|
|
Legal Beagles is a FREE forum
offering support, discussion & advice in many areas of your life.
Made up of dedicated & enthusiastic individuals who are experienced
in consumer issues. Most of us are fighting, or have successfully fought,
our own battles against the major financial
institutions.
 |
| Progress on Bank Charges cases in Court |
|
|
18 February 8.02am |
A number of claimants who have been facing having their previously stayed claims for a refund of unfair bank charges struck out by the court have succeeded in being allowed to amend their claims to include additional arguments which will put the onus of proof on the banks.
Claimants against Lloyds, HBOS, Nationwide, BOS and Yorkshire banks have been granted permission to enter their revised claims over the next few weeks. Some have already entered revised claims and recieved defences from the banks and are waiting for full hearings.
|
|
|
|
The Banks have been writing to the courts asking them to strike out any claims involving bank charges on the basis that their is no longer a claim following the Supreme Court's judgment in November 2009 that the OFT is unable to assess charges on the level of the charge under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR)
However the Supreme Court judges strongly indicated that the door was still open to consumers to bring claims before the courts under a different regulation of the UTCCR. Consumer groups also feel there are arguments available under section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act, although these are more limited in scope.
Banks have acted quickly in asking courts to strike out claims and have been successful in hundreds of cases. However these cases are where the claimants have decided not to continue, or have no turned up to court hearings where the Judge was making a decision on the future of the case. Other claimants have succeeded in being allowed to continue - most of these have entered full witness statements explaining why the judgment doesn't rule out their claims and have attended hearings in the small claims court, often up against top solicitors and barristers.
Consumers who have claims in the courts should check the terms of the stay the court imposed on bank charges claims following the implementation of the FSA's waiver on complaints handling for bank charges complaint.
If they receive a letter from the court or the bank threatening to strike out the claim then, if they wish to continue, they should contact the court in writing with their reasons the banks applications should be denied and ask for permission to enter new particulars of claim to cover the new arguments. It is not an easy process, nor one that should be embarked upon lightly due to the risk of costs involved and the level of complexity involved in the new arguments. Claimants should ask for legal advice, or if they are happy to continue on their own, should ask for help from any of the consumer forums.
Cases we know of where the banks have been denied a strike out of bank charges claims:
Megansden v Lloyds - LegalBeagles //
ClaireH v Yorkshire Bank - PenaltyCharges //
Sharp v Bank of Scotland - Govan Law Centre //
angrybankcustomer v HBOS - LegalBeagles //
Gaz v Yorkshire Bank - LB/CAG/PCF //
JPH v Nationwide - LegalBeagles
Will add to this list as more successes come through.
I must stress this is ONLY the FIRST step in continuing claims for bank charges. The greatest hurdle, having the arguments succeed in court, is still a long way off
Our forum helping people who have claims in the courts system can be found Bank Charge Claims in Courts System - next steps - Legal Beagles - Please read as much information as you can and ensure you understand the issues, and the work involved in continuing, as well as the risks, before posting
|
|
|
 |
| OFT drop Bank Charges case |
|
|
22 December 8.02am |
The Office of Fair Trading has this morning announced it has no plans to continue fighting for historical bank charges refunds through the courts. Although we are disappointed, it has put the ball back in the consumers court and the frustrations of waiting for the OFT and regulators to make decisions affecting us all should now be behind us. At the very least 1.2 million people have been waiting for this decision and can now decide how to move forwards.
|
|
|
|
The OFT, speaking to Legal Beagles this morning, have said they currently have no plans to refer any issues to the Competition Commission as it would take upwards of 3 years to come to any conslusion and wouldnt necessarily result in any redress for consumers.
They have thanked Legal Beagles members for their input into the process and hope to continue working with us in the future to ensure the consumers view is taken into account.
They now appear to be totally focussed upon future change. Refunds of historical charges however will now be left to Consumers to fight on an individual basis. We agree with this as the arguments under the Consumer Credit Act and UTCCR 5(1), as well as under misrepresentation, will focus on individuals circumstances.
We do not believe there is any simple all encompassing argument for claimants who wish to continue claims in court. We expect the banks to put everything they can behind the first defences on the improved arguments. For this reason we do NOT recommend anyone who isnt already in the courts system enters a claim. We will assist wheresoever we are able in forming individuals cases, however we must make claimants fully aware of the risks involved in terms of costs and the sheer work involved in putting forward your case. We have set up forums for help with cases in court, and those with the FOS and Banks complaints system Bank Charge Claims in Courts System - next steps - Legal Beagles and Banks Charges complaints with Financial Ombudsman or Banks - next steps - Legal Beagles and although it may be slow going for a while we shall have detailed guidance to claimants within the next few days.
We have posted very breif guidance as to claimants options now OFT drop case - What are the options for consumers with charges claims ? - Legal Beagles with regards historical charges action. If you are in hardship please please post in the hardship forum for help.
We are still looking into the possibilitys of a representative action, which, much as the CCA Test cases, will take individuals claims covering a number of different points together and hopefully create precedents to assist the county courts in their decisions.
The OFT have also indicated that they may be able to give opinion to the court in individual/class actions that are formed on the basis of the CCA Unfair Relationships.
Legal Beagles have now entered a Freedom of Information request to obtain all documents from the OFT regarding the test case and decision making process. These documents we consider no longer need to be hidden as there is no longer legal action being taken. This will take a while to get but should assist us in helping individuals with further action.
The OFT will now focus on the future fairness of the personal current account market and have asked for our help with this. They need to know consumers opinions. We already know they DO listen to consumers and they have used a lot of Beagles members views in their interim PCA Market Study Report. They would like us to update the report and we have started working on this Personal Current Account Market Study - OFT - updating our response - OPEN - Legal Beagles . PLEASE give us your input into this, and the other consultations. It is the best way to get your voice heard.
It has been a long journey, many of us have been involved in the bank charges campaign since late 2005 / early 2006 and have already obtained 'goodwill' refunds from the banks. We have seen the pain these charges cause people and the sheer ignorance and lack of consideration the banks have offered. We will continue fighting for justice for consumers who have been affected by the charges because we strongly believe the banks should not be able to get away with causing so much misery to so many people over so many years.
Happy Christmas
|
|
|
 |
| Set back for reclaimers in Supreme Court Judgment |
|
|
26 November 9.16am |
Yesterday in the Supreme Court in a judgment which suprised many campaigners Lord Phillips handed down the lords verdict that the banks terms which allow them to impose charges on current accounts for unauthorised transactions are incapable of being assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 6(2)b.
The OFT have previously stated that they will continue their work into making the banking system fairer and will look at competition rules for ensuring future charges are fair and reasonable. However they will be massively dissapointed in this judgment but havent yet stated whether they intend to appeal or move forward with litigation under other areas of the UTCCR. They have indicated they will make an announcement early in December.
The Financial Service Authority has lifted the waiver on complaints handling which means the banks must now process all complaints. Lloyds have already indicated they will be telling everyone the case is resolved in the banks favour and customers will not be getting a refund.
We are of course extremely disappointed in the judgment, however we congratulate the OFT for taking this action so far.
The judgment has, as you would expect, many intracacies, and we are looking at other options to try and bring the matter to a swift and positive conclusion for complainants. Please visit the OFT forum on the site for the latest information.
|
|
|
|
 |
Abbey launch fee free banking ... for mortgage customers only
|
|
|
19 November 12.09pm |
Santander , who own Abbey, have announced the launch of a new current account from January which will offer fee free banking.
Contrary to much opinion that the forthcoming Judgment from the Supreme Court in the case between the OFT and the Banks this does not seem to be signaling the end of free banking, rather the opposite.
|
|
|
|
 |
| OFT wants YOUR views on Debt Management Companies |
|
|
November 5th 2009 11.47am |
The OFT want to hear YOUR experiences with Debt Management Companies and Free debt advice charities to see if the guidance they published in September 2008 has had a positive effect on the industry. This is important as the Ministry of Justice is currently considering legislating on the actions of Debt Management providers.
They have published a form specifically for consumers to tell them their views - you can find all the information on the forum HERE
You can view the Guidance issued in September 2008 OFT Website
|
|
|
|
 |
| BCOBS comes into force 1st November 2009 |
|
|
October 16th 11.00AM |
BCOBS is a new sourcebook that applies to firms from 1 November 2009 with respect to the activity of accepting deposits from banking customers in the UK.
It takes over from the banking code overseen by the BSCB.
A banking customer is defined as:
* a consumer;
* a micro-enterprise (under 10 employees and £1 million turnover); or
* a charity which has an annual income of less than £1 million
The rules in BCOBS on distance marketing, however, apply only to consumers.
BCOBS contains rules and guidance on:
* communications with banking customers and financial promotions;
* distance communications, including the requirements of the Distance Marketing Directive and E-commerce Directive;
* information to be communicated to banking customers, including appropriate information and statements of account;
* post sale requirements on prompt, efficient and fair service, moving accounts and lost and dormant accounts;
* unauthorised and incorrectly executed payments; and
* cancellation, including the right to cancel and the effects of cancellation.
You can view the Source book on the FSA website
|
|
|
|
 |
| Claims
Companies and Banks rapped over Hardship Claims |
|
| |
October 23rd 3.15PM
|
Claims management
companies and Banks have been told to improve the way
they handle bank charges claims where consumers are in
financial hardship. Under the FSA's waiver on complaints
handling banks are obliged to continue to deal with
complaints about the level of charges from customers who
are struggling financially. Claims management companies
have been told they need to improve the way they handle
such cases, much in the way they were warned about their
methods of reclaiming Payment Protection insurance a few
months ago.
Legal Beagles specialise in assisting people in financial
difficulty to reclaim charges and make complaints to
their banks. Visit our hardship forum for more
information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
MBNA lose in County Court - Debt written off
|
| |
November 2nd 2009 12.07PM
|
|
In the last couple of days MBNA have been forced to write off outstanding debt under a flawed agreement by a judgment handed down in South Sheilds. The judgment is based on a lack of prescribed terms being in the consumer credit agreement. Prescribed terms such as APR, Total Charge for Credit etc are laid out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - updated in 2006. Under the 1974 Act if a document does not contain all the precribed terms it is considered iredeemably unenforceable and the creditor is unable to enforce the debt through the courts.
There are a number of test cases being
held surrounding consumer credit act agreement flaws and
enforceability in order to establish the legal position for
many claimants, claims management companies and lenders.
|
| |
|
|
 |
Firms planning for
refunds after test case |
| |
September 20th 2009 13.58 PM
|
| Following the
renewal of the waiver in July 2009 and the pending conclusion
of the first stages of the test case the FSA are checking that
firms have, or have started to implement, processes to ensure
swift and effective complaints and refunds of bank charges (if
applicable) handling once the waiver is no longer in
place. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Test Case Judgment due mid November !
|
| |
October 16th 2009 3.58PM
|
The judgment in
the bank charges test case from the Supreme Court, following
from an appeal hearing at the House of Lords, will be announced
soon. It is not expected before 19th November and we are
updating as soon as there is news on the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Policy Advice given on this forum does
not constitute legal or financial advice. Any information should be
considered in regard to specific circumstances. All help is
followed at your own risk and should be followed up with your own
research. Read the Forum Rules here
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
