clear that the judge looked at their proposed arguments and decided that they didn't have a chance. This is a good start for BCOBS and maybe others will take a lead from it.

BCOBS is available as a simple action by any customer who has suffered unfair treatment at the hands of their bank. It can be brought as a small claim in the county court.

The BCOBS action has been available since 2009 and as far as I know, no one has brought one before now.

I can imagine that Santander will try to appeal but if they don't or if they do and they lose, then I hope that the judgment will be sent as part of a complaint to the new FCA - who I expect will show their colours and follow the example of the FSA by doing very little about it.

If people started taking BCOBS actions, the fos would very soon start to become their redundant unless they pepped up their ideas a bit.'

Best wishes to all

Dougal

Having read the beginnings of that thread them I completely agree. For a quite brief for those who do not know the case. The Account was due to go dormant with about £5k in the account. The person was a vicar and this was used as a restoration fund. He wrote two cheques against the account which were stopped despite him actually speaking to the bank to make sure the account was not dormant. The cheques were bounced as "payment stopped" which is because the account was closed as dormant by the bank despite the customer instruction.
He won by default(as far as I can see) and the bank tried to change the judgement(the terminology eludes me) and it was thrown out. From what I can see this is a case in which BCOBs has been used correctly. It's not about bank charges because there was never any charges made but was about the fact that the bank closed the account despite the customer contacting them within a due period, and then returning cheques because they shut the account.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-Damages/page5

I read pages 1 and 4 and the link BankFodder has to his own article on the BBC website is nonsense since there was no charges to the individual and was never about bank charges taking an account overdrawn. However, it is a good example of how, when used correctly, which in my opinion it was, that BCOB's can be used and can produce a result. I am surprised Santander did not simply pay out cos clearly it was a blatant bank error and an example of the right hand not speaking to the left hand.

It's a good win DougalT but it is nothing special in terms of the bank charges campaign. A good example of BCOB's in action imho.

[Dougal16T]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Good evening,

My point is simple - whilst this case does not apply to Bank charges - it could well be vital when the case is considered/held to apply to any of the following:

The manner/number/timing/reasons for those charges being applied : ESPECIALLY where the customer has been in contact with the bank, and the bank have failed to help/ignored requests for assistance/notified credit reference agencies/misled the customer in any way/used expensive Counsel against the customer when the customer is an LIP at Court.

This list is not exhaustive.

Any thoughts anyone?

Dougal

[EXC]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

BCOBs has no application to any charges or to the provision of credit because they fall outside of the FSA's regulatory jurisdiction.

For BankFodder to say that ''This is the first BCOBS judgment. Although it has not been fully argued. it is clear that the judge looked at their proposed arguments and decided that they didn't have a chance'' is complete tosh.

The court awarded judgment by default automatically (as they do as a matter of course) because the defendent failed to respond to the claim. That the claimant was relying on BCOBs is irrelevant as to why he won.

[leclerc]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Good evening,

My point is simple - whilst this case does not apply to Bank charges - it could well be vital when the case is considered/held to apply to any of the following:

The manner/number/timing/reasons for those charges being applied : ESPECIALLY where the customer has been in contact with the bank, and the bank have failed to help/ignored requests for assistance/notified credit reference agencies/misled the customer in any way/used expensive Counsel against the customer when the customer is an LIP at Court.

This list is not exhaustive.

Any thoughts anyone?

Dougal

Utter crap, Dougal, and you know that I mean that in the most respectful tone. There was, as far as I can see, no charges applied since the cheques were returned account dormant/closed. When a cheque is returned unpaid there are examples when no charges is applied and to give the most obvious example is "payee deceased". There is no application in this specific case to Bank Charges since none were applied. "account closed" does not incur charges nor does that case either.

I'm sorry but it has no application in bank charges cases.

[leclerc]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

I want to add that the key point in this BCOB's action is the issue of the bank failing to follow proper procedure and closing the account leading to the cheques being returned unpaid(but no charges levied against the account) due to the account being closed as dormant.

The banks' failure is the reason for success and NOT the fact that any charges were levied. Apologies if I have missed pages in which the OP has said that they were charged for the return of cheques but under the reasons given they do not incur charges from the bank(they might from the organisation that the cheque is paid to but not from the bank).

[Dougal16T]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Utter crap, Dougal, and you know that I mean that in the most respectful tone. There was, as far as I can see, no charges applied since the cheques were returned account dormant/closed. When a cheque is returned unpaid there are examples when no charges is applied and to give the most obvious example is "payee deceased". There is no application in this specific case to Bank Charges since none were applied. "account closed" does not incur charges nor does that case either.

I'm sorry but it has no application in bank charges cases.

Good morning all,

I agree with everything (apart from the insult from Lecerc - I was always taught that if you cannot resolve other matters without resorting to swearing then you should resolve your own matters first).

My point was simple, [and I also say that I do not agree , accept or relate to Bankfodders' comments], and what I considered is:

The fact that a result has occurred under BCOBS is very good news in some respects, it shows that a case can make its way through the system.

The fact that this case had no charges applied makes interesting reading

Secondly, the fact that Santander did not apparently respond, even though they received the Court papers in time (Later in the post by madpriest it states that they were), or if they simply 'mislaid' them. In any event they were notified of the claim.

Finally I do not say this concerns Bank Charges per se, but it relates to the whole way that the Claimant was dealt with by Santander - and I am suggesting that Sec 140A of the CCA 1974 may prove to be more use to obtain redress. I tactfully suggest a read of that Section of the Act.

It is true that this section relates to 'borrowers' , but my humble opinion is that as soon as charges are incurred the 'customer' automatically becomes a' borrower' - simply because to have incurred charges the customer will have become overdrawn and as a result will have incurred an indebtedness to the bank.

I also suggest that at that point the amount of the charge incurred becomes a debt which is owed to the bank, making the customer a 'borrower'.

Therefore I suggest that Sec 140 of the CCA may be of use.

Again any thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?

Dougal

[leclerc]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Good morning all,

I agree with everything (apart from the insult from Lecerc - I was always taught that if you cannot resolve other matters without resorting to swearing then you should resolve your own matters first).

My point was simple, [and I also say that I do not agree , accept or relate to Bankfodders' comments], and what I considered is:

The fact that a result has occurred under BCOBS is very good news in some respects, it shows that a case can make its way through the system.

The fact that this case had no charges applied makes interesting reading

Secondly, the fact that Santander did not apparently respond, even though they received the Court papers in time (Later in the post by madpriest it states that they were), or if they simply 'mislaid' them. In any event they were notified of the claim.

Finally I do not say this concerns Bank Charges per se, but it relates to the whole way that the Claimant was dealt with by Santander - and I am suggesting that Sec 140A of the CCA 1974 may prove to be more use to obtain redress. I tactfully suggest a read of that Section of the Act.

It is true that this section relates to 'borrowers' , but my humble opinion is that as soon as charges are incurred the 'customer' automatically becomes a' borrower' - simply because to have incurred charges the customer will have become overdrawn and as a result will have incurred an indebtedness to the bank.

I also suggest that at that point the amount of the charge incurred becomes a debt which is owed to the bank, making the customer a 'borrower'.

Therefore I suggest that Sec 140 of the CCA may be of use.

Again any thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?

Dougal

Dougal, the utter crap comment was a "i disagree in the strongest possible manner" but point taken. Apologies. It occurred under BCOB's because and I want you to correct me, he simply filed at court without going through the bank first. Is that right?
The second point is that the bank did not file a defence, that is definitely a mistake of theirs and quite rightly the judge threw out their late late attempt to overturn it.

In terms of bank charges alone, if they are incurred at they take the bank account overdrawn then BCOB's no longer applies since an overdraft is effectively created and so therefore the remit of overdrafts in the OFT. Section 140 claims that have been successful I am not familiar with so if they have been successful can you tell me how many? We are 3 and half years after the OFT test case on bank charges and so far the light at the end of the tunnel is not even on.

If you refer to "amount" then you are then into the realms of price and that is excluded by the OFT test case result.

[Dougal16T]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Good afternoon,

Firstly apology accepted with thanks. Secondly I have re-read 'madpriest' and his posts. It appears he did TRY to reason with Santander. (Better luck you talk to trees!)

Santander are exceptionally difficult to deal with -I know!

In madpriest the bank created difficulties for the Vicar by returning the cheques he had drawn.
But the point here is the bank believed the account to be dormant, even though it was in credit by over £5000.00 !
There was no reason for the Bank to act in this way.

Turning to Bank charges I still take the view that the Bank are incorrect in allowing 'An overdraft to be created', this in turn creates the need for charges to be applied, so that the Bank protect their position, without any concern/care for their customer


This can be referred to as the 'Indigence argument '

Hope this helps.

Best wishes all
Dougal

[gravytrain]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

In terms of bank charges alone, if they are incurred at they take the bank account overdrawn then BCOB's no longer applies since an overdraft is effectively created and so therefore the remit of overdrafts in the OFT.

.

This is confirmed by the EU 2010 consumer regulations which amend the consumer credit act, which of course falls under the remit of the OFT(currently)

[leclerc]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

Good afternoon,

Firstly apology accepted with thanks. Secondly I have re-read 'madpriest' and his posts. It appears he did TRY to reason with Santander. (Better luck you talk to trees!)

Santander are exceptionally difficult to deal with -I know!

In madpriest the bank created difficulties for the Vicar by returning the cheques he had drawn.
But the point here is the bank believed the account to be dormant, even though it was in credit by over £5000.00 !
There was no reason for the Bank to act in this way.

Turning to Bank charges I still take the view that the Bank are incorrect in allowing 'An overdraft to be created', this in turn creates the need for charges to be applied, so that the Bank protect their position, without any concern/care for their customer


This can be referred to as the 'Indigence argument '

Hope this helps.

Best wishes all
Dougal

Their argument is that the person who owns the account informally asked them for that facility by agreeing or attempting to authorise a payment to take the account into that situation. They have not necessarily allowed it but have been requested to provide it by the customer themselves. I think that is their argument.

[EXC]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

The fact that a result has occurred under BCOBS is very good news in some respects, it shows that a case can make its way through the system.

I think that the point is that this BCOBs case didn't make it through the system as it wasn't contested and therefore the merits of BCOBs were not considered by the court. Had the claimant had been relying on the Maastricht treaty he would have got same the result.

[Dougal16T]

Re: Bcobs success against santander dated april 4th april 2013

I think that the point is that this BCOBs case didn't make it through the system as it wasn't contested and therefore the merits of BCOBs were not considered by the court. Had the claimant had been relying on thehe would have got same the result.

Evening all

I am not familiar with the Maastricht treaty - I just want us to look closer at the Bank's actions.

Do we ever ask/expect/understand that the situation will be that an overdraft will be created by the bank for us - it appears without our written/implied consent? It seems extremely unfair to me and truly the balance of the relationship between the parties seems weighted against the customer.

I agree this was particular case was not tested in the Court and the result was due to Santander not 'getting their act together.'

Best wishes all,

Dougal