Originally settled first claim with Barclays for 2003-2006 then agreed with Barclays in correspondance that my overdraft (which incl charges) would be frozen pending the outcome of the OFT legal case. Barclays are still charging monthly interest !

Just pointed out to Barclays the OFT guidlines regarding disputed accounts which incl charges.

If it's any help had the same problem with Barclays last year / wanted overdraft paid / changed bank accounts to Halifax basic account/ stopped paying any money into the Barclays account/ As the overdraft incl fee's - unpaid DD /cheques etc agreed with Barclays the overdraft (over £1,000) would be put in 'limbo' until the end of the court case ! Still paying monthy interest on o/s overdraft !

In 2006 took me over 6 months of letters/phone calls to obtain statements from NastyWest gong back to 1990. Case presently stayed in local County Court. So yes you can TRY and obtain the required documents from Barclays but somehow i think they will not be forthcoming.

Banks have lodged petition with HOL for the right to appeal !

Ahhhh i now understand if you try and mention LB and vice versa ? YES ?

Sorry you have lost me with this one ! I thought it was because i was to mention LB stite ???

Sorry with the help of legal seagulls

With the help of Legal seagulls!

Other websites incl LB don't think a deal will done between OFT and Banks like credit cards. I have been referred to the following article from the OFT:- Press releases 2007 OFT announces 'quick fix' on bank charges will disadvantage consumers 54/07 29 March 2007 In response to consumer concerns over bank current account charges, the OFT has today announced an in-depth study of retail bank pricing. This will sit alongside a formal investigation into the fairness of bank current account charges. Full details of the study will be announced in late April, and it is expected to be completed by the end of the year. This study follows an initial review carried out by the OFT into these charges. The finding of this initial review is that the OFT shares the public concern about the level and incidence of bank current account charges, but it recognises that the application of the general principles it set out in 2006 to the banking industry is not straightforward and that a more detailed examination is needed. The decision to undertake a study reflects the OFT's desire to take a strategic approach to the examination of the fairness of these charges in the wider context of competition in the UK retail banking sector. John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive said: 'The UK retail banking market performs well in many dimensions, especially relative to international norms. However, the issue of bank current account charges is a matter of real concern to the banks' customers, and raises wider questions about competition and transparency of pricing. The initial scoping work we have undertaken has demonstrated to us that this is not only an issue for those people who are being charged, but also for customers who are not defaulting on their bank accounts. 'A quick-fix solution is not the answer as this might be of limited long-term benefit and could have unintended and far-reaching consequences across the whole sector and on consumers as a whole. We will look forward to co-operation from the banking sector in reaching a conclusion to this matter which is satisfactory to consumers and which will strengthen competition, efficiency and customer outcomes in the UK retail banking sector.' NOTES 1. On 7 September 2006, the OFT announced that it was to carry out a short study into current account charges. See press release 130/06. 2. This initial review was not intended to lead to the setting of a specific threshold for intervention by OFT at this stage. As indicated in September it was intended as a preliminary assessment of the issues, to see whether a further detailed investigation of the fairness of individual bank default charges may be necessary. 3. In the course of the scoping work OFT has liaised closely with the Financial Services Authority and Financial Ombudsman Service and held discussions with the British Bankers' Association about the activities banks engage in when dealing with a default by a customer and the relevance of banking law to this issue. 4. In April 2006 the OFT set out principles for considering the fairness of credit card default charges. One question for the new study is to consider how these principles might apply to bank accounts. I am still of the opinion a deal will eventually be done between the OFT and Banks.

Claiming against NatWest for charges going back to 1993.Case presently stayed. People will encounter all sort of excuses from the Banks for copy statements going back to 1990s. Took me well over six months of many letters/phone calls to get some of my statements /data records. Have recenty discovered a copy of a consolidated loan taken out in 1998 no doubt to cover an overdraft which obviously included charges. Well looks like its back to the Court next week with another claim.

26th February 2009 at 1000am Judgement on Banks appeal to Justice Smith earlier decision that UTCCR1999 can be applied to bank accounts. Whoever loses can still continue with an appeal to the house of lords ! Understand copies of the appeal judgement have already been given to OFT and Banks. My personal opinion is if banks lose this appeal then game over and a deal will be done between OFT and the banks (aka credit cards)

Yes i agree with the majority of your comments but what would be the alternative if we did not bail out the UK banks with public money ? Melt down ?

From BBC Wedsite today :-New NatWest bank charges ruling By Ian Pollock Personal finance reporter, BBC News Mr Justice Smith ruled against NatWest on one point only Some customers of the NatWest bank may have a new opportunity to reclaim their bank overdraft charges. A High Court judge has ruled that the bank's terms and conditions, used from 2001 to July 2003, may have included unfair penalties for going overdrawn. The ruling by Mr Justice Andrew Smith is one of a several in the long running test case on bank charges. Most overdraft claims in county courts have been halted since July 2007 while the High Court resolves the issue. "The court found that a single historic NatWest term prohibited customers from using a card to go overdrawn but this does not mean that that term is a penalty," said a NatWest spokesman. New cases? The consumers' organisation Which? said in theory some NatWest customers could now ask their courts to reopen their claims, but warned it would not be plain sailing. "Firstly, the judge this week only said Natwest's 2001 charges may be penalties, not that they are penalties," said Which? lawyer, Chris Warner. "This means the customer would need to show that the charges were actually penalties by proving that the charge did not reflect the bank's costs. "Also, as the issue of charges reflecting the cost to the bank is part of the OFT's ongoing fairness assessment, Natwest may be able to convince the court to stay any cases brought against it until the OFT's investigation is complete," he added. Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group (CAG), said some of his members were now thinking of returning to court, after being charged under the NatWest's 2001 conditions. "It affects personal and business customers, but only for a limited period of time," he said. "The bigger question is whether the contracts will be subject to the consumer contract regulations." The ruling The banking industry and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) are waiting for the Appeal Court to hand down its judgement on a bank appeal against an earlier ruling by Mr Justice Smith. I therefore remain unpersuaded that the relevant term in the NatWest 2001 conditions is not capable of being penal Mr Justice Andrew Smith Last year he dealt a blow to the right of banks to levy high overdraft charges when he decided that the 1999 regulations, regarding unfair terms in consumer contracts, gave the OFT the right to scrutinise those charges. This week's judgement by Mr Justice Smith was one of three residual decisions, made on whether or not charges levied under old or "historic" terms and conditions could also be penalties under common law, and therefore not recoverable. Last October he cleared most of the old contracts used by seven banks and the Nationwide building society, who are the parties to the test case with the OFT. However he needed more time to consider some of the terms and conditions used in the past by the Abbey, Lloyds TSB and RBS NatWest. This week he gave the first two of those banks the rulings they had been seeking; that their former current account conditions did not fall foul of common law. But he found against the NatWest. "I still consider the relevant term in the NatWest 2001 conditions to be contractual and to impose a contractual prohibition on the customer," said the judge. "I therefore remain unpersuaded that the relevant term in the NatWest 2001 conditions is not capable of being penal," he added. Common law The significance of the judge's decision is that if a clause in a contract imposes an obligation not to do something - such as not going overdrawn on a current account without permission - then any money charged for breaking that condition must not be more than is actually necessary to compensate the bank. That is because under common law it is illegal for any penalty charges or fees, imposed by a business, to be excessive. Campaigners have argued that typically it does not cost a bank more than about £2 to tell someone they have gone overdrawn and to repay their unauthorised borrowing. In contrast, bank charges have sometimes been more than £30 each time a customer has gone into the red or had a cheque bounced. "The OFT and RBS group are considering their positions pending finalisation of the order," said an OFT spokeswoman. This means either side could appeal, which might delay any attempt to start a case in the county courts. And this week the Financial Services Authority (FSA) gave the banks another six months in which they could park any claims for the return of bank charges. "The fact that the FSA's waiver, which has just been extended by another six months, is still in place with the exception of financial hardship cases and it could be very difficult for anyone to make a successful claim at this stage," said Chris Warner of Which?

Not if your claim is with NatWest prior 2001 ! My claim dates back to 1990. Lets just now wait for another appeal from NatWest.

Extract from the OFT website :- Personal current accounts - UTCCRs investigation and test case The personal current accounts market study provides the context for the OFT's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) investigation into the fairness of the level and application of unarranged overdraft charges. The High Court test case, which is a key part of the investigation, is seeking to establish the preliminary legal principle of whether the provisions of the UTCCRs that deal with unfairness apply. It is also addressing the additional point of law of whether the charges can amount to penalties at common law. Below is a timeline of this work. 5 December 2008 There will be a hearing at the High Court at 09:30 on 9 December to deal with further submissions from Abbey, Lloyds and RBSG relating to whether some of their historical charging terms are capable of amounting to penalties at common law.

Herewith extract from BBC website :- The RBS NatWest bank is planning to refund overdraft fees to customers "pro-actively" if it loses the continuing test case over bank charges. An internal bank document reveals for the first time the preparations banks are making should they lose their case. The document acknowledges the group may have to refund past charges, which could run to many millions of pounds. The bank said it was just drawing up contingency plans to deal with one possible outcome of the test case. Refunds The RBS NatWest is waiting, with seven other banks, for an Appeal Court judgement on whether or not the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can decide if their overdraft charges are unfair. All customer accounts that are due a refund will be calculated as accurately as possible RBS/NatWest The bank document, passed to the BBC, indicates that many customers can expect refunds if the banks eventually lose their case. It says a team from the bank is "preparing systems and processes to pro-actively refund charges to the group's customer base." The bank currently has about 13 million customers, though not all will have been charged overdraft fees in the past few years. "All customer accounts that are due a refund will be calculated as accurately as possible," the bank document says. "Any monies will be accurately accounted for and reconciled," it adds. The document says the bank aims for "avoidance of group reputational damage and/or loss of funds." Contingency plan An RBS spokesman denied the bank was planning to throw in the towel if it lost the current appeal. He said its plans simply reflected the fact that it was obliged by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to deal "efficiently and swiftly" with the customers' complaints if it eventually lost the legal argument. "This work stream has absolutely no bearing on how we see the outcome of the test case," he said. "With an organisation of our size and our different brands, complying with these requirements demands careful contingency planning and this document merely confirms that RBS is taking its obligations in this respect seriously as it has done throughout the whole test case process," he added. Sharon Coleman of the campaign group Legal seagulls said: "We would welcome a pro-active approach if they intend resolving the matter without further appeals." "Consumers have become increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of progress in the test case, especially those affected by financial difficulty," she added. Unfair? For the past three years the UK's banks have been besieged by hundreds of thousands of angry customers aided by high-profile internet and media campaigns. The customers have been demanding the return of high charges, levied by the banks whenever customers go overdrawn without permission. In 2007, eight financial institutions and the OFT agreed to stage a test case in the High Court to resolve the legal issues. At that point all cases in the county courts, and with the Financial Ombudsman, were suspended. The first round of High Court hearings, earlier this year, was a defeat for the banks. Mr Justice Andrew Smith ruled that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) had the power, under the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), to decide if the banks' charges were fair or not. A subsequent appeal was heard in October and the judgement is now expected in the New Year. An analysis of the 2007 annual reports for the five biggest banks suggested that up until the summer of that year, all UK banks had between them paid out £784m in refunds to nearly 378,000 customers.

It is a little worrying the focus at the moment seems to be on the reasons for the test case and the consquences for the banks. Once the OFT have deemed the terms unfair (if it is carried over that the UTCCR applies) then the OFT will not do anything about past charges (ie its not in its power to order refunds) and this is where a second test case will come in, which will decide on the elements of refunds and if charges can be refunded as the terms are unbinding on the consumer. So long long way to go.

Couple additional bits from this morning - Malik for Abbey is saying Abbey will not making a submission at the moment. Jonathon Crow for the OFT said no assessment on fairness of charges has been reached - and talked about the whole reason they are in court - in normal course of events the OFT duty bound to consult with industry and if cant reach decision they take enforcement actions - in this case half way through the investigation the banks said no investigation was needed and they wouldnt participate as they disputed the relevance of the UTCCR and that's why they have bought the test case. OFT now accept that paid item fees are part of a service as per Smiths judgement. Judges had a chat in break and started the afternoon by asking the possible consequences of the OFT winning and ruling the charges as unfair. Crow said as per regulation 8 UTCCR that the unfair terms would not then be binding on the consumer. Crow also said in respect of the backbook of consequences (historical charges) the OFT are only looking forward as it not in OFT remit to deal with recompense etc. Then Crow highlighted the OFT skelton argument which basically covered the inflexibility of standards terms of contracts - generally a consumer doesnt read contract - if he does he doesnt understand it , if he does theres nothing he can do about it - and if theres nothing he goes to another bank and same applies - and this analysis is reflected in directive to utccr regulations he described the ' free if in credit model as a low cost harsh term contract' Crow spoke regarding Rabinowitz's points made last Thursday about the EU driectives (internal markets and protection of consumers) Crow said he read it as not two purposes but as a single purpose and the consumer protection element of the regualtion is the tool that promotes effective internal markets. Legaslative basis for directive is a high level of consumer protection. Jonathon Crow described the banks interpretation of how the banks interpeted the judgement as 'venomous' Crow spent lot of time veering off topic into reasons we're in court because charges are too high and too much consumer detriment. All banks now given own individual judgement in terms of whether utccr apply, Crow replying, next banks going through individual terms and judgement on PIL appllication to appeal on last day.

In the hearing of the appeals today Milligan was continuing on from last Thursday. His main points seemed to be that he thought the OFT was questioning the level of the price, not the banks right to charge at all, and that the OFT therefore agree the banks have the right to charge and are simply questioning the level. He used a Steering Wheel analogy (bizarre) and said if you are selling a steering wheel for £10k and add a leather cover do you not have the right to charge another £10k for the cover (Doesn't seem to fit at all in my opinion and they are picking some very weird analogies). (thought we were all fully aware of this point to be honest so not really understanding where this line is going, but they have gone back in now so we shall see) The OFT's Mr Crow spoke for a bit and agreed that the case is all about the level of the prices - and that people were complaining the prices were just too high. Clarke agreed with him that the case was primarily about the level of the charges. According to banana 's EXC who is reporting back to us from the Courtroom, Crow is doing a blinding job for the OFTs case and is holding his own.

Just thought you would like to know who is actually hearing this latest hearing :- The appeal is before 3 judges headed by none other than The Master Of The Rolls, Lord Justice Clarke (Sir Anthony Clarke) who is regarded as second in judicial importance to the Lord Chief Justice. Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke Born 13 May 1943; Called to the Bar (Middle Temple) 1965; a Recorder 1985-92; QC 1979; High Court Judge (Queen's Bench Division) 1993-98; Admiralty Judge 1993-98; Lord Justice of Appeal 1998-2005; Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice 2005-. Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Justice Waller (Sir Mark Waller) Born 13 October 1940; Called to the Bar (Gray's Inn) 1964; QC 1979; a Recorder 1986-9; High Court Judge (Queen's Bench Division) 1989-96; Presiding Judge, North Eastern Circuit 1992-95; Lord Justice of Appeal 1996- ; Chairman, Judicial Studies Board 1999-2003; President, Council of Inns of Court and the Bar, 2003- . Vice-President, Court of Appeal, Civil Division 2006- . Lord Justice Lloyd (Sir Timothy Lloyd) Born 30 November 1946; Called to the Bar (Middle Temple) 1970; QC 1986; Attorney-General to The Duchy of Lancaster 1993 - 1996; High Court Judge (Chancery Division) 1996 - 2005; Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster 2002 - 2005; Lord Justice of Appeal 2005 - . __________________

The first main argument Rabinowitz presented to the court was against Justice smiths comments that it 'is not natural use of language' to say an account is a bundle package for a particular price. Rabinowitx disagrees and says Justice smith is looking at two snapshots in time (one where account is in credit and one where in debit) Rabinoitz argued he should look at the account at the time the contract is signed. Waller said the the 'free if in credit' model is not a snapshot at the time the contract is signed as the contract is variable. Justice Smith stated when a customer is in credit there is no charge, but when in debit he is charged. Rabinowitz is saying smiths cherry picking and should be concentrating on contract at time it was signed and the judgement should have been made solely on the terms of contract when signed. Rabinowitz and Waller had a chat, Rabinowitz saying no obligation on customer to keep contract, he could just move or close account, but less easy for bank to do that. Waller said is that realistic re moving overdrafts / switching (ref the PCA report) Rabinowitz went on to compare not paying charges if in credit, only if in debit, to using no win no fee services of solicitors, and estate agents. the Judges agreed and one gave a further example of a builders quote - where they charge to give the quote but you dont necessarily get a new house. So make a charge for a service without the customer having a benefit. Waller then asked why the different types of charges, why have seperate charge for unauthorised overdrafts, unpaid items etc why not just add to interest. Rabinowitz stated there are regualtions governing the rateof interest they can charge, but then changed his mind after a whisper from a colleague and stated it is just a choice the bank can make. So why have a seperate charge? Rabinowitz said because there are different processes involved then laid into the OFT a bit saying it was their way of controlling prices in the market. He disputed Justice Smiths Judgement (para 403) that no service was supplied when an item was returned unpaid. Rabinowitz said it was like private doctors consultation - in that they would charge £50 for a consultation but wouldnt necessarily cure you. all the Judges agreed. Paras 406 to 409 of Judgement Justice Smith said charges only made in particular circumstances and not in exchange for services. Rab said still is a service the bank has the right to charge or not charge for a service so the service is deciding whether to pay or not and bank has complete discretion so long as its in terms and conditions. __________________

Just to remind people the Court isn't sitting today and resumes again on Monday through to Thursday.

Appeals Day Two (just quick notes for the moment - live from the courtroom) The OFT v Banks Appeals hearing has begun at the High Court in London. Presiding over the hearing is Sir Anthony Clarke, Justice Waller and Justice Lloyd. It is a very formal affair with everyone in silks and gowns. The Courtroom is packed to the rafters. Rabinowitz started proceedings on behalf of the banks - he is expected to take a day and a half. He will be followed by Vos, Milligan, Snowdon, Dicker, Thanki (for Lloyds), Salter and Mallick (for Abbey) Presumably after that the Mr Crow for the OFT willl have his say. The only issues at the moment are the appeal of the Judgement regarding current terms and conditions. In July Justice Smith deemed current terms and conditions were capable of being assessed under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. On the last day the banks will enter an application to appeal the judgement regarding Plain Intelligible Lanuage aspects of their current terms. Justice smith has already given leave to appeal on historics but the banks havent actually applied so they wont be dealt with at this hearing. Rabinowitz been dealing mainly with the interpretation of reg 6.2.a & b He is arguing EU directive has two aims regarding UTCCR. 1st is the promotion of internal markets 2nd is Protection for Consumers Rabinowitz is arguing the internal market bit is more important as it comes first in the directive, the judge has been putting more emphasis on consumer protection. He has stated the Banks have two main sources income from Personal Current Accounts. The first is from NII net interest income The second is charges . Interestng quote from one of the Judges "thats almost bound to be unfair isnt it, Peters paying Paul" Most significant is Rabinowitz has said that the OFT have written to banks to say charges are unfair. We had previous inforation from RBS saying the OFT had ''raised serious concerns'' as to the fairness of the terms, but this is a definate the OFT definately deem many terms to be unfair.

Mr Justice Waller said in the Court of Appeal today :- '' They (overdraft charges) are almost bound to be unfair because Peter is paying Paul ''