OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

[Dexter]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Sadly I think EXC might be right on proving misrepresentation. However it does seem an incredibly damaging argument if we can get it to stick.

Could there be an argument that we were mistakenly led to believe that 'default charges' were applied to our account for what we were led to believe was therefore an implied breach in contract, where we knew that as a result we could challenge such 'penalty charges' as the law allows and we have all done by raising complaints to quantify the actual bank costs.

Could we then tie in misrepresentation with UTCCR 5.1 by saying it was therefore unfair that the charges were mistakenly promoted in such a way a we could not make an informed decision as to the costs in operating the account and legal recourse of such charges which has been financially detrimental.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Lloyds Bank plc -v- Voller
2002-01-01

[2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 978
Banking


I REALLY need this case full judgment if anyone has access anywhere to get it it would be very grateful.

[Tools]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Again, not the full judgment but a small insight into it

Emerald Meats (London) Ltd v AIB Group (UK) Plc [CAEW]

[charitynjw]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Hi Amethyst,

Can't find actual case, but you could try contacting:-

http://www.3vb.com/pgs-members/m_stolaney(2).shtml

(See notable cases!)

[charitynjw]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Also:-



Page Pathway

1. Home
2. In Brief
3. Banking
4. Overdrafts and a Bank’s Usual Terms

Overdrafts and a Bank’s Usual Terms

Brief OverviewReview of Lloyds Bank plc v Peter Royston Voller, Court of Appeal, 19 October 2000.
Applicable LawUK (England & Wales)Reviewed 14 February 2002Submitted 20 December 2000 The case of Lloyds Bank plc v Peter Royston Voller, found in favour of a bank against a customer. A customer had opened a current bank account with no formal documentation and no express agreement concerning the interest rate that would be applied to any overdraft. The reason for the lack of formality was that he had had previous dealings with the bank. Over a number of years, the bank applied their percentage rate applicable to authorised overdrafts to the customer's overdraft even though the overdraft was unauthorised and would normally have attracted a higher rate.
The customer submitted that since there was no formal documentation and therefore no express agreement as to the percentage rate that was to apply, the applicable interest rate was the same as applied to a business loan with the bank (the difference between the percentage rate the bank, in fact, charged and the rate applicable to a business loan was 5.4 per cent APR). The Court ruled that, in the absence of express agreement, the overdraft should be operated on the bank's usual overdraft terms (i.e. the higher amount). The Court said that the bank would have been within its rights to charge the higher amount for unauthorised overdrafts although it had chosen not to do so. This was a Court of Appeal decision and sets an important precedent for banks to rely on.
For further information please contact Mark Norris or your usual contact at Simmons & Simmons.
This document is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Professional legal advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the contents of this document.

[davidl]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Hi all a quick question on bank charges (i didnt know where to post this)
i have £52 worth of bank charges due out of my abbey account today and they have not gone out i have the funs inthere to pay them but i was thinking

-if it says they will come out on the 3rd on my statment are they allowed to deduct them after today?

and secondly where would i stand if i went into the bank today and went to the cashier and said "i would like to transferr the BALENCE of my current account to my savings account" so if the abbey decide to take there charges in the next few days i could just simply tell them its not my fault its theres for not taking them on the correct day.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Voller attached for info



David

If you move your balance to your savings account then the bank will still take their charges putting you back overdrawn and probably charge you more, plus they CAN offset the overdraft from your savings account. If you have ESSENTIAL bills you have to pay and the bank taking this money is putting your basic living standard at risk (ie no money for food, heating etc because of it) then you can try using your first right of appropriation or simply appealing to the bank for them to let you off a couple of charges because you are struggling.

[davidl]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

thanks amy a quick question when you get time (i looked everywere and could not find it) could you post a link up for a template letter for credit card charges i have recived my offer letter saying we belive our charges are fair bla bla bla and i was looking for a response letter with abit more detail them the one on the mse website that basically says "give me my money" is there one avalible?

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Try this Legal Beagles CC LBA from Legal Beagles GUIDES TO RECLAIMING

[borgbaiter]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

hi all

a quick query. if your case is in small claims and you win can the banks then appeal to high court?


Borgbaiter

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

hi all

a quick query. if your case is in small claims and you win can the banks then appeal to high court?


Borgbaiter

Yes. And I think that one way or another a case will end up in the High Court before too long.

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Today the OFT's bank charges team met with campaigners to discuss bank charges going forward in relation to their 22 December announcement:

''The OFT nevertheless continues to have significant concerns about the operation of the market for personal current accounts. Despite some recent and planned improvements by banks, particularly around transparency and customer switching, it believes fundamental changes are still required for the market to work in the best interests of bank customers. Banks earn around a third of their personal current account revenues from unarranged overdraft charges that are difficult to understand, not transparent and not subject to effective consumer control.

A number of options are available to secure the changes that the OFT wants to see, ranging from voluntary action to legislative change. The OFT will now discuss these issues intensively with banks, consumer groups and other organisations, with the aim of reporting on progress by the end of March 2010.''

In attendance were representatives from Legal Beagles, MSE and CAG plus Bob Egerton and Tom Brennan.

Unsurprisingly but understandably the meeting was held under Chatham House rules which means that the agenda and anything the OFT said is confidential ''to ensure full and frank discussion''. And frank it was.

Although a lot of issues were discussed the campaign was robust in putting forwards it's views in 4 main areas:

1) That there should be a universal cap on the total value of insufficient funds charges applied in a given period - particularly annually.

2) That the service of 'consideration' for any payment instruction (whether that results in a paid or non paid item fee) should be an opt-in service for consumers - and not an opt-out like the Barclays reserve.

3) That self regulation in retail banking cannot continue.

4) That any voluntary non compliance of the OFTs findings needs to be legislated.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Please can people interested in the meeting and the future of current accounts and bank charges read this Personal Current Account Services Billing - Consultation - Legal Beagles and give any input they may have..... positive OR negative welcomed Thankyou xx

[davidl]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

EXC i have heard abit about these "meetings" and other things going on to discuss bank charges and the future of banking but when (if ever) do you think we will see any changes implemented?

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

March 2010 will be annoucement on what is proposed.