Bank Charges - Any News

[IainHL]

caro, thanks for your input.

 

Firstly I think you need to edit a line in your post three up:

If the claim is over £5k they can't claim costs if you lose.

I think you mean under?

 

Could you also clarify please. Is there such a thing as the Small Claims Court, as referred to by Bigdebtor? Or am I right in thinking, as you have alluded to above, that it is actually the Small Claims Track of the County Court system?

 

Fortunately for my partner and myself none of the individual claims (per account) exceeds £5,000.

 

Finally, I thought I had read, contrary to what Bigdebtor states, that the judge ruled against someone who tried to divide a charges claim for one account into smaller chunks to keep it under the small claims limit, ruling on the second claim that the whole amount should have been included in the first claim?

[Bigdebtor]

IainHL

 

Sorry - I have been using the Scottish terminology - where the Small Claims Court here is part of our Sheriff court system - I thought it was for claims up to £5k but accept it might be £3k. I'll double check this. However I am pretty sure Clydesdale Bank lost its cliam that the full claim should have been heard at the one time - since the claimant had divided it by date - so the first claim was for, say, unfair charges and interest for 2005, the next for 2006 etc. I recollect that this was accepted as valid by the Sheriff.

[maroondevo52]

In Scotland, Small Claims is up to £3,000 and Summary Cause actions £5,000.

[Bigdebtor]

However I recollect the Sheriff in the SCC agreeing there is the ability to "split up" a claim if claiming a number of FULL AMOUNTS of individual charges - i.e. a number of £35 or £39 charges in a specific time period. Whilst you can't take a SINGLE FIGURE (like a £5k invoice) and claim £2.5k twice you CAN claim 2005 charges and then go back to SCC again to claim 2006 charges etc.

 

Anyone confirm this - or tell me I am mistaken?

 

BD

 

PS - What is Summary Cause?

[maroondevo52]

 

PS - What is Summary Cause?

 

I twice went with Summary Cause actions, one against BOS, the other Cap 1.

Small Claims limit used to be £750 so if you were to claim more than this on one account, you had to 'split' your claim, some courts in Scotland started to throw these claims out as an abuse of process.

 

I think the Summary Cause limit was £1,500. The only difference to Small Claims was you had to get a Sheriff Officer to serve the summons on the Bank whereas with a Small Claim, the court did this for you.

 

You could also claim back from the Bank your Sheriff Officers Fees.

 

Also with the Summary Cause Action, if you were to loose your case, you would be lible for the Banks costs.

 

My largest claim was through the FOS, I know a lot of people had no joy with them, but they were good with me, the Bank even paid me back for 6 years instead of the 5 years I claimed

[caro]

caro, thanks for your input.

 

Firstly I think you need to edit a line in your post three up:

If the claim is over £5k they can't claim costs if you lose.

I think you mean under?

 

Thank you for pointing that out. Now corrected.

 

Could you also clarify please. Is there such a thing as the Small Claims Court, as referred to by Bigdebtor? Or am I right in thinking, as you have alluded to above, that it is actually the Small Claims Track of the County Court system?

 

Fortunately for my partner and myself none of the individual claims (per account) exceeds £5,000.

 

Maroondevo has clarified on the Scottish issue, but small claims do go to County Courts in England and Wales, the same as fast and multi track claims.

 

Finally, I thought I had read, contrary to what Bigdebtor states, that the judge ruled against someone who tried to divide a charges claim for one account into smaller chunks to keep it under the small claims limit, ruling on the second claim that the whole amount should have been included in the first claim?

 

Clydesdale did win on that score.

 

IainHL

 

Sorry - I have been using the Scottish terminology - where the Small Claims Court here is part of our Sheriff court system - I thought it was for claims up to £5k but accept it might be £3k. I'll double check this. However I am pretty sure Clydesdale Bank lost its cliam that the full claim should have been heard at the one time - since the claimant had divided it by date - so the first claim was for, say, unfair charges and interest for 2005, the next for 2006 etc. I recollect that this was accepted as valid by the Sheriff.

 

I'm afraid Clydesdale won on that one. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-611086.html

 

However I recollect the Sheriff in the SCC agreeing there is the ability to "split up" a claim if claiming a number of FULL AMOUNTS of individual charges - i.e. a number of £35 or £39 charges in a specific time period. Whilst you can't take a SINGLE FIGURE (like a £5k invoice) and claim £2.5k twice you CAN claim 2005 charges and then go back to SCC again to claim 2006 charges etc.

 

Anyone confirm this - or tell me I am mistaken?

 

BD

 

PS - What is Summary Cause?

 

I think you're mistaken.

[Bigdebtor]

Caro

 

Sorry - I stand corrected. My recollection seems to have been clouded by the morality rather than the legality of the situation - but I was glad to see that separate claims for charges for separate accounts with same Bank are allowed under Scottish SCC procedure provided each separate claim is under £3k.

 

I understand the Small Claims Court re avoiding/limiting risk of other sides charges if lost - but not the Summary Cause. If I were to claim in Scotland via Summary Cause - and lose, what risk of other side's costs do I carry - and is the amount of their costs claim limited?

 

BD

[caro]

I'm not familiar with the Scottish procedures but if you look in the Scottish forum and the Govan Law Centre site you might find more information.

 

Something else you might want to look at is making your claim in England, but if your branch is in Scotland and as HO is there too, you may struggle to justify doing this. Again, you should find info in the Scottish forum.

[Falkirk1298]

Caro

 

Sorry - I stand corrected. My recollection seems to have been clouded by the morality rather than the legality of the situation - but I was glad to see that separate claims for charges for separate accounts with same Bank are allowed under Scottish SCC procedure provided each separate claim is under £3k.

 

I understand the Small Claims Court re avoiding/limiting risk of other sides charges if lost - but not the Summary Cause. If I were to claim in Scotland via Summary Cause - and lose, what risk of other side's costs do I carry - and is the amount of their costs claim limited?

 

BD

 

 

I think this may be what you're remembering:

 

Sheriff Principal rejects banks' defence of res judicata | GLC July 2007

[caro]

Thanks Falkirk. So it seems it depends where in Scotland the claim is, but I assume the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in England will have implications in Scotland too.

[Falkirk1298]

Thanks Falkirk. So it seems it depends where in Scotland the claim is, but I assume the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in England will have implications in Scotland too.

 

I would expect so.

[jdes26]

i have around £3000 worth of charges and i am in limbo regarding what to do

 

any advice welcome

[Bigdebtor]

As far as I can make out, the amended POC have been drawn up but the possible arguments are being discussed. I've asked for some clarification.

 

Regarding the FOS, most people on CAG have long held the view that they're a waste of time and not worth bothering with. If you've had an unsuccessful claim with them, just take the bank to court (when the templates are ready).

 

Are we not going to get a template any more?

 

I have just had a letter from HBOS saying "it's all over - we won in Supreme Court - you lost. Just because our charges were sky high doesn't make them unfair! Ha! Bl**dy Ha!"

 

Just watch their bonuses grow and grow at our expense.

 

Their letter mentions nothing about the other part of the chairman's summing up - using a different part of UTCCR regs - and actually says "fees cannot be assessed for fairness under the UTCC Regulations".

 

Such a one sided and misleading letter should be illegal! One for the OFT I think? Anyone else seen the same letter?

 

BD

[caro]

I've had a similar letter from Alliance and Leicester and so have many people from many banks. I understand that the new POCs that MSE's barrister is producing are due soon. However, I've just posted this on another thread which I think is pertinent here too.

 

 

I wouldn't like to give you false hope that there is a one size fits all approach that will work. It's taken the top legal minds in this country years to reach the conclusions that resulted in the Supreme Court finding in favour of the banks.

 

CAG has been looking at this issue for 4 years now, so a new solution is unlikely to be found in the next few weeks in my honest opinion.

 

However, not all cases are the same, and it may be that some cases are winnable in the longer term. The Leeds Mercantile Court stayed hundreds of cases in August 2007, and will be looking at them again later in the month, so perhaps something there may give us further insight.

 

It's very early days, but just because a complaint is not upheld now does not necessarily mean that if there are new developments in the future a new complaint can't be started then.

[srfrench]

Latest news on the Leeds Merc Courts.....they are all being re-listed for a further Case Management Conference at a date probably in Feb.

 

Letters to all those claimants stayed in the Leeds Merc Court will be going out end of Jan - 1st week of Feb.

[caro]

Thanks for the update Frenchie. Looks like even the professionals need a bit longer to consider the next step.

[yourbank]

Are we not going to get a template any more?

The likelihood for the future of bank charges reclaiming is going to be about it being more individualised. That means how the charges themselves have caused the imbalance to you alone based on each individual banks' terms and conditions at the time the charges were incurred. Newer arguments re CCA s.140 are currently being tested in court so at the moment you need to find out what the court where your claim is being sent is doing with stays or the wording of your stay.

I have just had a letter from HBOS saying "it's all over - we won in Supreme Court - you lost. Just because our charges were sky high doesn't make them unfair! Ha! Bl**dy Ha!"

 

Just watch their bonuses grow and grow at our expense.

 

Their letter mentions nothing about the other part of the chairman's summing up - using a different part of UTCCR regs - and actually says "fees cannot be assessed for fairness under the UTCC Regulations".

Currently all banks are sending out decline letters and some banks are currently looking at striking out claims. That is ongoing and is where the urgent help is needed and is being given.

Such a one sided and misleading letter should be illegal! One for the OFT I think? Anyone else seen the same letter?

 

BD

 

All letters are being sent out and they are giving their view on the SC decision. It is regulatory and it is not illegal to send them out en masse.

[Bigdebtor]

They state their view as a "fact" and are highly selective in what they report from the Supreme Court decision. At the very least they should reproduce the entire chairman's summary and just say "our view is we won - but form your own opinion"

 

To say the size of a charge is not related to its "fairness" is just ludicrous - would a charge of £1 million per day for a 10p overdraft still fair?

 

BTW the daily £5 penalty now being charged by HBOS for very small (1p-10p) unauthorised overdrafts now equates to several million % apr!

 

BD

[yourbank]

What chairman? There were 5 Supreme Court Judges so what chairman?

Have you read the judgement in full?

 

EDIT: for reference http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/judgments.html

[Bigdebtor]

No - only read snippets = but I saw a guy on TV that the BBC said was the chairman of the supreme court judges - and he said something about looking only at a very narrow point of law in the appeal - but may be other avenues to explore etc. etc.

 

If he's not the chairman then the BBC misinformed its viewers - but I doubt if that matters in the larger scheme of things.

 

I think MSE also referred to him as chairman in its newsletter?

 

BD

[srfrench]

I feel I have to step in here...

 

You can't have all 5 Judges talk at once, there must be a singular Judgement. Therefore when it's reached it only takes 1 person to deliver it.

 

They usually elect amongst themselves who actually delivers it or by consensus on being the longest served/senior/most experienced to deliver the verdict in Court.

 

End of story... it's of NO consequence....jeeeesh!

[Bigdebtor]

I totally agree - don't know why it was felt necessary to be picked up on in the first place!

 

BD

[pula]

I've also received a letter from my bank saying in their own way that they have won the case and therefore they are removing all claims for bank charges and to write to them within 6 weeks if I have any objections. Strange thing is I don't have an ongoing claim but I did get an ex gratia settlement over 2 years ago. Do you think my name just got in a mail shot to ongoing claimants or is there some way they can ask for my ex gratia payment back?? Slightly anxious on this score - best to ignore them and keep quiet?

[Bigdebtor]

Pula

 

Ex gratia payments CANNOT be claimed back by the banks.

 

Well done for getting in ahead of the OFT's original interfernce - wish I had!

 

BD.

[themadcap]

I've also received a letter from my bank saying in their own way that they have won the case and therefore they are removing all claims for bank charges and to write to them within 6 weeks if I have any objections. Strange thing is I don't have an ongoing claim but I did get an ex gratia settlement over 2 years ago. Do you think my name just got in a mail shot to ongoing claimants or is there some way they can ask for my ex gratia payment back?? Slightly anxious on this score - best to ignore them and keep quiet?

 

Hi Pula,

They cant ask for any payments back as they were made as goodwill gestures and not on the basis that your claim was just, they always stated in their letters that they would make a goodwill gesture but their charges were still transparent and fair so no need to worry

cheers