Consumer Credit Support  
Bailiff Advice Online

Go Back   Consumer Credit Support > Consumer Credit Support > OFT Test Case
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 18-01-2008, 11:37 PM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Bank wants the new terms ruled on.
OFT want old terms and as has been pointed out old ones state the charges are penalties.

If the bank gets its way, then they could still be brought to answer what the service charge is for,.. what benefit it is to the consumer or to the bank or what detriment they are to the consumer or to the Bank or vice versa etc, etc etc.

A service charge still has to be costed, if a charge is made for a service you have to know exactly what the service is for and I would imagine be allowed to make an assessment as to if the charge is a fair charge for the service what ever it is you are receiving if you decide the charge is not fair you could challenge it again and say you are not paying for that service as it is not value for money.
I think it could be a breach of Human Rights if you are FORCED to accept something you do not want and do not agree with.

If you pay for a service ( a charge for a service)on your car and then find its not worth it, you have the freedom to choose if you are going to pay for another service later on …or not have the service and do it yourself.

I also think that new contracts would have to be drawn up and not just new terms & conditions to the old one.
All this involves very fine points of law and I’m not up on that sort of thing .

These are the ramblings of sparkie and everyone knows how he rambles.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 18-01-2008, 11:42 PM
TUTTSI's Avatar
TUTTSI TUTTSI is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North West London
Posts: 716
TUTTSI will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TANZARELLI View Post
Not me who was there mate it was EXC from Beagles who was there as well as Tom Brennen and Stephen Hone I beleive.

YEs it seemed (from reading EXCs post) that if the OFT get the judgement then this could be enought for stays to be lifted until any appeal is made and won. Or thats how i'm reading it anyway.

I was there today as well for a short while. Very interesting....
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 18-01-2008, 11:46 PM
Belibaste's Avatar
Belibaste Belibaste is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,992
Belibaste is a name known to allBelibaste is a name known to allBelibaste is a name known to allBelibaste is a name known to allBelibaste is a name known to allBelibaste is a name known to all
Default

This all relates to whether the T&Cs are "core" contract terms or not.

If they are judged to be for a service then they are core terms and not subject to the UTCCR. If they are, as the OFT claim, not core terms then they can be subject to the UTCCR's test of fairness.

This is the crux of the matter being debated at the moment: if they are found to be core terms then they are not capable of being a penalty and can only be subject to the Sale of Goods Act (rather than the UTCCR). This is why there was such a focus on terms today.

Any judgement which is made in the bank's favour which the judge applies to historical T&Cs will help the banks ward off claims for limited time scales, particularly if their historical T&Cs have mentioned that the charges are specifically to cover admin costs etc for a breach of the T&Cs. This is probably why the banks are pushing for a blanket declaration about current and historical T&Cs

I ramble also Sparkie but, I hope it makes some sort of sense
__________________
E-mail addresses are now available to all members at a cost of 5.00 per year. Please PM tamadus for details

Please do not be offended if I have to edit out derogatory words or statements from your posts. Sometimes, this is necessary to protect the poster and the site from retaliatory action



Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 18-01-2008, 11:54 PM
TUTTSI's Avatar
TUTTSI TUTTSI is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North West London
Posts: 716
TUTTSI will become famous soon enough
Default DAY 2 PM at the Test Case

I am up in the City on Fridays so I decided to pop in to the TEST CASE. I met up with EXC who had attended yesterday and today.

It was easy enough to get a pass out of 25 seats for the public only half were taken. The press seats were I could see from the screen were many empty seats. Strangley no press outside like there were yesterday.

I only stayed 45 minutes, but it was quite clear that the Judge has a strong hold on this case and will not be bullied by Mr Rabinowitz, Barrister for RBOS. there were times when everyone laughed and then it was straight back to business. This Mr Rabinowitz seems to be drawing this case out and I noticed the Judge on a few occasions told him to move on. I think this Judge does want to keep the time to a minimum and it looks like the Banks are trying to stretch it out.

It appears that he said in the morning session that if the OFT win all bank claims that have been stayed would be lifted immediately. I draw comfort from that and only hope now that he agrees with the OFT.

The OFT will go last in these proceedings, I thought this was strange, but having asked I am told that it will give the OFT the advantage at the end to make the closing case and to squash the defence. I hope that this is right.

At the time I was there they were trying to define 'TERM' I did not really understand what they were referring to as they talked in gobledegook legal jargin a lot of the time.

If anyone has the time to go I think that they would find it very extremely interesting.

Dsxx
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 19-01-2008, 12:16 AM
TANZARELLI's Avatar
TANZARELLI TANZARELLI is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: One step ahead of you......
Posts: 2,060
TANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Also sparkie the difference i'm sure you know is that profits can be made on services, which is the only reason the banks are using this arguement. Profits can't though be made on contractual breaches.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 19-01-2008, 12:25 AM
sparkie1723 sparkie1723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,533
sparkie1723 has a spectacular aura aboutsparkie1723 has a spectacular aura about
Default

HI Tanz

Agree with you 100% about making a profit on a "service" but you can't make extortionate profits.
Its back to true cost plus ...profit then, if it costs as some suggest 2:00 for a bounced cheque or late payment fee, what would a realistic profit on that be calculated as?
In comes "unjust enrichment" possibilities.

more ramblings.
sparkie
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 19-01-2008, 01:03 AM
Tamadus's Avatar
Tamadus Tamadus is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: My house
Posts: 4,091
Tamadus has disabled reputation
Default

Ok the pair of you less of this ramblings nonsense lol you both making very sensible and valid points.

It's very likely this Judge is looking closely to find changes being used to disguise the charges.
__________________
Advice & opinions of Tamadus and the Consumer Credit Support Group are offered from personal experience only. They are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. It is suggested you seek advice from a qualified, insured professional at all times

Please consider making a donation to this site (we suggest 5%) from any charges we help you reclaim.

consumercreditsupport.co.uk email addresses are now available at a cost of 5 per year. Please PM me for details
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 19-01-2008, 01:36 AM
FANTASY CHARGES's Avatar
FANTASY CHARGES FANTASY CHARGES is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 648
FANTASY CHARGES will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TANZARELLI View Post
Also sparkie the difference i'm sure you know is that profits can be made on services, which is the only reason the banks are using this arguement. Profits can't though be made on contractual breaches.
it would be interesting (and possibly incriminating ? ) to know where the charges stroke fees and interest earned from each charges stroke fee

are posted IN THE COMPANIES ACCOUNTS
---------------------------------------

sorry have no experience at all on bank statement charges so have to use a credit card example !!
----------------------------------------

do the dsars reveal anything ? ......

ALTHOUGH mbna ARE PRESUMED NOT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CURRENT COURT CASE : we can get a general idea of their treatment of charges/fees FOR CREDIT CARDS



have just looked at some INTERNAL credit card statements FOR A CREDIT card COMPANY MBNA "MANAGED" that was not sent out to a client but was revealed by a DSAR

note the words charges are used by the MBNA accounting system for late payment

and the word fee is used when you go overlimit
-----------------
if we considered a theoretical case where MBNA were acting as a bank we could logically assume it would use the word fee for going overlimit ? {late payment as such would not exist on a bank account}
----------------

and for mbna for a CREDIT CARD "late charges" 20.00 to the left we see a TRAN CODE of 50(due to cut off of margin it could be 60)

an "overlimit fee" seems to be posted as above [TRAN CODE of 50(due to cut off of margin it could be 60) ]

any "overlimit fee adjustment" has a TRAN CODE of 51 CR(due to cut off of margin it could be 61)


now the interest earned on the 20 charged does not show as a seperate type of interest on the next months statement for


the interest earned on the charges/fees

(so iT has to be added to 1. or 2. below )

As saidthere are only two types of interest charged (1) cash (2)retail


--------------------
possibly some of you "mathematically inclined" can look at the "internal bank statements" that your DSAR's have revealed ?? ---

it does seem logical that in the case of bank statements these "internal" reports/statements should be produced and so you have a right to see them

IN conclusion if in your accounts you are treating the fees and/or charges as situation A (posting in ledger y) you cannot logically argue in court that they are situation B(posting in ledger z)

Last edited by FANTASY CHARGES : 19-01-2008 at 01:38 AM. Reason: more info
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 19-01-2008, 01:39 AM
TANZARELLI's Avatar
TANZARELLI TANZARELLI is offline
Assistant Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: One step ahead of you......
Posts: 2,060
TANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of lightTANZARELLI is a glorious beacon of light
Default

I would hope he is Tam afterall this is a major factor in the case.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 19-01-2008, 12:10 PM
Paulwlton Paulwlton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 967
Paulwlton will become famous soon enoughPaulwlton will become famous soon enough
Default

The service argument is extremely week imo. The charges they impose are for contractual breaches, however, if a court does rule that the charges are for a service then the customer would be well and truly shafted as it is not for a court to decide the cost for a service.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Consumer Credit Support