Banks win Supreme Court case on overdraft charges

Dolph said:
Really? What forums would this be?

Because the financial ombudsman has acknowledged it means the cases are pretty much dead.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html



I'd take their view over random websites (especially if it is one of the sites that mistakenly pushed this issue and are now trying to save face...)
Click to expand...

Clause 5(1) of the UTCCR states - "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."

This is the angle that they are looking at, as the FOS used a different part of the UTCCR for their court case.
 
lee32uk said:
Clause 5(1) of the UTCCR states - "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."

This is the angle that they are looking at, as the FOS used a different part of the UTCCR for their court case.
Click to expand...

Would this be the consumer action group per chance, the same group that was absolutely, 100% positive they could win this case... I wonder if they will be refunding all the court charges people have incurred from their recommendations...
 
King85 said:
It's even more shocking the views some of the 'lets baby idiots who can't control their spending' folk come out with.

A bank is a business, same as any other high street business, if you don't like the way they operate don't use them, if you are unable to control your spending don't use them, stop whining about contractual obligations that are agreed upon when an account is opened.

(I'd like to point out while the word you and a directed manner is written with it is not directed at the individual quoted but those that are ''anti-bank'')
Click to expand...

I think the real point here is that we're all just living our lives, that's us, the individuals. We, as consumers are allowed to shout at multi-billion pound organisations all we like, it's a right that everyone has. You are a customer, and as a customer you are allowed to question and challenge service.

However, in this situation we are being personally attacked by fellow consumers on our lives, especially ones who enact some mighter-than-thou mentality with regard to banking. This doesn't really historically happen in human society, and if you really question it, and I mean really question it. Get past the bragging rights you have for not having fine, look past your anal-ness with money and see what's really going on.

When you see it, you will **** bricks.
 
Sawell said:
I think the real point here is that we're all just living our lives, that's us, the individuals. We, as consumers are allowed to shout at multi-billion pound organisations all we like, it's a right that everyone has. You are a customer, and as a customer you are allowed to question and challenge service.

However, in this situation we are being personally attacked by fellow consumers on our lives, especially ones who enact some mighter-than-thou mentality with regard to banking. This doesn't really historically happen in human society, and if you really question it, and I mean really question it. Get past the bragging rights you have for not having fine, look past your anal-ness with money and see what's really going on.

When you see it, you will **** bricks.
Click to expand...

Braging rights? Analness?

So not spending money I don't have causes me to fall into those catagories? Really?
 
The only problem i have with any of this is that the banks seem to fund free banking by charging large fines to those less fortunate (and by that i mean those who can't manage money/ fall on unexpected hard times). I would rather pay a fee for banking so that if the worst did happen, i would not be shafted. Those that defend harsh fines for going a penny over seem to accept that those who get screwed fund the free banking for those that do not.

This will make one laugh but i don't think joy should come from the misfortune of others.:p
 
King85 said:
I like how you've failed to create a good argument and have resorted to a few tame personal attacks, excellent work.
Click to expand...

I suppose you skipped over the previous post where I said I was finished making my point. Nice selective reading skills.

gambitt said:
I'm sorry but you won't get anything further after this. My point regarding fairness and morality has been made but you keep dancing around it with talk about how everyday customers can obtain a banking license if they wish! :D A practical solution indeed. In a court you are allowed to counter claim which seems a fair system, I suppose the banks are above that though.

You sound like a solicitor but then I wonder how could one have the time to post on an internet forum at 10:30 on a Friday morning so I'll just assume you are a busy body with not a lot to do. Please excuse me but my break is over and I must get back to work like the rest of the working population.
Click to expand...

Also note that personal attacks are against the rules and the moderators will take action. They didn't in this case thus proving that stating an observation about someone's post count and work schedule is not considered a personal attack.

Care to have another stab at that one? :)
 
Gothic Draconia said:
The only problem i have with any of this is that the banks seem to fund free banking by charging large fines to those less fortunate (and by that i mean those who can't manage money/ fall on unexpected hard times). I would rather pay a fee for banking so that if the worst did happen, i would not be shafted. Those that defend harsh fines for going a penny over seem to accept that those who get screwed fund the free banking for those that do not.

This will make one laugh but i don't think joy should come from the misfortune of others.:p
Click to expand...

As mentioned before my friend works in a bank and the majority of charges aren't acrued due to misfortune or hard times but by greed and the inability to save for something. Do you think that it's fair that and individual that didn't spend their (or in the case of what we're disussing the banks) money in such a way would have to pay for their account if i were the alternative?

Even if we had to pay for accounts and to withdraw money like France, etc you would still recieve fines for going over your overdraft as it's spending more than your agreed limit.

To reitterate what i've said before, having to not pay for a bank account due to other being charged isn't the part that annoys me in this debate it's the fact that those who are unable to take responsibility for their actions expect others too.
 
King85 said:
As mentioned before my friend works in a bank and the majority of charges aren't acrued due to misfortune or hard times but by greed and the inability to save for something. Do you think that it's fair that and individual that didn't spend their (or in the case of what we're disussing the banks) money in such a way would have to pay for their account if i were the alternative?

Even if we had to pay for accounts and to withdraw money like France, etc you would still recieve fines for going over your overdraft as it's spending more than your agreed limit.

To reitterate what i've said before, having to not pay for a bank account due to other being charged isn't the part that annoys me in this debate it's the fact that those who are unable to take responsibility for their actions expect others too.
Click to expand...

I agree but it's the fact the charges are very high and the banks would appear to profit from it which is shown by the fact that if the court case was lost, they would charge for banking services due to losing the bonus revenue from extortionate fines.
Anyways, that's all i have to say. I manage my finances. :p
 
Dolph said:
Would this be the consumer action group per chance, the same group that was absolutely, 100% positive they could win this case... I wonder if they will be refunding all the court charges people have incurred from their recommendations...
Click to expand...

And how would this be their fault exactly? It was the FSA who were taking the Banks to Court, not the CAG. All they did was provide information on how to approach your claim, and a lot of people did get their money back before the stays were imposed.
This test case is not over by a long shot and for people who have a claim lodged at the court the FOS website message doesn't mean a thing.
 
Surfer said:
Because its *that* hard for the bank just to not pay dds and other automatic debit transactions if there are no funds available??????

Beggars belief...

No they would rather they paid it then hit the customer for the privilege.

They are directly profiteering from those that are financially less well-off when they should not be. They are a business but they have a duty to the community (e.g. similar in a way to hospitals, post offices and such)

It seems running a business seems to excuse one from all kinds of questionable activity and a certain individual moral responsibility. Afterall its just a business trying to make a profit right? People have such short memories i remember posting years ago the frankly obscene profit margins banks were making before the banking crisis.... oh how we forget!

Well its managed to make it into my top 5 most hated profession/industry yay :rolleyes:




I've noticed this kind of excuse cropping up more and more these days - For any kind of questionable behaviour/contract or process apparently it is all fine and dandy IF and only IF said person signs the form agreeing to it. If they agree to it then all manner of immoralities can be committed upon them. It'll all be legal and in the contract though so thats ok.

No-one else in the entire forum see any problem with this? There has got to be one surely.
Click to expand...

In fact, most of the time they don't even pay it. I've had my bank claim to have paid something which they hadn't, they promptly refunded me when I mentioned they were lying.
 
lee32uk said:
And how would this be their fault exactly? It was the FSA who were taking the Banks to Court, not the CAG. All they did was provide information on how to approach your claim, and a lot of people did get their money back before the stays were imposed.
This test case is not over by a long shot and for people who have a claim lodged at the court the FOS website message doesn't mean a thing.
Click to expand...

The whole campaign was spearheaded by CAG and Which, long before the OFT (not the FSA) got involved. It was CAG that provided all the template letters and so on.

This test case, on the basis originally proposed by CAG, is lost, it's gone. If you're going to try a new tactic, that's fine, but looking at history of cases involving unequal contract terms, it is unlikely to work, because there is no real imbalance in obligations within the contract. The customer's obligation is to pay a charge if they hit a certain trigger, that is not onerous. If this is such a good tactic, why didn't CAG and others head down that route before the one they did?

The phrase clutching at straws comes to mind...

It will be interesting to see what happens with Lloyd's plan to request dismissal of all the cases currently at the court stage.
 
kylew said:
In fact, most of the time they don't even pay it. I've had my bank claim to have paid something which they hadn't, they promptly refunded me when I mentioned they were lying.
Click to expand...

I think you may have mentioned that already. Ad nauseum. Precisely how many times did it happen?

Also, you state "most of the time". Can you substantiate that please.
 
Dolph said:
The whole campaign was spearheaded by CAG and Which, long before the OFT (not the FSA) got involved. It was CAG that provided all the template letters and so on.

This test case, on the basis originally proposed by CAG, is lost, it's gone. If you're going to try a new tactic, that's fine, but looking at history of cases involving unequal contract terms, it is unlikely to work, because there is no real imbalance in obligations within the contract. The customer's obligation is to pay a charge if they hit a certain trigger, that is not onerous. If this is such a good tactic, why didn't CAG and others head down that route before the one they did?

The phrase clutching at straws comes to mind...

It will be interesting to see what happens with Lloyd's plan to request dismissal of all the cases currently at the court stage.
Click to expand...

A spokeswoman for the Lloyds Banking Group explained that its lawyers would be asking local judges to apply the principles of the Supreme Court ruling, and would ask for cases to be withdrawn where appropriate.
Later the bank softened its stance and said on its website: "We anticipate most cases in the County and Sheriff courts will be withdrawn"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8382289.stm

Looks to me that Lloyds are not so sure as you make out.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. I for one am just going to see how things pan out in the next week or so.
 
lee32uk said:
A spokeswoman for the Lloyds Banking Group explained that its lawyers would be asking local judges to apply the principles of the Supreme Court ruling, and would ask for cases to be withdrawn where appropriate.
Later the bank softened its stance and said on its website: "We anticipate most cases in the County and Sheriff courts will be withdrawn"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8382289.stm

Looks to me that Lloyds are not so sure as you make out.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. I for one am just going to see how things pan out in the next week or so.
Click to expand...

I think you're right in that we'll have to agree to disagree, it will be interesting to see how it pans out as you have said. However, I don't hold out much hope of a successful challenge, if only because I was right about the nature of this one...
 
Gepetto said:
I think you may have mentioned that already. Ad nauseum. Precisely how many times did it happen?

Also, you state "most of the time". Can you substantiate that please.
Click to expand...

I say most of the time as there are people who claim their banks to have paid theirs which I can't refute without calling them liars and for all I know it is true, in my case though, they've never ever paid for any failed DDs despite claiming they had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom