Bank Charges - OFT test case - the banks have given up

[yourbank]

you mean this section of the FSA waiver

 

(13)

the firm must ensure that relevant charges complaints that are not progressed as a result of this direction (or the 2007 direction) are dealt with effectively and swiftly once the outcome of the test case is known (or this direction otherwise ceases to have effect) and must liaise closely with the FSA in order to achieve this. This includes making preparations for dealing with relevant charges complaints when this direction ends and updating those preparations as the outcome of the test case becomes clearer;

 

 

and this BBC article regarding natwest's 'pro-active' planning - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7759054.stm where a banks internal document states

"preparing systems and processes to pro-actively refund charges to the group's customer base."

[BankFodder]

I may be mistaken but I thought I read somewhere that if the banks lost this case they would be forced to be pro-active in refunding customers and not just wait for claims.

 

All I see is that they must actively and willingly process charges complaints.

 

However, this means that there must first be a complaint - meaning a claim.

 

No claim - pro-activity

[yourbank]

Claim doesn't necessarily mean a court claim but you do need to put a complaint in to the bank for any refund - that will more than likely remain the case after the test case too - just to be clear.

[BankFodder]

Your interests will be best served by putting in a court claim.

[yourbank]

Your interests will be best served by putting in a court claim.

 

Why?

If UTCCR 1999 applies then all charges under a specific term that are deemed unfair then you get your money back.

[noomill060]

Marc- about your Data Poll.

 

Your selection of banks doesnt include mine (Northern Bank) which is linked to the Clydesdale and Yorkshire Banks

for those unaware.

 

(CYNthesis)

 

Clydesdale, Yorkshire, Northern

 

I got my data back to 1987.

 

Took a complaint to the ICO and a direct order from their heavymob, but they did get it to me, despite originally bleating that they didnt have it.

[BankFodder]

I'll change the poll. Thanks.

 

Have you posted the story of your DPA fight with Northern?

 

I think that it would be very useful to see some of the letter which they wrote to you, so that people can see their style of language.

Edited June 29, 2009 by MARTIN3030

[BankFodder]

OK. The Poll now includes the CYN banks.

 

May they sin no more (groan)

Edited June 29, 2009 by MARTIN3030

[noomill060]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/81094-noomill-northern-bank-2.html

 

Marc- The dates dont go back far enough, could you take them back to 1987?

Edited June 29, 2009 by noomill060

[BankFodder]

Could you complete it for 1995 then please. It will become too large if I start putting in the rest of the dates and the first date for claims will be 1st Jan 1995.

 

Ta.

[Guest Alison82]

Can I ask, if all goes well and they do have to refund these charges. Will people be able to claim interest on those charges, if they have already received a refund of the charges but not the interest if they didn't work it out correctly?

[BankFodder]

I would say that if you have received a refund of charges including 8% statutory interest then you won't be able to reopen that claim.

 

However, if you have received a refund without any provision for interest then I think that there should be no legal objection to going back and claiming restitutionary damages.

 

This is especially so because as far as I know, or refunds have been made as a "gesture of goodwill". Even refunds which have been made in full and final settlement of be made on the basis of goodwill. Even if they weren't made on the basis of goodwill, I think that the claims could be reopened . However the banks have tried as usual to keep the other hand by twisting and turning and choosing words which they fear will give them an advantage and which will dominate their customers.

 

Will these words are about to come back and bite them. The banks have insisted on making refunds on the basis that there is no legal commitments in their repayment. Well the principle of "no legal commitments" works both ways and they have no legal basis on which to object to you reopening the claim.

[yourbank]

BF, I still do not understand the finer points of Restitutionary damages and I am trying to.

I understand you are saying to claim for the investments the bank made on your charges as an individual.

How do I as an individual prove that my bank charges were reinvested and not used for branch refurbishment, for example?

How do i argue the case?

I know that the bank cannot state definitively which individuals charges income(I'll call it that) went to so I am stuck with perhaps a class action suit rather than an individual claim for RD. This is the part I don't understand with regards to RD claims. If you know the answer then I may be able to understand the argument more clearly as I have mulled this argument over and looked at where there may be stumbling blocks.

And what case law is being relied on, as I haven't seen that quoted yet with regards to RD?

[amtired]

I have a simplistick (sp) view here

 

is re-investment not what a business does when it refurbishes? keeping a propety/office up to date with supplies, decor, equipment, staff!!!

[yourbank]

I have a simplistick (sp) view here

 

is re-investment not what a business does when it refurbishes? keeping a propety/office up to date with supplies, decor, equipment, staff!!!

 

On that basis what is a pounds a pence claimable amount?

[amtired]

On that basis what is a pounds a pence claimable amount?

 

sorry I don't understand a pounds a pence

 

but the charges don't equate fully to actual loss for the banks, so can it not all be claimed as pure profit for them to re-invest?

[yourbank]

sorry I don't understand a pounds a pence

 

but the charges don't equate fully to actual loss for the banks, so can it not all be claimed as pure profit for them to re-invest?

 

But how do you define the amount you can claim as Restitutionary Damages on the basis of for example reinvestment in a branch?

I understand the argument of UTCCR 1999 and even CI which is the complete repayment of charges but RD is on top of that and the question is how much? How is the process of reclaiming it? How do you work out RD?

If RD is the way the money was used on the charges then how do you, as an individual, define how the money was used to give an amount that you are claiming(inclusive of bank charges and CI)?

[noomill060]

Refurbishment is all written off against tax.

[yourbank]

There is not really an easy one or two line explanation that can be given.

 

Probably the best way to proceed in trying to understand aspects of the law relating to "damages" in general and restitutionary damages in particluar is to read the Law Commission report into the subject, the consultation for which took place in 1995. The report refers to a wealth of case law which in turn can be studied.

 

The "law" in respect to restitution and in particular disgorgment ( which I feel is actually more relevant ) is still developing and the very nature of these types of claims means that the vast majority are actually settled out of court by Defendants anxious to avoid precedant setting judgments. There are some exceptions and judgments do exist but whether it is wise to actually list particularly relevant, more recent case law on a public forum at this sensitive stage is debatable

 

IMO, I feel that this is a matter ideally suited to action under the proposed Tom Brennan GLO or for individual actions very carefully selected claims. For example, I have always intended to pursue this route in my own individual bank charges claims once the stays have been lifted and basically followed this route for my credit card claim which was eventually settled out of Court.

 

Law Commission report http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc247.pdf

__________________

 

Hope that helps people a little understand more about restitution.