Jump to content

Cympil

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,993

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Cympil

  7. Bank Charges

    in Talk of the Town

    Posted

    I just received this email about the Supreme Court Judgment for anyone who`s interested...

    Dear ***

    Supreme Court Judgment and what is means,

    Well I have just got back from London where I spent a lot of time trying to put

    right the media stories that the Bank's had won and this was the end for

    consumers, gladly I note that most of the Media have now reported that this case

    was not as important as many people thought is was:

    I am going to set out parts of the Judgment and explain what they mean if

    needed. After which I will outline what I think should happen next.

    The Judgment

    Firstly the Lord Walker highlighted the fact that many members of the public

    were not aware of the limited nature of the issue, which the court had to decide

    in the appeal.

    At Para 45 Lord Walker Said "…The Directive and the 1999 Regulations apply only

    to terms which have not been individually negotiated". Clearly the contract we

    all entered into with the banks has not been individually negotiated so the

    regulations do apply.

    Lord Philips Para 57. Stated the issue is whether the relevant charges

    constitute "the price or Remuneration, as against the services supplied in

    exchange†within the meaning of the Regulation. If they do not, the attack on

    the fairness of the term that is open to the OFT will not be circumscribed

    (restricted) by Regulation 6(2)b. If they do, then they will still be open to

    attack by the OFT on the ground that they are "Unfair†as defined by regulation

    5(1) but that attack cannot be founded on an allegation that the Relevant

    Charges are excessive by comparison with the services which they Purchase, for

    that is forbidden by regulation 6(2)b

    So what does this mean, well it means that the Court has ruled that the charges

    for bounced direct debits and unauthorised overdrafts etc are part of the price

    for the services, therefore they cannot be tested for fairness under Regulation

    6(2)b of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, However the

    Court has said that the OFT can assess the Fairness of the price under

    Regulation 5.1. According to other criteria. (See Para 59)

    This point is further explained in Para 80. Lord Philips states 'it seems to me

    that this reasoning is relevant not to the question of whether the Relevant

    Charges form Part of the price or remuneration for the package of the services

    provided but to whether the method of pricing is fair. (My emphasis added) It

    may be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers by levies

    on others who experience contingencies that they did not for see when entering

    into their contracts. If not it may then be open to question whether the

    Relevant Terms fall within Regulation 5(1)….†Clearly his lordship highlighted

    that the court may be persuaded that it is unfair for some consumer to pay for

    services that other consumers benefit from for free.

    What's more it is mostly the consumers who are on low incomes and struggling

    financially that are paying for everyone else. This is in my opinion not fair,

    and shows the banks have not acted in "Good faithâ€. Or as Lord Mance's suggested

    in the trial, that 'the banks were engaged in a sort of Robin Hood in reverse'

    (see Para 2) I would suggest he means the banks were taking from the poor to

    subsidise the rich.

    All the Lords appear to have agreed with Lord Walkers final Paragraph that being

    52, in which he said '…This decision is not the end of the matter', as Lord

    Philips explains in his judgment. Moreover Ministers and Parliament may wish to

    consider this matter further. They decided in an era of so-called "light-touchâ€

    regulation, to transpose the directive as it stood rather that to confer the

    higher degree of consumer protection afforded by the national laws of some other

    member states. Parliament may wish to consider whether to revisit that

    decision.'

    So what does all this mean, well it means the following

    1. The OFT can still look at the charges under UTCCR 1999, and always has been

    able to. They could now launch a new test case. (However, what must be asked is

    why was there a two year test case on a very narrow point of law? when the OFT

    already had the ability to assess the fairness of theses charges under

    Regulation 5.1 and others )

    2. All consumers who have submitted a claim using the Old Particulars of Claim,

    arguing that the price was unfair and or that these are a penalty charges. Needs

    to amend their claim to include an argument under regulation 5.1. (a new

    Particulars of claim will be live on the site tomorrow with full instructions on

    what you need to do)

    3. We also need to put pressure on the Government to amend the Regulation so we

    all have the same consumer protection rights that other member states have. (So

    get writing to your MP's a template letter for this will be on the site within

    48 hours)

    4. I am sorry to say but I would like to see the stay remain in place, for a

    least a month. This will give consumers time to amend their claims and other

    consumer groups and I will be discussing the possibility of joining forces to

    bring a joint Class action. I feel this would insure that we could make sure

    that all the legal arguments are covered in full. I will update you all on this

    when I have spoken to the other consumer forums.

    Finally, I will explain Regulation 5(1) in more detail on the site for those

    that are interested. However, what was important in this news letter is to

    confirm that this was basically a set back to the OFT and not to consumers.

    Claims can still be filed.

    The FSA has also lifted the Wavier.

    I hope that the OFT if they do decided to bring a new action, that they will now

    invite the consumer groups to the table. Something we asked them to do before

    this test case, sadly that request was refused.

    To conclude, the test case has only resulted in us having to amend the

    Particulars Of Claim and resulted in a two year delay, other than that we are

    back to the position we were in two years ago.

    So was this test case a victory for the Banks, yes they beat the OFT on a small

    point of law, they did not beat the consumer forums and or the consumers.

    Warm regards

    Stephen Hone

    • Like 1

  9. Where Can I Buy Duck Breast?

    in Food & Cookery

    Posted

    Where can I buy duck breast?

    Apart from buying whole duck from the supermarket, I'm finding it hard to find anywhere that sells good quality duck breast.

    I found a butcher online who will deliver at a huge cost (from the other side of the country!) but I'd rather buy from somewhere a bit more local.

    According to this site Tesco sells them.

  12. Rabbit Pie

    in Food & Cookery

    Posted

    is the butcher shop still open across from the coffin chapel and if so do they still sell rabbits and pheasant??

    Are you on about Lynns, opposite Grenfells?..that`s still there. I don`t know if they sell rabbit and pheasant though.

×
×
  • Create New...