Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

The Bank Charge Judgement

Cardano | 29.11.2009 14:21 | Globalisation | Social Struggles

The Banks think they had a luck escape with the recent Supreme Court Judgement. However, they are in a the process of creating a greater crisis for themselves. A crisis where customers charges banks for services because the banks are settling County Court Cases on the basis of the Supreme Court Judgement and not on the facts.

The recent Supreme Court Judgement around bank charges has led Lloyds TSB to start handing out legal advice. Something they, as bankers, are not professionally qualified to do. Their advice to customers is to forget about reclaiming the bank charges. At the same time they will be approaching the Courts and asking them to end the stay on proceedings. This means that the court cases will go ahead. At which point the Banks will ask for a dismissal on the basis of the Supreme Court Judgement. Job done, feet up, cup of tea.

Except that is not what the Supreme Court Judgement means. The Supreme Court was not judging those cases. the Supreme Court was only answering a narrow and technical question. This question was not about fairness:

"It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair."
(The Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v Abbey National plc & Others (Appellants) para 1).

This question was not about if the charges could be levied. The question was about when the charges are levied are they excessive in relation to the service supplied to the customer:

"The question for the Court is much more limited, and more technical. It is whether as a matter of law the fairness of bank charges levied on personal current account customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts (including unpaid item charges and other related charges as described below) can be challenged by the respondent the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) as excessive in relation to the services supplied to the
customers."
(The Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v Abbey National plc & Others (Appellants) para 3).


The Judgement does not settle the outstanding court cases, yet, the banks will write to customers and advise them that the SUpreme Court Judgement does settle their claim. The truth is, the Banks are running scared.


If the Banks interpretation of the Decision is correct, then there is nothing stopping any Depositor from charging banks for deposits. It is a service. If the banks are correct in their claim that bank charges are legalised by this decision then customer charges are too. The reason being that it would be an unfair contract if only one party could vary the terms and conditions. The banks know this. Which is why they need the public to simply accept their "advice" when it drops through the door.

The banks advice is not impartial. It does not spell out the other consequences of accpeting their viewpoint. It does not spell out that the contract needs to be fair: that both parties can write to the other and vary contractual conditions because the Judgement reaffirms the principle of contract making.

For those who cannot see the implication of this, here it is in plain language. The banks pay interest on an account and charge interest on an overdraft. This is not part of the judgement. The judgement is about payment for specific services and the banks will interpret it in a specific way in the near future. This interpretation will be to avoid paying back all the bank charges. There argument being that the Supreme Court Judgement settles all of those cases. However, that bankers opinion, use of my deposits to invest in Malaya, charge £35; use of my deposits to invest in the arms trade, charge £500; and, so on. The onus is on the Banks to prove that they did not use your deposits for those purposes - according to the Banks interpretation of the Judgement. It is really not sufficient for them to say: no, refuse to pay. They must show that they did not avail themselves of your deposits for purposes other than those to which you explicitly permit them access to your deposits.

The banks are just about to dispense a large amount of "legal" advice to their customers. It is not legal advice, it is wishful thinking. They wish the overdraft cases to go away. They will say that the Supreme Court Judgement has made them go away. However, it has not. In fact, it digs a deeper hole for the Banks. If the Banks take the decision to mean they are right to charge in the arbitrary way that they now do then customers also have that right. Fairness in the Banks terms must be open to both sides of the contract.

Cardano

Comments

Display the following 5 comments

  1. How to avoid overdraft charges — Helpful Financial Advice
  2. All well and good but... — Over to you mr banker
  3. Over to you mister banker misses the point — Cardano
  4. correction — unnecessary
  5. Dear unnecessary — Cardano
Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
Regions
All Regions
Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Nottingham
Scotland
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on indy.im and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Schnews
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
VisionOnTV
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
Topics
All Topics
Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
Workfare
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Guantanamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
SOCPA
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech