H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[sparks199]

HOT NEWS JUST IN FROM LLOYDS

Summary of Supreme Court Judgment

On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court said that the level of unarranged overdraft charges is not assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This means the banks have won their appeal and the test case has concluded.

This is a final judgment from the Supreme Court as they have decided it is not necessary and/or not in the public interest to make any reference to the European Court of Justice.

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

Q: What happens next?

While the Supreme Court judgment was a win for the banks, we acknowledge the concerns some of our customers have with these charges. We will work with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to ensure the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion. We will also continue to work with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to agree a positive way forward.

Q: What does this mean for customers who have complaints about unarranged overdrafts on hold?

During the test case, we agreed with the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that customer complaints relating to unarranged overdraft charges would remain on hold.

As the judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that these complaints should no longer remain on hold.

This means that for those customers who currently have an outstanding complaint about unarranged overdrafts, we’ll be writing to them shortly to let them know what today’s judgment means for them.

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

Q: What will happen to new customer complaints about unarranged overdraft charges?

As this judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that the waiver on bank charges complaint handling should be lifted. This means we will handle complaints through our standard process. We will continue to treat customers sympathetically who are vulnerable and in financial hardship.

Q: Can I complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about my unarranged overdraft charges?

Yes. Where a customer’s complaint is not accepted by a bank, the customer has the right to take their complaint to the FOS.

Q: How can customers avoid unarranged overdraft charges?

We continue to provide our customers with the products and services to help them avoid unarranged overdraft charges. Find out more in Managing your overdrafts.

Where can I find more information?

[Bigredbus]

Low income consumers are often unable to oppose disproportionate charges on their bank accounts. Regulators should step in to protect them from being punished by their banks. Are they?

[kfdh1962]

ill now starting small claims proceedings for a further two claims that i had in the banks system but not the courts..

 

i agree with a lot of the posts here... pre test case business as usual , i like many others here won cases before and we will again... watch the court system come to agrinding halt now .

 

up an at em!!

[sparks199]

key part

 

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold

[reallymadwoman]

Just had another thought. When this action started the government had not bailed the banks out. Not that the state is the majority shareholder pressure might have been applied find in favour of the banks

 

I am often as cynical about these things as everyone else, however I think in this case any allegations of unfairness in the court process really are unfounded. Supreme court judges are pretty much untouchable by the government and it would be extremely difficult for pressure of this sort to have been applied.

On top of that, I've read the judgement. It's soundly and comprehensively argued in my opinion and is entirely unambiguous as to why all the judges, in their unanimous decision, upheld the appeal.

Finally there's no point in this line of attack. The decision has been made so we simply have to find a way forward via other means.

[Docman]

And there it is: The less well-off must subsidise the better-off by paying charges so that the illusion of free banking remains.

 

Your business fails, your spouse abandons you, you lose your job, you get conned, you fall on hard time for whatever reasons? Tough titty.

[/left]

 

Bookworm

 

This sums it all up.

 

There are several pages of posts now which will take me hours to read but I thinnk this is the real reason for the decision. The court opened its introduction by stating "the court did not have the task of deciding whethre or not the system of charging current account customers was fair" (Lord Walker paragraph 3). How could it then go onto Lord Philipps comments. It is totally illogical and stinks of higher intervention. The reality is that when the test case started, the banks had set aside £1 billiion in six months with estimates that the full cost of refunding charges could be £10 - 15 billion. Over the last 18 months whilst this case has rumbled on, the banks has lost billions that the taxpayer has had to fund. I think the politicians have decided that the banks couldn't afford to pay. It would be the straw that broke the bank's back.

 

Going forward, I am going to do three things

 

1. Read the full judgment over the weekend - I'm too gutted to do so right now.

2. Continue using the 'no overdraft' account I have with Halifax and then move to a European bank which don't rip customers off as soon as I can. No more UK banks for me.

3. Carry on defending the court cases on the basis of the CCA provisons. Since the banks have messd up their documentation on my credit cards, they probably have messed up the paperwork for my current account overdrafts. Two banks have added the cheque account deficits to the credit card claims. Whilst they may now be able to claim the charges, they still have to produce the paperwork. Three years ago I wouldn't have had a clue what to ask for. Due to this delay, I have had the time and the advice from CAG to now know what to ask for and boy, am I going to make them prove their claim to the full extent of the law - the laughing stock that it now is!!

[kennyh]

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

They might ask BUT is it a given?

Similarly, if we go to court in future and request DoD at AQ time and we note which judges accept them, should we not seek to channel all applications through those courts?

[hsbcfiddled]

HOT NEWS JUST IN FROM LLOYDS

Summary of Supreme Court Judgment

On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court said that the level of unarranged overdraft charges is not assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This means the banks have won their appeal and the test case has concluded.

This is a final judgment from the Supreme Court as they have decided it is not necessary and/or not in the public interest to make any reference to the European Court of Justice.

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

Q: What happens next?

While the Supreme Court judgment was a win for the banks, we acknowledge the concerns some of our customers have with these charges. We will work with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to ensure the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion. We will also continue to work with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to agree a positive way forward.

Q: What does this mean for customers who have complaints about unarranged overdrafts on hold?

During the test case, we agreed with the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that customer complaints relating to unarranged overdraft charges would remain on hold.

As the judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that these complaints should no longer remain on hold.

This means that for those customers who currently have an outstanding complaint about unarranged overdrafts, we’ll be writing to them shortly to let them know what today’s judgment means for them.

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

Q: What will happen to new customer complaints about unarranged overdraft charges?

As this judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that the waiver on bank charges complaint handling should be lifted. This means we will handle complaints through our standard process. We will continue to treat customers sympathetically who are vulnerable and in financial hardship.

Q: Can I complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about my unarranged overdraft charges?

Yes. Where a customer’s complaint is not accepted by a bank, the customer has the right to take their complaint to the FOS.

Q: How can customers avoid unarranged overdraft charges?

We continue to provide our customers with the products and services to help them avoid unarranged overdraft charges. Find out more in Managing your overdrafts.

Where can I find more information?

Try Disneyworld!!!!!!

[sparks199]

Try Disneyworld!!!!!!

 

this was taken from there web site

Lloyds TSB - Answers to questions on bank charges

[reallymadwoman]

They might ask BUT is it a given?

Similarly, if we go to court in future and request DoD at AQ time and we note which judges accept them, should we not seek to channel all applications through those courts?

 

I don't think a defendant is ever in a position to ask the courts to dismiss every case against them on mass. Claims can only be dismissed if the judge is satisfied that the claim is totally without merit, and he can only do that by looking at each claim individually.

[pugsley]

Well the ruling has ignited my interest in the subject of bank charges again, I am just one person of many thousands. I can be a royal pain in the a*se when I think there is injustice and this goes for whether I have outstanding claims or not.

 

bring it on

[scared001]

im still stunned.....cannot believe it......taxpayers bail banks out and then the disgrace of todays outcome, i think we should all move our cash out of UK banks asap, if anyones got suggestions do let me know!!

[landy_alert]

HOT NEWS JUST IN FROM LLOYDS

 

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

 

 

Can they do this and do we have no say in the matter?

[adamski]

so many questions but we have no clear anwsers, maybe an amendement to the POCs is what is needed we really need some clarification on this

[Docman]

I don't think a defendant is ever in a position to ask the courts to dismiss every case against them on mass. Claims can only be dismissed if the judge is satisfied that the claim is totally without merit, and he can only do that by looking at each claim individually.

 

Ok, if we accept the Supreme Court judges can't be bought or otherwise unduly influenced (and I admit I haven't read though the full judgment yet), what happens if defendants to the banks claims or claimants seeking refunding of charges all decide to object to the wholesale action that lloyds say they will ask for. Wouldn't that block up the court system as well?

[bornrich]

Here's a suggestion.

 

The government provides a basic bank account that doesn't rip people off and has cascading tarifs based on your tax code. The branches would be, wait for it, your local Post Office Counter (if it's still there).

 

I absolutely flabbergasted over the ruling today. I've already written to 10 downing street and will see what happens next. I'm worried that the banks will now try and hoodwink everyone into thinking the case to reclaim is over when only unfair overdraft charges have been resolved.

 

The first couple of County Court cases need to be fully supported otherwise the banks' PR engines will further capitalise on the situation with headlines such as "Another case thrown out" etc.

 

We need a couple of positive PR stories, like the ones that got CAG to be such a success it has and will continue to be. I'm pledging to go all the way now, like a true terrier, once I've seen injustice I won't ever let it go, there's too much at stake here.

[InformedSearcher]

I am often as cynical about these things as everyone else, however I think in this case any allegations of unfairness in the court process really are unfounded. Supreme court judges are pretty much untouchable by the government and it would be extremely difficult for pressure of this sort to have been applied.

On top of that, I've read the judgement. It's soundly and comprehensively argued in my opinion and is entirely unambiguous as to why all the judges, in their unanimous decision, upheld the appeal.

Finally there's no point in this line of attack. The decision has been made so we simply have to find a way forward via other means.

 

Well I bet it was not unanimous but we'll never know. If you have a 'delve' you might spot why there is 'us and them' and how different worlds we seem to live in. It's not a case of who can get at who but to do with background, upbringing, education, connections and oh, money! I think the other thing is rather the time it took and the let down to many who feel both cheated and at the bottom of the ladder we are more of a hindrance rather that humans with a say and level of dignity.

 

Michael

[hsbcfiddled]

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

 

Where does it say that?

.

[andydd]

Shocking News..thank god i got in there early and got all my charges back (plus interest and court fees) some years ago...lets hope this isnt the end.

 

Andy

[sparks199]

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

 

Where does it say that?

.

 

thats the banks putting there spin on it .. but dont worrie it can be hit from anouther part

[scared001]

so that i can be ready for when abbey call me later, i would welcome any advice.....surely they are going to say...well miss.......unfortunately.....

[DMC65]

From the Halifax Website:

 

 

Overdraft bank charges court case update

Customer Q&A waiver lifted

Summary of Supreme Court Judgment

On 25 November 2009 the Supreme Court said that the level of unarranged overdraft charges is not assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. This means the banks have won their appeal and the test case has concluded.

This is a final judgment from the Supreme Court as they have decided it is not necessary and/or not in the public interest to make any reference to the European Court of Justice.

Q: What does this mean?

The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged overdraft charge is a key part of a current account.

This means that where the charges are explained in clear language, under consumer fairness legislation, the level of an unarranged overdraft charge can’t be challenged to see if it’s fair or not.

Q: What happens next?

While the Supreme Court judgment was a win for the banks, we acknowledge the concerns some of our customers have with these charges. We will work with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to ensure the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion. We will also continue to work with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to agree a positive way forward.

Q: What does this mean for customers who have complaints about unarranged overdrafts on hold?

During the test case, we agreed with the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) that customer complaints relating to unarranged overdraft charges would remain on hold.

As the judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that these complaints should no longer remain on hold.

This means that for those customers who currently have an outstanding complaint about unarranged overdrafts, we’ll be writing to them shortly to let them know what today’s judgment means for them.

We be asking the County and Sheriff Courts to apply the Supreme Court judgment to dismiss any claims they currently have on hold.

Q: What will happen to new customer complaints about unarranged overdraft charges?

As this judgment concludes the test case, the FSA has agreed that the waiver on bank charges complaint handling should be lifted. This means we will handle complaints through our standard process. We will continue to treat customers sympathetically who are vulnerable and in financial hardship.

 

Q: Can I complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) about my unarranged overdraft charges?

Yes. Where a customer’s complaint is not accepted by a bank, the customer has the right to take their complaint to the FOS.

Q: How can customers avoid unarranged overdraft charges?

We continue to provide our customers with the products and services to help them avoid unarranged overdraft charges. For more information on these products and services, please click here.

[RGS1]

Im guessing we will be able to oppose the motion if they try to have our cases dismissed from court?

[Viano]

RE: The Lloyds Statement

 

Para 2.

 

i) The Supreme Court decided that an unarranged O/D charge is A KEY FINANCIAL PART of a current account.

 

I don't see that under key financial requirements in my application/agreement!

 

ii) This means that where the CHARGES ARE EXPLAINED IN CLEAR LANGUAGE, under consumer finance legislation, the level of an unarranged O/D charge can't be challenged to see if its fair or not.

 

I believe they are not and never have been explained IN CLEAR LANGUAGE.

 

V

[adamski]

I think they will all just be struck out en-mass such as they did when they stayed them all