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

[steven4064]

Guardian story Bank charges ruling due on Thursday | Money | guardian.co.uk

[steven4064]

ANDENA

 

Can you point us to the relevant one of your threads, please, so we can give better help. Thanks

[steven4064]

ANDENA

 

I think this is your thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/118338-can-i-get-interest.html

 

Which is in the HSBC forum. I'm going to move yout last post (#206) there so that the HSBC bods can help you out. (Bear with me, I've not done this before )

 

(ps Thanks star scream)

 

(pps - done it. Whew)

[steven4064]

I also dont understand why failing to comply with t and c is not a breach of contract.

You and me both. Also, remember that this only applies to current T&Cs which have been carefully crafted to engender this very confusion.

 

I have some old NatWest ones that say "You must keep your account in credit" - a charge based on that has to be a penalty!

[steven4064]

And it would still be an action based on simple contract (so s5 would apply)

[steven4064]

Free banking is currently free to the rich - it's those on low pay and benefits who subsidise it through bank charges. Whatever other arguments are advanced, that can't be right

[steven4064]

£12 may have become the norm for CC companies to charge but I can't think of a case where anyone who has tried has failed to get such charges back

[steven4064]

The various documents (POCs) in particular are being rewritten as we speak

[steven4064]

It's like paying for swimming and coming out covered in leeches.

In some places that might be thoughht of as a service

[steven4064]

No doubt the OFT will come up with some amount (my bet is £12 ) that they will use as a trigger for taking action (like the supposedly do for credit cards) and say that is for a court to decide what actually is fair. As 'fairness' will depend on whatthe banks' costs are in real life and as there is no way they will want to divulge this information, we could end up back where we started (business as usual but with more emphasis on UTCCR1999 and less on contract penalties) - at least for personal accounts.

[steven4064]

The OFT and the Judge are not unwise to these events and I am sure that neither party will allow a deal to be done that allows the banks to avoid future regulation on their charging regimes.

I sincererly hope you are right

[steven4064]

Jansus, I think 'profitable' is the wrong word here (post #545). What the paragraph means is simply that, because you may get interest in court but won't via the FOS, you will get more money if you claim in court.

 

CI has been contentious (I think less so since the Sempra case, as that gives authority for claiming it) but, again, it is not profit. It is awarded in restitution - ie to put things back as they wuold have been if charges had not been unlawfully applied.

[steven4064]

It's a presumption that they are unlawful - the case says they must pass te fairness test - we say there is not a cat in hell'#s chance - ergo, they are unlawfull.

[steven4064]

Again, I think the correct word should be 'unfair' since that's the word actually used in the UTCCR

[steven4064]

I have a business account and NatWest charge me 37p to pay a DD. How on earth can it cost them more than that NOT to pay a DD

[steven4064]

Actually, it may not be as bad as you think. It has opened the way for " business as usual" on CAG. All we do is claim under s5 of the UTCCR 1999 and otherwise go back to how we were 2 years ago. Waiver is lifted. Courts are open. Off we go!!

[steven4064]

"we are not saying charges are fair, but we care saying you cant use this clause to prove it. Use this one instead.

I dont thank this is tongue in cheek, I think it is a pretty fair summary of the position.