Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[kashfat]

Hi guys, i wrote to rbs asking for my bank charges back, they said in a nut shell get lost, iv brocken the contract and that the test case is going to help me, need some advice what can i do??

[JOSH_IOU]

@ Kashfat

 

Did they actually say you had broken the contract?

 

Do you have that exact wording in writing?

[photoman]

@ Kashfat

 

Did they actually say you had broken the contract?

 

Do you have that exact wording in writing?

 

 

Kashfat

 

....YES PLEASE !

 

DO SHARE SUCH A LETTER IF YOU HAVE ONE ! !

 

If you need any guidance on how to easily and anonymously post it up on this thread, or how to send it to someone for advice, send me a Private message, and I'll send you instructions.

 

PM

[zootscoot]

We now have a new forum for business claims:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/

 

If you have a business claim please pm a mod to have your thread moved.

 

Thanks

[JOSH_IOU]

Well done zootscoot.

[photoman]

I've just started a discussion thread to deal with the current issues facing Busines claimants.

 

 

I am really pleased and welcome this new forum.

 

Thank you CAG.

 

Many Business claimants until now have struggled to find relevant information and help with regards their claims, because their threads and thus claims have been grouped by institution rather than by relevance.

 

Hopefully now it will become easier to find others in the same situation, and share and help each other.

 

Many Business claimants may know me through the general Business claims discussion thread I started a while back, which I was pleased to see become so popular became a good place for Business claimants to help each other out.

That thread has now grown to quite a size, so may be a bit off putting, but I do encourage anyone making a Business claim to try to read through it if possible, as it provides a potted history of Business claims to date.

 

I think this forum could benefit from a new general discussion thread to thrash out fresh ideas and general strategies in light of the current OFT case. I have just started one here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/146727-post-oft-case-strategies.html

 

All are encouraged and welcome to join in, but it would be best if those doing so did not actually post ongoing updates or histories etc of their own specific cases (unless it is specifically relevant to devising new strategies) and instead keep such to or start their own threads.

[kashfat]

Hi josh il post the letter in acouple of days i had got as far as the bailliff going into the bank, then they put in for a stay, gitts, do you think i should write to the judge and say that it shoul be lifted?

[JOSH_IOU]

Hi Kash.

 

The reason the FSA granted the stay was so the banks could decide weather or not these charegs are fair.

 

If indeed the judge has decided the charges on your account were not fair then in my view there should be no reason to impose a stay.

 

I would not be aggresive with the court but I would complain that your case was decided And it would apear that the banks are avoiding payment.

 

This is the only thing I can think of off the top of my head as from your post it would seem the case has already been decided.

 

I am not certain what grounds the court has for imposeing a stay on the grounds there is an FSA waiver in place in this instance.

[colin1096]

I am trying to claim back off Barclays £ 4300 . It was a buisness account well a partnership . I sent all the information back in Feb 2007 and in august last year got the letter saying that it is awaiting the decision from the court which could take upto 12 months . I have recently rung them and they said that no decision has been made yet and that i will be informed . Just wondered what i need to do now and what is the difference between personal and buisness accounts .

[steven4064]

colin

 

how far did you get with your claim? If by "awaiting the decision from the court which could take upto 12 months" they meant the OFT case, they are being very dishonest as the test case does not apply to business accounts.

 

THe difference between personal and business accounts is that personal accounts are subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulation 1999 whereas business accounts are not.

 

The problem for business accounts though is that the test case has said that bank charges are not penalties - have a look at the "this thread" post at the top of this forum.

[colin1096]

I asked for 6 years statements which they sent , i then worked out the charges which totalled £4300 . I then sent i think letter 1 and letter 2 the 1 before court action then recieved the standard letter saying that they have became involved in legal proceedings with the OFT on bank charges which we believe will resolve the legal issues about the fairness and legality of your bank charges .

[steven4064]

I think you need to wait now. We are trying to wrok out how to proceed with business cases now the goalposts have moved

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Steven and Colin,

 

You should both be aware that the test case does indeed apply to business accounts. The issue of penalties at common law, the sole basis for business claims, is a key feature and the judgement has already been handed down on this in relation to the current terms and conditions. The ruling on penalties as regards the historic terms and conditions is expected on the 7th and 8th July.

 

TheyrCriminals

[steven4064]

You should both be aware that the test case does indeed apply to business accounts. The issue of penalties at common law, the sole basis for business claims, is a key feature and the judgement has already been handed down on this in relation to the current terms and conditions.

TC

 

That is why I said "We are trying to wrok out how to proceed with business cases now the goalposts have moved"

 

I put a stickie at the top of this forum explaining the effect of the test case on business claims.

[photoman]

Personally, I cannot see how the OFT judgement can justifiably be considered to be extended to include Business account claims brought at common law.

 

This is the statement in the judgement that may have raised some concerns:

 

"As for the position at common law, I accept the Banks’ submission that none of the terms which I have considered (the terms now generally used by the Banks for personal current accounts other than basic accounts and also certain of the terms used until recently by Clydesdale and RBSG) could be unenforceable on the grounds that they are penal (paragraph 323 above)."

 

However, this statement only refers to "personal" accounts, and does not cite anything at all regards other types of (such as Business) accounts.

Even then, so far it has only considered recent T&C's, which were contrived in readiness for the case.

 

The next announcement in July regards the possibility of some historic terms giving rise to such charges being penal at common law, will still only consider and pass judgement upon the various historic personal accounts terms.

It will not consider and include all the various Business accounts terms.

 

So I cannot see how, without any full proper consideration of such terms, the declaration can justifiably be extended to include Business account terms; and even if it is declared as being so, given the lack of actual real consideration of such terms, I think it could be contended.

 

In any case, during the period of the stays imposed due to the OFT case, many Business claimants did actually contend and successfully had stays lifted.

Ever since (and even after the first round announcement), this trend has continued, with several Business claims I know of recently still having stays lifted. Even this week there have been a couple I have heard of.

 

In all such cases (both prior to and post the OFT judgement) almost immediately after the stays were lifted, they all quite quickly received offers and have got or will get full refunds.

 

Having said all that;

 

I do think it would perhaps be best (and will only cause a short delay) to wait for the next announcement regards historic terms before proceeding with any business claim, just so as to enable us all to determine how to now proceed.

 

As Steven says, how to now proceed with Business claims is all presently a bit confusing, and so it now requires some consideration regards the proper approach.

So anyone currently preparing or contemplating a Business claim should hold back on actually filing a court claim.

Perhaps just send in a letter of complaint so that your claim is registered though?

 

In the meantime, I've started a new thread to discuss how to now proceed regards a Business claim.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/146727-post-oft-case-strategies.html

 

I do really hope that some of you will contribute and offer suggestions.

 

This may then possibly become useful for those at CAG who are presently considering the best approach and preparing new POC's.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Steven,

 

I didn't understand why you said this though:

 

'how far did you get with your claim? If by "awaiting the decision from the court which could take upto 12 months" they meant the OFT case, they are being very dishonest as the test case does not apply to business accounts'.

 

I just wanted to clarify, having been through the whole stay lift on business accounts process, and appearing before the Designated Civil Judge for Devon and Cornwall that business accounts are included in the test case.

 

TheyrCriminals

[steven4064]

I realise that's a bit misleading - the OFT case only covered personal current accounts because only they are covered by the UTCCR1999, which is what the case was about.

 

There has not been a uniform approach by County Courts - some have stayed business claims some have not. I thas always been our contention that business cases ought to have been allowed to continue for the reason above - the UTCCR1999 do not apply to business accounts and POCs for business accounts do not refer to them.

 

Unfortuately, the judge's comments about contract penalties may apply to business accounts - hence the advice to wait until things become clearer.

[lancasterchelsea]

Photoman do you have Lloyds terms and conditions for business accounts 1995.... that is exactly what I need for my hearing in Aug. The judge wants to decide on the limitations act before a hearing later on the claim itself. My claim covers 1995 to 1999.

thanks LC

[photoman]

I think I only have those for 1998 (which I think I've put into the CAG library anyhow).

 

This may not be 1995, but it is actually smack in the midst of the period in question.

The way the charges are presented in the booklet could very well be different to how they were otherwise presented to you at some or all of the time of such charges.... or indeed even how they have now tried to explain them to you subsequently in response to your current claim.

As far as I gather, then ANY act of concealment on their behalf, or any representation that could have lead you to concede to the charges under a mistaken presumption is adequate to invoke section 32.

This also includes if they may have explained or tried to justify the charges since the start of your claim in a manner that is different to how they presented them (perhaps in letters) to you at the time.

 

Check if these T&C's (or indeed any other LTSB Business T&C's ) are in the CAG library

If not, then send me a PM with an email address.

 

I'll have a look to se if I actually have anything else (letters etc) that may help, and if anything is found I'll PM you.

 

PM

[lancasterchelsea]

Thanks very much PM

I've never used the library

I will try and fnd it now

again thanks for you kind help

LC

[lancasterchelsea]

I had no luck finding any T&C's in the library

am I looking in the wrong place

[photoman]

PM me with an email address, and I'll send anything I have or find to you.

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

The more and more I read Photomans thread regarding the fact that this test case has not looked into all the relevant terms and conditions for business accounts the more it seems that for the banks to place reliance, and maybe even the courts, on this judgement is not fair for business claimants at all.

 

The mere fact that penalties at common law are being considered in the test case soley relates to personal accounts and therefore personal account contracts are only being considered. In order for the judge to make an informed decision, even before reaching the interests of justice, he would have to consider in depth all the relevant terms and conditions of the contract that was concluded between the bank and customer. This has clearly not happned. What the banks, and it appears the judges in the County Courts (certainly the Designated Civil Judge for Devon and Cornwall) are doing is placing reliance on the judgement in the test case to resolve the penalty issue despite the fact that no business terms and conditions have been considered in the test case. If this really is the case then surely the judgement, whatever the outcome may be, could not plausably extend to business claims.

 

Any thoughts welcome.

 

TheyrCriminals

[steven4064]

I think it would be worthwhile looking through old business account T&Cs to come to a view if the charges amount to penalties or not. For a charge to be a penalty and therefore unlawful, two conditions must be met:

 

1. The charge must come as a direct result and in response to a breach of a particular TorC. It must be direct, consequential but with another 'step' in between will not do.

 

2. The charge must be disproportionate to the loss caused to the bank by the breach.

 

I thnk most of us are convinced that late payment charges by cedit card companies are penalties:

 

The T&Cs require you to pay a minium charge on a certain date. If you pay late, the comapny charges you. Their loss as a result of thi sbreach is peanuts (actuallyt

 

Can we construct an argument like that for old business T&Cs?

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Steven,

 

It therefore seems that the key to this is to establish a breach of contract. Only on scrutinising the wording of the terms and conditions of past contracts, and all literature the banks supplied at the time, can this be determined. That is definitely the starting point. I will gladly start reading up if you, or anyone else, can point me in the right direction to source these contracts.

 

TheyrCriminals