...is again a specific instance of a bank not dealing fairly. That is quite different from having an unfair contract.

The story you tell emphasises exactly the point I made above that consumers need to concentrate on the manner in which the charges are applied and not on whether charges as such are fair (however you define it) or not. The point I have been trying to make on this site for the last four years is that if you are going to attack the banks using the law you need to get the law right. Far too few people have concentrated on the legal issues properly because, quite rightly consumed with righteous indignation, they thought the law must be with them. I do not buy into any "old boy network" "deals in smoke filled rooms" "they're all out to get you" or other conspiracy arguments. The judgement of the Supreme Court is transparent and there for all to see the judges' reasoning. Judges, unlike politicians, do not use weasel words. Comfort should be derived from the fact that the establishment party par excellence, the Tories, have recently taken to criticising judges. I take that as a clear indication that judges are getting it right!

To be honest I think the banks got as confused as anyone over terminology here. EDIT: Just done it again. I agree with the immediately preceding post and will go away for at least half an hour.

As mentioned above, I think the way the court put it was to say that the charges were contingent on the customer going into the red. Another way to look at it is to assume the bank is saying: We charge for our services charges but will waive them so long as you stay in credit. EDIT: Posted before I read the post immediately above. The further point is as the court said. There is an incentive to stay in credit, rather than a disincentive to go into the red.

But that makes no economic sense. If all bank charges are to be set at a level that only covers the cost how is the bank to make a profit by providing banking services?

People may not directly have said that banks cannot charge for their services, but that is what the arguments advanced were effectively saying. I have no major problem with most of the observations people make about bank charges. Bigdebtor says: In a way that really sums the whole thing up. The level of bank charges cannot be justified and is on any assessment other than a legal one unfair. Where the whole campaign went wrong was to base its case on a legal argument - or at least the wrong legal argument.

With respect, that is to look at the question backwards. Before the CCA was brought into it the two arguments were that bank charges were contractual penalties and/or unfair under the UTTCR. When it came to the contractual penalty question you first needed to show that the charge was compensation for breach of contract. The argument failed to clear that hurdle. When it came to the UTCCR question you first needed to show that the charge was not a charge for services supplied. The argument failed to clear that hurdle. Since both arguments failed, the question of how the charges were arrived at is irrelevant. What you cannot do in either case is to argue that a charge is excessive and must therefore be a penalty or unfair. Indeed, if either argument had succeeded, it would have been tantamount to saying that banks cannot charge for their services. That was really the flaw that lay at the heart of the arguments.

I think there may be some difficulty there. If I remember correctly, and I am not reading the whole judgement just to find where it was said, the Supreme Court said that if the model for charging was wrong that was a matter for Parliament and not the Court to address. In any event, if challenging the model what you cannot get away from is that it arose out of consumer demand. I suggested long ago that individual customers should base their case not on whether the charge was a contractual penalty or unfair under the UTCCR, but on whether any particular charge was unfairly applied or if the account had been manipulated in such a way as to incur repeat charges.

Whatever you do do not sign anything without taking legal advice.

I will not say that words failed me. Words rarely fail me. However, I did open the window, shake my fist at the sky and cry out to heaven for vengeance. I do not believe it. From what you say it is clear that you have a statutory periodic tenancy. There are occasions where the law is not black and white but this is not one of them. Section 5 (3) (e) of the Housing Act 1988 spells it out clearly: The periodic tenancy referred to in subsection (2) above [i.e. a statutory periodic tenancy] is one [...] under which [...] the other terms are the same as those of the fixed term tenancy immediately before it came to an end, except that any term which makes provision for determination by the landlord or the tenant shall not have effect while the tenancy remains an assured tenancy So, so long as the tenancy is a statutory periodic tenancy and an assured tenancy, any contractual provisions relating to the giving of notice do not apply. Anyone setting themselves up to give advice to tenants, whether they charge for it or not, should know this. It is not an obscure provision contained in or arising under an old act or case that applies rarely.

Concentrating solely on the landlord entering: If the tenancy agreement contains a provision that allows your landlord to enter then entry cannot be a trespass. However, there is a possibility that unjustified entry is a breach of the landlord's covenant for quiet enjoyment. Since that is a contractual obligation you need to show a loss before you can claim damages. See further this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?250737-A-landlord-s-right-of-access&highlight=

Absolutely not.

There are occasions when unusual arrangements are called for. However, if you are offering a residential property for sale on the open market you must avoid being tempted to go in for a complicated or unusual deal. "White dog for a black monkey" deals are fine if you are are selling an old car, but should be avoided in property transactions. Keep it simple. The more desperate you are to sell the more important it is to keep it simple.

It may be relevant to answer the question: Are bank charges a rip off? but not to answer the question: Is there a legal basis for getting bank charges refunded? The point is that whilst the law provides many safeguards for the consumer, it draws back from interfering with the market and allows a man to drive a hard bargain. That is effectively what regulation 6 (2) (b ) of the UTCCR says: [...] the assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate [...] to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange. The courts have decided that bank charges are not contractual penalties and that they come within regulation 6 (2) (b ). That does not of course mean that the terms and conditions relating to contracts for banking services made between banks and non-business customers are not otherwise subject to the UTCCR. However, it does mean that if you agreed to pay price x for service y, that you have to pay it. The way the court analysed contracts for banking services ruled out the possibility that any standard charge was anything other than the price payable for a service. It is difficult to see therefore how any of the charges banks customarily make can be challenged under the UTCCR.

Let's look at this according to the way the world is, that is that businesses, however large or small, operate to make money. Whilst there may sometimes be a sound business reason for operating to the contrary, any business expects to make a profit from all its different operations. The provision of banking services is one of the things banks do. They expect to make a profit out of it. To expect otherwise is like saying (as indeed a friend of mine maintains!) that restaurants should only make their profit from selling food and not from wine. Since there is no control on the profit that any business makes, it is difficult to justify controlling bank profits. I think it is also important not to be too misled by the level of bank profits; large businesses make large profits because they do a lot of business and not necessarily because they are overcharging. I hasten to add here that I think that bank charges are excessive. I also think that a lot of other charges are excessive. Accordingly I cannot see how the actual cost of providing a particular service is any more relevant in banking than in any other service. What is unique about the banks when it comes to bank charges is that not every customer pays. The deal is simply: stay in credit and pay nothing. That deal is only on offer because it was what consumers demanded years ago. The deal means that those who do not manage to stay in credit pay for those who do. Is that unfair? It seems like it when the charges rack up. Just because the arrangement is unique should not blind us to the fact that there is essentially no difference between the way banks operate and the way supermarkets operate. In any event what it costs the banks is entirely irrelevant in law because the courts have held that bank charges are not penalties and that under the UTCCR they are "the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange".

Oh yes!

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2A to the Housing Act 1988 says: "An assured tenancy which contains a provision to the effect that the tenancy is not an assured shorthold tenancy." That will not necessarily stop it being an "ordinary" assured tenancy. It will be an assured tenancy of it complies with section 1 of the Housing Act 1988: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/50/section/1

Whether you have to register dispositions and if so to whom you have to give notice and the fee payable is regulated by your lease.

Several points: It is all right to backdate a document to the day the transaction was completed; if you do that all you are doing is dating the document the date it ought to be dated. However, a transaction cannot be backdated. If you backdate a document with a view to obtaining an advantage then it has to be some sort of a crime. The problem is, as you realise, that it will never be obvious from the face of the document if it has been backdated. A "lease" is both a contract and the grant of an estate. The only essential requirement for the grant of an estate is that the deed creating it is executed by the grantor. Execution by the grantee is not essential. When it comes to leases we are all so used to the tenant signing that we are apt to think it is a requirement, but strictly it is not. The main reason for getting a tenant to sign is so that the landlord has evidence of the terms agreed. When a deed is made there are two stages: execution and completion. Mere execution does not bring a deed into effect. Completion of a deed involves its acceptance by the grantee. This may be done by physical acceptance of the deed by the grantee or by the grantee doing something that is consistent with accepting the deed. In property transactions if standard procedures are followed all will be well. Standard procedures are often departed from by landlords or agents who are too clever for their own good. In particular they hold the mistaken belief that the tenant signing a lease is all that is needed and they they will somehow get an advantage if they "forget" to send their part to the tenant. Now, a grantee is at liberty to repudiate a deed granting him an estate so long as he has not done anything to accept it. (This stops people going round granting leases willy-nilly.) If a tenant sends his part of the lease signed to the landlord it is in the expectation that he will receive the landlord's part in exchange. There has I think to come a point when the failure of the landlord to send his part must be taken as indicating an intention not to complete the transaction, and, even though a tenant may have signed a counterpart and sent it to the landlord he would be able to repudiate the lease if completed. Under what precise circumstances such a repudiation could be made, if indeed it could be made at all, I would not like to say. However, it clearly cannot be right for a landlord to leave a tenant in a position where he does not know where he stands. Quite apart from the fact that it should be done anyway, this emphasises why the parties to a commercial lease should be legally represented.

I had assumed that the notice expired after the first six months. If if it did and you have paid up to then then you are in the clear. I think you had better confirm exactly what notice you have served and all other relevant details as you do not want to go muscling in without getting it right.

It is unwise to trust precedents you can download online unless they come from a recognised legal publisher. Your best bet is your local reference library.

More incompetent drafting! The first paragraph is fine. It gives you the unequivocal right to break. It is not immediately apparent how the second paragraph follows on. What does the "that" refer to? In any event it cannot cut down the clear right given by the first paragraph.

You have no obligation to pay a renewal fee unless you agree to pay it.

The idea of a tenant's right to break is, as its name suggests, to allow the tenant to break the tenancy, i.e. to bring it to an end. That means a clean break. A right to break that requires the tenant to pay rent until the property is relet is no right to break at all. It requires the tenant to pay rent for a period during which he is not entitled to possession; if that is not an unfair term I do not know what is. Tell the agent that you have taken legal advice and been informed that you do not have to pay rent for any period after your notice expires. If you have paid a deposit there are many who would suggest that you forget to pay the last month's rent in case the landlord or agent tries to use the deposit to cover what they think they are due under the clause. As a law abiding lawyer I could not possibly recommend such a reprehensible course of action.

If the document that the tenant signed was for a term of three years or less, then there can be little doubt that the tenant has a fixed term tenancy for whatever period was stated in the document. Writing is not essential to create a tenancy for three years or less. The fact that the landlord accepted the document signed by the tenant and allowed the tenant into occupation is sufficient for the tenant to rely on what was in the document to establish the terms of the tenancy. Equally, the fact that the tenant went into occupation and signed the document is sufficient for the landlord to rely on the document to establish the terms of the tenancy. Both parties can therefore hold the other to what is in the document. If the document that the tenant signed was for a term of more than three years, the position is quite different. To create a tenancy for three years or more a deed is required. There can therefore be no tenancy for a fixed term, nor indeed any contract to create such a tenancy because the landlord failed to sign anything. However, if the tenant is in occupation and paying rent there must be a tenancy and it will be a periodic tenancy. The terms of the tenancy are as set out in the document signed by the tenant except that (a) there is no fixed term and (b) any terms that are incompatible with a periodic tenancy will not apply.