Barrister letter

[lee6370]

You've lost me.

 

If they state in the contract that any breach will result in a charge being applied, what have they concealed?

 

If the agruement is that we didn't know the charges where unlawful, would not a judge ask why, given that we had all the information supplied by the bank quesiton them. Is it enough to say we thought the bank was being honest and wouldn't cheat us?

 

I like most people have always known that the charges were far higher then what it costs the bank, but i didn't know it was unlawful, however given that i knew or at least suspected that they were used to make a profit, was the onus not on me to clarify whether there actions were unlawful.

 

I'm not trying to argue on behalf of the banks just want to be clear in my mind, my charges like most peoples go back more than 6 years.

[Movingon]

OK - first you opened an account.

The bank presented you with (note - they did NOT individually negotiate) a contract containing their terms and conditions, which stated that charges would be made for breaches of contract.

You assumed (reasonably) that the banks have reams of lawyers putting these contracts together and the contracts were therefore legally enforceable - and you therefore signed it because all banks have similar terms and conditions, right? You are aware at this point that charges for breaches of these terms and conditions are penalties and that they exceed the probable cost to the bank of administering such an eventuality.

 

Some time later, "a third party" invites you to review the terms of the UTCA and the UTCCR, wherein you find that it is only lawful to recover your costs, or a reasonable pre-estimate of your costs, in the event of a breach of contract. You are specifically NOT permitted to make any profit from these charges.

 

You read this, then realise that this term applies to your bank... they are making profit from charges which are levied when you the account holder breach the agreement.

 

At NO POINT have the bank EVER invited you to read the terms of the UTCA or the UTCCR for ANY reason. You have reasonably assumed the bank to be acting lawfully. This, according to the Statute of Limitation Act, amounts to "deliberate concealment of a material fact" related to your action under the UTCA and UTCCR. This concealment means that your six years to take an action starts today, when the UTCA and UTCCR, and the OFT statement regarding them, were brought to your attention.

[Robertxc]

So, in practical terms, does this mean that for our purposes the clock could be said to have started ticking when the OFT made their announcement and 'officially' said that bank charges have been unlawful all along?

[Movingon]

I reckon so; although there are apparently other things to consider. See my thread in the legal area; Don Quixote has some things to say which may render my argument moot.

[Robertxc]

Will do.

 

By the way, i like your blog!

[closey]

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

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