They are legally allowed to "ask"... as is anybody. However, it is still up to the judge to determine any new evidence and the effect of the SC judgement as to how it affects the original stay, and whether the banks can use it to strike out the original claim. It's just sabre-rattling bully-boy tactics from one of the most charlatan establishments in the World. I just find it more than hypocritical for the banks' weasels like Angie 'Fish Lips' Knight to harp on about customers should "ask first before going overdrawn", when the taxpayer - read: you and I - have just bailed out their unauthorised overdrafts to the collective tune of: £2,000 billion Wonder what the charges on that should be? Will they be paying it back to the taxpayers? Total and utter hypocrisy.

That's an overdraft fee... I am talking about a fee for the actual bounce of the transaction. Have you ever had a debit card rejected in a shop, for insufficient funds, then gone home and received a letter along the lines of: ------------------------------------- Dear Bullied Customer, It has come to our attention that you attempted to use your debit card in Retailer Shops plc on dd/mm/yyyy and tried to pay for goods totally £30 when there was only £27 in your account. As a result we have charged you a £25 fee for returning this electronic transaction attempt and returning a DECLINED message to the shop's EFTPOS terminal. This will be charged to your account within the next 14 days. Yours, Mr Muppet Toss Brainache Department of Being a Total W****r Big Bully Bank plc ------------------------------------- Those declines are NOT charged... yet the banks argued in Court that every transaction costs administration and processing expense.

Well done... it is precisely that... a fair amount of bullying and now downright lying about how the case will proceed from here ... in their view only. Honestly, these ****ing banks think the courts are their exclusive domain... well, having said that... after yesterday's laugh As Steve Hone has put in his summing up post... we are simply back to square one as of two years ago. We now hit back with a new attack and new weapons... and I think we can also use the very case that was handed down yesterday to our advantage. They have actually created a bit of an Archilles' heel for themselves. THE BANKS CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!

Penalties still applies to the older contracts where the banks did actually use the term 'penalty fee', or 'additional administration charges/fees'. Ruling yesterday included reference, as did Smith's Appeal ruling. Smith ruled out the later use of common law, except where the UTCCRs don't protect the consumer. It's all down to the wording of the contract... hence why most banks reissued their T&Cs when the balloon went up.

I know precisely how they work... my company has spent the last 22 years putting mainframes and U/CBS's into said banks and other companies... we're over here in the Caribbean putting a new one in here for a global group. I disagree with your overall point... it's a bit generalistic, and might cover off some fo the older systems. But hey, I respect your right to disagree.

But, it absolutely dismisses their claim that they can't pick and choose which items to reject.

No true at all. When you use a debit card and there are insufficient funds, the payment is refused. that's it... it's just NOT paid. However, did you incur a bounced Debit Card Use fee??? No. The same can be applied to the systems that issue DD's... If the money's not in your account, then bounce it the same... just don't pay it... but why does this process cost £25-39 when a 'bounced' debit card transaction costs nothing? It's an identical process... presentation, validation, reconciliation, refusal, notification. Computer mainframse and bank CBS's can easily be tweaked to reject ANY payment where there insufficient funds. The banks just try it on becaase they think the Great Unwashed knows no better. I've been putting these sytems in for years, and know precisely how they work.

Yesterday's judgement made it clear that contracts between banks and customers can be subjected to a charging structure which is not deemed as penalties for specific services, but for the all-round service of the contract. This now becomes a bit of an Achilles’ heel as these charges are now for the overall service... i.e. their delivery of the overall contract.... so they'd better jolly well deliver then. BUT, the UTCC Regs also state that ALL contracts must be fair and equitable, i.e. all terms and conditions MUST apply to both parties. This part was the bit, I think, that Phillips hinted at... it's just now a case of will you go the next lap? So, write a short letter to your bank: 1) asking if they agree with the Supreme Courts judgement (SC6, 2009) that charges and fees ARE applicable in the management of the contract; 2) Ask for a copy of their latest table of fees/charges for all events that your account(s) may be subject to; When you get it, send them a recorded letter back, stating that as the laws allows for all Terms and Conditions to be individually negotiated, you are applying your own equitable terms to the contract and thus ensuring that the same rights to both parties to the contract are both met and fulfilled for future purposes. e.g. £10 for each breach of contract, £5 for letters, etc. plus your own extras for their potential breaches e.g. actual liquidated losses for indirect consequences (e.g. they bounce a DD by error , and the payee then charges you a subsequent fee for late payment), telephone calls. Quote something like "In light of the Supreme Court's judgment, it is only reasonable to now ensure that both parties adhere to the overall service 'package' in terms of delivery of the contract." Quote "Office of Fair trading v Abbey National plc and Others, UKSC 6, 2009" as the precedent. Make it clear that these will only be applied when the bank has breached the contract, made an error or fails to deal with a matter in accordance with their published timescales and the Banking Code. Add that these terms will be applied in x days (however many days notice their own contract states - usually 30 days, sometime more). They then have various options... a) They might ignore you. However, keep the recorded delivery slip. b) Write back and claim that these are agreed - hardly likely, but wonders will never cease!! c) Write back contesting them... and that's your bingo card. If the bank refuses to accept equitable terms, then you can write back and state that due to their refusal to accept reciprocal terms, their own terms of fee charging can only be considered one-sided and in contravention of Consumer Law. including parts of the UTCC Regs that the OFT didn't use so are not dissed by the SC judgement. State that in consideration of their refusal, you will apply to have the term within the contract that allows for them to make charges deemed as unlawful. That you consider the contract to have been constructed since signing to have been one-sided and that you will apply to have the specific clause to be struck out and all charges made under that specific clause, since signing, to be null and void. Then send that letter recorded giving them 14 days to respond. After, apply to the County Count under a General N1 claim. Even if the Court disagrees on retrospective charges... we had it in one case... they did also Order that the term should be removed unless the bank agreed to equal terms. The bank refused, so the Order was made to remove the Fees table clause. Result = no future bank charges, whatever the reason. The Banks CANNOT have it both ways. so lets get at them with their own judgement that they like to crow about.

Precedents can't be retrospective, especially when today's judgement has nothing to do with what your bank agreed before. Today's judgement was simply about whether the OFT was allowed to determine if the 'price/cost/amount' of charges was fair and reasonable... a totally different matter to "ARE they legal in the first place". Can people PLEASE understand this... The banks have won squat! Repeat... The Banks have won nothing like the victory they are crowing about... they are now simply going to try and convince people by letter to give up the fight. What they did win = a single thread of test case as to whether the OFT (note: the OFT) can examine or decide if the charges applied are fair for the overdraft (or provision) supplied. End of. They have won nothing against the rank and file public, other than IF the OFT had won, then people would probably have got their money back automatically... only IF the OFT had ordered them to. And that's only an IF... they probably would have cut a liability-limitation deal. So, you won't get anything back automatically now, you will still have to persue it yourself... just like before. The Judgement clearly states that the OFT was barking up the wrong legal tree (because the Regs are poorly worded in clause 6... not like other European countries) and hints (quite clearly) that the test should have been as to whether the charges are lawful in the first place... C5. So, don't rely on Clause 6... revert to Clause 5... it is that simple. And, the Dunlop precedent has NOT, repeat NOT, been deleted as a result of this judgement. Get with it people and stop weeping into screwed up statements... just tell your bank to bring it on. They will bully, they will spin their "Victory" letters to try and make you give up, but let's face it, what have we had to put up with for the last several years, but spin, bull$hit and bully-boy who-blinks-first tactics? Ask the bank for: 1. Proof that each term of the contract was individually negotiated 2. Proof that it provides an equitable balance of rights to both parties - (yeah, right) Where's your table of fees if they breach the contract? oh, you mean you don't have one... the banks didn't sign your tariff of fees table... then that clause is void. And if that term is void, then whatever is in it (i.e. £35s for each 'offence') is also void. End of. 3. Proof that you, as the customer, has been able to influence the substance of the terms or variations over the years as they've put charges up... i.e. did they ask you if you thought the table of fees was reasonable? Like hell. Then it's void. End of. These are all clause 5 bits... so go people... use them! Enjoy!

The biggest thing to remember in all this is did today's judgement over-rule, negate or void the Dunlop case? No. Did it decide on the OFT's ability to question charging structure? Yes. Does that apply to individual cases? No. They are still to be decided by the courts on a case by case basis. The banks will write to everyone claiming they've won and "give up the fight because you won't win" when the courts still have to listen to the other clauses of the legislation and for CC judges/recorders to decide if the Dunlop case applies, or the reciprocity terms are present, etc., etc., etc. DON'T START LISTENING TO THE BULLY-BANKS... LOOK THEM IN THE EYE AND JUST TELL THEM "BRING IT ON". (I doubt most would even show up in court anyway)

Too damn right... the OFT's case was pathetic and was put together begrudgingly and only after extreme pressure from the various forum groups and Which. It was the most pathetic attempt I've seen... I've done better on all the cases I've represented... in fact I've had two judges joke about whether I was going to be giving evidence to the higher court cases. I would bet that they now give up claiming something ridiculous like "exhausted all avenues" trying to make out that they have gone through all the Courts available and can go no further... nothing about taking it on via a different tack though. Don't hold your breath.

You don't need to go the Human Rights route... just re-pitch your canon (as they say) and use other clauses in consumer legislation. why, oh why? is everyone so doom and gloom over this... as Bookworm has said on threads... how are the banks going to explain the other clauses. Where's the reciprocity in the banks Table of Tariffs/Fees? Send then a table of tarrifs stating that you intend to charge them the same fees should they fail on any part of the contract. e.g. you will charge them for letters, calls, etc. and if they refuse to accept your terms, then write back stating that their refusal to reciprocate is unfair under the 'equal terms' rule. And that is NOT covered by the SC's upholding of the appeal which covered totally different aspects. Then use that as evidence to the court that their tariffs and penalty fees have therefore been unlawful all along and should be struck out the contract.

Not at all... totally disagree... the judgement today stated that the OFT has no jurisdiction to examine whether the relative high charge for each individual penalty imposed on an account can be tested as a true, fair and representative fee for that single transaction... i.e. is £39 charge fair for that one bounced cheque. The Court has ruled that this is up to the banks. I suggest that you read it... every page. Because, the finding was that the Court decided that such fees form the overall 'package' of all the costs associated with managing and providing that account. They are not a separate fee for a separate provision of services... i.e. the £39 fee for a 2p transaction on a mainframe doesn't come into it... the banks can decide that the £39 goes towards the ''whole' package. Therefore, the OFT cannot use the "disproportionate penalty" clause of the UTCC Regs, being that £39 is not a 'fair' charge for one service. However, the president of the SC stated that the OFT can use other legal arguments as to whether this still stands other litmus tests... I think he was clearly hinting at that too. Other clauses in the UTCC Regs state quite clearly that a contract MUST be reciprocal... i.e. what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. So, IF the banks want to include a schedule of fees/charges/tariffs/service charges (or however they want to name them), then there MUST be a reciprocal clause in the consumer's favour... otherwise such a clause can be struck out of the contract... i.e. that table of fees gets removed from the contract. And how can the banks then apply a table of fees that has been removed?... The ruling states nothing about the banks having the power to strike out claims - that is still up to the individual courts. Whilst the banks can apply to ahve them struck out, the consumers can still respond to those requests by stating that the ruling does not negate the other clauses within the UTCC Regs, i.e. reciprocal clause, individually negotiated terms, changes in the contract (i.e. upping fees over the years without written consent, etc.) The banks might crow on their websites taht they have 'won'... but, in relaity, they have simply shielded away one of the many arrows that can be fired at them. There are plenty more in the quiver... They are hoping that the majority will now give up... and then they would 'win' if everyone gives up.

Not strictly true... English law does not prevent you using a different part of an Act, if the original claim was based on a separate part. The OFT has basically lost the ability to test whether the charging structure is unfair and disproportionate. The reciprocity case hasn't even been challenged by the OFT.... yet. Also, I think Europe might have something to say about an English Court deciding that a claimant cannot appeal having used a piece of legislation that originated in Europe in the first place.

Can we just calm down on this subject please... the banks have NOT 'won'... although, as usual, they will try the bullyboy tactic of dressing up the decision into a "The Courts have agreed with us and we will not be refunding your charges". which they have not... the ruling is that the OFT cannot investigate whether the charges are reasonable taking into account the 'whole package' argument. I switched my cases last year to the UTCC Regs but under the 'reciprocal balance of rights in the contract' approach, and didn't have the cases stayed, and won them all... well, the banks didn't turn up and just paid up. Yes, the judgement was clearly politically motivated... two higher courts are then trumped by a newly-founded (pouplated by Labour-luvvies) 'Supreme' Court, named to try and make Broon and The Straw Man sound all important by having something named after the USA system. Interesting how the Court has also said that no appeal can be made to Europe - the very source of the base legislation from which the UTCC Regs are derived?! (Work that one out when you have a spare decade!) Just dust yourselves down, and then take on the banks with the simple attack of "any charges schedule is not fair - regardless - because there is no reciprocal clause that gives the consumer the equal right to charge the bank for any breach of terms, or failure in their side of the bargain." You could also argue that bank is not acting reponsibly by contacting you first before putting you overdrawn, and they have a duty of care to ensure that you are not unnecessarily burdened with a breach of contract when you genuinely were not aware that such a breach may occur. The banks have telephones... they should let you know that you are in possible danger of commiting a breach of contract. Also, any change in terms and conditions that the banks try to impose are not applicable unless agreed to, in writing - the banks cannot apply a change solely on the basis that if "you didn't reply it is assumed you agree." Let's face it, the OFT didn't really tackle this case on the right fronts, and just chose one slim thread on which to base it. Had they appproached on all clauses of the Regs, then the overwhelming balance would probably have dusted it on the initial case. Stand by for the crowing letters from the banks, but don't be bullied by them... BTW, the Dunlop case is still case law... this ruling has not overturned that.

Believe me, it is being worked on - it's taken the last 8 months of my life (and that of others) in going through every damned civil case on the subject that's ever been heard. We're building a tidy portfolio, but still more work , much more, to be done before we get it to a solid-enough case to be heard. I am also in the process of establishing how we can get this to a higher Court, but I am NOT disclosing how we intend to do that on this forum as the C.R.A.s will read it and I want this as a complete surprise. I am also awaiting the outcome of Tom Brennan's case, as it has some relevant input. P.S. Whatever happened to that Muppet from the C.R.A. who use to jump on here and spout buzz-word pontificating c**p? - I guess he's crawled back under his rock. I notice he still never updated their web advice pages even though he promised categorically to do so some six months ago, or more. I suppose that shows the 'real' character of those sort of 'people'.

Glad to see it's still working here and there Well done.

Welcome aboard Duncan, and you seem to have grasped our argument with ease... It seems to be one rule for some, and another rule for others. The I.C.O. is not effective in applying equity as they have too many vested interests in the credit industry.

Hi Dayglo, it seems a real pity that different county court judges are interpreting it all so differently. We've had three cases go straight through on the basis that recording a default for six years is not proportionate to the same length of time for something far more serious such as a bankruptcy marker or CCJ. And also on the basis that it specifically wasn't included as a contractual term. Unfortunately, the I.C.O.'s 'panic' statement last November (done purely as a stop-gap measure after too much heat from places like here) is now (sometimes) being interpreted as the law - which it is most defintely NOT. How on Earth they can quote an industry beano in the early 70's as the basis for the six-year rule is beyond belief. However, at the moment, some of the lenders are using this argument. We have one with Barclays going on despite them already having removed three other ones - yet hey are fighting this one tooth and nail. Interesting how the banks give in when the default is made up of penalty charges and remove the data (thus admitting that they have breached the contract) yet seem unwilling to do so when another breach of contract (i.e. over-processing of data) occurs. I think that it's maybe time to ramp this thing up to another Court. We have a very good case that's been kept in reserve which might be the catalyst. I will keep you informed. Keep your head up and you did win the moral argument... another court, another judge, another day... and it could have been totally different. I'm finding that all the time.

I can't really find the right 'home' for this one, but here's as good as any. if any Mods want to move it to a more suitable squat then fine with me. Anyway, Lloyds TSB are changing a lot of their current accounts, especially the ones that offer extra services for a monthly fee. I actually use such an account, because things like the AA cover and annual holiday insurance works out more competitive. However, they have now tried adding two Mickey-Mouse add-ons which are disproportionately expensive for the extra £10 that they are trying to charge on top of the normal fee. Reading their website, it seems that they are trying this with other value-added accounts too. However, they can't do this, and their call-centre Noddys simply give the highly-diplomatic and non-antagonistic [yeah!] attitude of "take it or you'll get your account downgraded" straight from the Saddam School of Diplomacy. Anyway, if anyone else has had such nonsense, I've pasted in the letter that I've just sent them. You might find it useful as a basis for your own case(s) In the meantime, the default work carries on, and a major battle with Barclays is just about to come to crunch time, so I will let you all now how I get on and what we can use from that case. Rgds, SB Customer Relations Department Lloyds Bank plc xxxx Dear Sirs, Re: Proposed increase in account fees - Premier A/c No. xxxxxxxx I refer to my recent correspondence to Lloyds Bank and its offer of additional facilities within Premier accounts for an additional fee of £10 per month. I have looked at the additional services that are being offered and do not consider that they are worth this extra expenditure, and certainly do not offer value for money under the provisions of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. In fact, the proportionate cost, for example, of the Home Assistance package offered is in no way competitive with my current arrangements. This also brings me on to my second point in that both of the additional services being offered are not required by me anyway. I already have such facilities in place with longer-established suppliers, at a far more realistic price, so object to any bank trying to impose them on me when it would be a clear waste of money to have two products in place that serve the same purpose. As such, I will not be accepting the new facilities, and will remain on the current Premier account tariff of £15.00 per month. I will remind the bank that it is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 for any supplier to try imposing a change of contract upon a consumer, and subsequently impose such a change without their acceptance and explicit consent thereto. I refer to Schedule 2 of Regulation 5(5): INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR 1. Terms which have the object or effect of – … (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided; … Having tried to discuss this matter with some of the call-centre operatives at Premier, it is clear that they do have sufficient knowledge of consumer law. They have, basically, stated that I will no longer be “allowed” a Premier account if I refuse to accept the new fee. I appreciate that this may be the diktat from their on-screen scripts, but I do wonder why so many unqualified-at-Law staff seem to claim a superior legal knowledge when they clearly have no knowledge of Law whatsoever. For a call-centre operative to make such threats and try imposing such a condition is also unlawful, as the above regulations allow for a contract to continue even though some parts might be unworkable or not accepted by either party. I refer again to the UTCC Regulations: Effect of unfair term 8. - (1) An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer. (2) The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term. As such, I maintain that the bank is acting in an unlawful manner in both its attempt to impose some minor changes in my original contract that: a) do not meet the “reasonable price” test of the Supply of Goods and Services Act; b) are surplus to own product requirements when I already have such facilities in place; and, c) would be unlawful under several clauses of the UTCC Regulations. Therefore, you are hereby formally notified that you are forbidden to make any changes to my original contract and the contract will (as per the UTCC Regulations) continue in the mode that it has done since opening. The bank is prohibited to charge any monthly account fee over and above the originally agreed fee of £15.00, per month, unless I give you written permission to do so. Any deductions made over and above this £15.00 amount will be treated as theft, and will be reported immediately to xxxxxx CID as a suspected case of a fraudulent banking transaction on my account. I feel certain that the staff at the xxxxxxx branch, or at Head Office, would not want the embarrassment of the Police entering the premises taking statements and requesting ledger printouts. I would also respectfully suggest that you do not underestimate my resolve on this matter as this is neither an idle nor churlish threat; it is an absolute and guaranteed promise. In the meantime, I shall continue with my Premier Account for the agreed monthly fee of £15.00 and do not expect to have to communicate again on this issue, as I think that I have made my position crystal clear. Yours faithfully, etc.

Just doing a test post, as it appears that no one has signatures or avatars anymore... or is it my browser playing up???

The banks are non-apologetic ****.... you'll just have to get used to it. Unfortunately, they have been getting it their way for far too long, and detest the fact that the great unwashed in the street are starting to fight back. "Let them eat cake", and all that jazz...although not Bastille Day - the launch of the glorious revolution against these scuzz-buckets... more like Bank-Steal day.

ROFL He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!! (Well, the C.R.A.s think so, anyway)

This has been my contention since last summer - once a contract expires, the terms likewise expire. Hence the template that I put together setting out this very argument. I've used the argument 20 times with various lenders and banks, and we've taken half of those to Court and won hands down. We have also dug up two UK legal precedents relating to expiry of terms in contracts and then one party acting ultra vires to the detriment of the other party, which was used in the last 3 of those cases. Unfortunately, I have yet to take one through a higher court to get a precedent set on this specific issue, as the County Courts have agreed on all cases. Maybe I might risk the fee to take one through a higher court just to make the point. Let me know if you find any European precedents - but I think there's enough in UK law already to prove this argument already.

I took NatWest to Court for £25,385.16, plus interest and costs on charges on a business account. I also had to defend their legal costs of £8k+, and claim my costs of nearly £5k. Whilst it wasn't not a Fast Track case, it still proves that bigger cases can be won. The method shown on this site does work, if you follow the process precisely, methodically, and don't give up. Another huge batch of these cases were undefended in Poole County Court today.