I am confused about test case

[credit allergy]

I have tried to find news updates about the commencement of the OFT test case. I have read that the case is concerning The unfair contract regs etc 1999. Surely this is completely different to a breach of contract which is what can be involved sometimes. To decide whether it is unfair or unlawful is an entirely different issue. The case law I have read states that when a contract is terminated or breached a penalty is unlawful. Only liquified quantifiable damages can be claimed. This is an entirely different issue as to whether a set amount of money is fair or not, surely we should be finding out whether a penalty charge is unlawful or not. As i understand it one of the consumer claims did fail because a breach had not been demonstrated. I assume which I know can be dangerous that any non compliance with the T and Cs of an account or credit card is a breach of contract. That is what I thought we were holding our breath for! Any thoughts anyone

[stevokenevo]

can i direct you to this post by zootscoot http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/126399-oft-test-case-moved-5.html#post1325747

 

If you take your time and read it carefuly i believe it should clear up any questions you may have.

 

I know things have not been laid out very clear on this site, and little importance seems to have been shown to this case by a lack of concise information, but i hope the link above helps

 

All the best

[alanfromderby]

This is why the test case is promarily regarding overdraft charges. With credit cards and loans etc, there is clearly a breach of contract and the penalty charge argument is clear cut.

 

In some cases, the terms and conditions for bank current accounts blur the issue such that the penalty charge argument MAY be arguable - in which case the fall back position is the UTCCA - which the banks are claiming does not apply.

 

This may also help: http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/files/AlansDocs/BankingNewsletterandQandAJan08.pdf

[alecmac18]

"I am confused about test case"

 

We all are seeing as how it seems to benefit no one but the banks.

[credit allergy]

Alan I have read the interesting link you highlighted thank you. Are we saying that credit card charges have not been stayed? The whole epsiode as it unfolds will be fascinating. The crux of the matter as I understand it is this. 1. the charges or fees or any other thesaurus entry are in or out of the contract regs. 2. Penalty charges end of are unlawful instead only liquified damages arre permissable. On what grounds are the banks claiming the regs dont apply Srely the tand cs is a contract if not how can any of them apply!

[alanfromderby]

The OFT site does have their particulars of claim, and the banks general defence for download. Credit Card/Loan etc claims should not be stayed - indeed any claim that is based on the penalty charge argument alone should continue.

[credit allergy]

thanks for your reply. It is a bit clearer now.