Defended a claim?

[Maxie]

I'm really gald I've found this site as I've been litigating against banks for year in relation to charges and could have really had some fun here! Just wondering, with me and people I sue for, the banks always talk a good fight but always settle.

 

I've never found acase where they have actually turned up to court on a consumer case and attempted to actually defended their charges. Has anyone ever heard of them doing this, and if so what was the outcome?

[Bookworm]

This one:

 

http://www.bankactiongroup.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=762

 

Unlikely they would try the same defence again seems the consensus on the boards.

[Maxie]

Thank you Bookworm!

 

My gut reaction is one of that the Distrcit Judge had a bias toward the bank, they got a lucky shot and the claimant counsel wasn't on their toes!

 

Something I am worried about is the rise in 'commercial bias' in new distrcit judges. If you notice, particularly in the city courts, the district judges are coming from company and commerical background, have no understanding of consumer law or UTCC etc and finding in favour of the defendant bank.

 

However, one case out of thousand is nothing! I would have appealed it!

[Maxie]

Judges should be impartial.

 

In an ideal world.....

[Spiceskull]

Regarding UTCCRs - this from the OFT website:

Terms setting the price or defining the product or service

 

Terms in consumer contracts that set the price or define the product or service being supplied are 'core terms' of the contract and are exempt from the test of fairness as long as they meet the plain language requirement.

Does this offer the banks an angle to defend their case?

[EricTheRed]

I can't get onto the link. Could some post the content as text?

[Spiceskull]

http://www.oft.gov.uk/Consumer/Unfair+terms+in+contracts/what+are+unfair+terms.htm

[fallen404]

Regarding UTCCRs - this from the OFT website:

 

"Terms setting the price or defining the product or service

 

Terms in consumer contracts that set the price or define the product or service being supplied are 'core terms' of the contract and are exempt from the test of fairness as long as they meet the plain language requirement."

 

Does this offer the banks an angle to defend their case?

 

I was sat there going "oh dear..." for a second, but thinking logically, what service or product are they supplying that means you're paying these charges? It could mean that the charge for an unarranged overdraft or card misuse wouldn't be re-claimable, but I imagine that you could argue that charging you for their not honouring a cheque, or charging an over-limit or late payment fee, is them not providing a service, but simply punitive charging.

 

On top of that, I'm sure simply presenting the judge with a copy of the Terms and Conditions leaflet that each bank issues would show that they're pretty much actively designed to be difficult to read and understand, which breaks the plain language requirement. I'm sure the banks would say a large print version of the leaflets are available on request, but the counter-argument would be that if the leaflet's in regular print, then "large" is about 12pt or so.

 

Either way, let's hope that the banks don't start Googling for ways of not having to cough up: With a bit of luck, they'll never notice that clause, and everyone can get their money back.

[Spiceskull]

Referring to the Banking Code, which is purely voluntary:

 

5.4 states: "We will tell you the charge for any other service or product before we provide that service or product, and at any time you ask."

 

5.5 states: "Before we take interest or charges for standard account services from your current or savings account, we will give you at least 14 days notice of how much we will take."

 

In this it is implied that the bank has indeed provided a service, and therefore consideration should be been given to the above-mentioned paragraph of the code (5.4)

 

One way or another, they are in breach of one of these two paragraphs from the code that they (presumably) subscribe to...

[Maxie]

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group