Bank charges campaign

[mystery1]

Posted by Mike Dailly on twitter

"UK unfair bank charges: Santander refunds in full with interest after Govan Law Centre sues using my new legal formula. Watch this space."

M1

[leclerc]

Re: Bank charges campaign

Is that a new template letter?
Is Mike going to update the GLC blog with this news?

[mystery1]

Re: Bank charges campaign

Is that a new template letter?
Is Mike going to update the GLC blog with this news?

No idea. I did reply and invite him to come to my part of the world though

I guess it depends on Sharp v BOS or Reid v Clydesdale and how they progress. (think i got the cases correct)

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Bank charges campaign

Govan Law Centre: Unfair bank charges update from GLC

M1

[EXC]

Re: Bank charges campaign

I've said this before and I'll say it again - with all due respect to Mike Dailly I don't think he'll win these cases as I question his application of regulation 5.1 of UTCCR - which states that:

''A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.''

As I understand it Mike's challenge is based on the notion that the cross-subsidisation of unauthorised overdraft charges for some to the general banking services of all poses a ''significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations''. This he articulated on BBC Moneybox after the Supreme Court judgment:

''What regulation 5 does is it comes along and says if there is a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations under the contract and that's to the detriment of the consumer, then the court can hold that the terms of the contract are unfair.

And of course if it was unfair, it would be unenforceable. So it's an entirely different type of unfairness and I think there's very very strong evidence that bank charges are unfair under regulation 5...........I mean I think the way a regulation 5 challenge is going to develop is that what you've got is a charging structure which requires 12 million customers in the UK to cross subsidise 42 million other customers, so thay will effectively have there banking paid for by a minority of customers. Now when you entered into your banking contract, I think it's fair to say, Paul, the banks did not explain to people that this is what charges we're actually paying for and of course Moneybox listeners will be aware that over the years the banks have been very evasive about what the charges are about, and I think we've got a situation now where there's quite clearly an imbalance.''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...x_28_11_09.pdf

The problem is that it was established in the first instance test case judgment that the ''parties' '' referred to in regulation 5 means the individual signatories to the contract and not to any imbalance between groups of consumers. The OFT recognised this in the announcement they made after the Supreme Court judgment that they were not taking any further legal action:

The OFT has considered in particular 5 basis of challenge under regulation 5.1 of UTCCR..........customers who pay relevant charges subsidise the cost of services supplied to other customers (cross-subsidy)........the OFT considers it would not have a realistic prospect of success of making a challenge......this is because one of the elements of the test of unfairness in the UTCCRs is that the term must cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract. The relevant approach is to assess the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, i.e. those of the bank and the customer. The comparison is not between the bank and the whole body of it's customers generally or between different groups of customers........this was recognised by the High Court at first instance (Andrew Smith J paragraph 16). This aspect of his ruling is not undermined by the Supreme Court's judgment''.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/per...counts/oft1154

I did try and politely broach this with him on his blog some time ago but he can be rather stubborn. In my view Mike Dailly is making a fundamental error in applying 5.1 in the way he is.

[EXC]

Re: Bank charges campaign

Additionally UTCCR as a whole and regulation 5.1 in particular is only concerned with the fairness or otherwise of the specific contractual terms within the contract. As far as I'm aware no banking contract contains any term about cross-subsidisation and therefore I can't see that there is a term to challenge under UTCCR.

[mystery1]

Re: Bank charges campaign

Glasgow Sheriff Court Rolls - 02/04/12

Hope it goes well tomorrow for Mr Reid.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Bank charges campaign

http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/0...-bank-plc.html

The case of Reid v. Clydesdale Bank plc has been settled extra-judically and no further comment will be made.

M1

[leclerc]

Re: Bank charges campaign

So they paid up to save having to go to court but the settlement is within a confidential agreement. How nice of them to do that....lol! That means anyone hoping to reclaim charges based on the case in Scotland are still waiting for a case to come up in the court system.

[EXC]

Re: Bank charges campaign

That means anyone hoping to reclaim charges based on the case in Scotland are still waiting for a case to come up in the court system.

The Sharp v BOS case should make it into court (if it's got any legs - which I doubt) as Dailly secured legal aid on the basis that

''The review application indicated that the case could be of relevance to the wider public interest in Scotland in that if

the case was successful it could lead the way for many others to make similar claims.''

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/document...tlandFINAL.pdf

[Bill-K]

Re: Bank charges campaign

I consider that to have been a battle fought and won. Mike Dailly wasn't the one waving the white flag as far as I could see.

But, sure...it was just a battle. The war rages on, of course.

But Mr Dailly moved his piece well on the board, it seems to me.

[mystery1]

Re: Bank charges campaign

http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/0...e-phase-2.html

M1

[leclerc]

Re: Bank charges campaign

That sounds like a class action suit, imho.

[mystery1]

Re: Bank charges campaign

The Sharp v BOS case should make it into court (if it's got any legs - which I doubt) as Dailly secured legal aid on the basis that

''The review application indicated that the case could be of relevance to the wider public interest in Scotland in that if

the case was successful it could lead the way for many others to make similar claims.''

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/document...tlandFINAL.pdf

http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/0...tland-plc.html

The case has settled extra judicially and no further comment will be made.

M1

[leclerc]

Re: Bank charges campaign

So no case in court still which means no precedent which means that still no hope for those Litigants in person since no precedent set....