Home

LegalBeagles response to BIS consultation on Unfair Charges
11 May 10.30am



Read our response here Legal Beagles Response to BIS Call for Evidence: Negotiating Line for the Consumer Rights Directive on the Concept of Assessability for Unfairness in Consumer Contracts (PDF) Registration may be required
Our response sets out to answer the questions raised within the Call for Evidence, we believe that the issues involved go wider than the specific ambit of the consultation document. In particular, we have concerns at the way the Supreme Court Judgment in the Test Case has been summarised and explained within the consultation paper, and we address those concerns within the main body of this response. As will be seen, we are of the view that there is still scope for the applicability of Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCRs in respect of current and historic bank charges, as highlighted by the Supreme Court decision. In the Annexe to this response we set out our views as to how Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCRs could be used in their current form to control the level and extent of contingent or ancillary charges. It is our view that the issue of current and historic bank charges is far from resolved, regardless of any legislative changes brought about by the Consumer Rights Directive.

Read the forum discussion Negotiating Line for the Consumer Rights Directive unfair charges