24 Jan 2016

A question about : Reclaim bank charges

There is an important announcement over on https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...enter-has.html regarding the possibility of a test case.

I have copied it below for easier reference. If this is inappropriate I apologise and I'm sure a mod will move/delete it.

Thanks

Quote:

Has your case been transferred to the Mercantile Court

This is the judicial response to the flood of bank charges claims which are currently hiting the courts and for which I am very pleased to say, The Consumer Action Group is mainly responsible.

We believe that the courts are trying to get a test case heard so that the issue will be properly aired and settled once and for all.

This is excellent news for all bank customers. It is very bad news for the banks because it could mean that the days of unfair bank charges will eventually be ending.

A transfer to the mercantile court has the following effects:-
Your claim will be allocated to the multitrack regardless of its value. I know of cases for as little as Ј700 with no particular complicating factors which are now being multitracked.

There is a costs risk if you lose. However, in our view this risk is minimal.
Firstly you are most unlikely to lose. It is evident that the banks are operating an unlawful regime of penalties.
Secondly because the cases are being transferred of the court's own initiative and they are very clearly small claims track cases, it would be very unlikely that the judge would award costs against an ordinary person merely trying to recover their charges. the courts are not heartless. Look at Stephen Hone's ambitious but doomed attempt to sue 8 banks at one go. The court refused to order Ј117,000 costs against him even though he had forced the matter onto the multi-track
Thirdly, although the courts desparately want to try a test case, the multitrack will mean that the banks will be obliged to make standard disclosure and this means dislcosing all of the evidence of their penalty charges regimes even if the information is damaging to them.
Snowflakes might have a better chance in Hell
We take the view that the threat of standard discloure will persuade the banks to settle even more rapidly than they are doing at the moment.

However there is a risk and it has all to be tested.

If your case is transferred to the Mercantile Court, we suggest that you take the following action:-

Write a letter to the transferring court and to the Mercantile court explaining that you are acting in person, that you do not have a lot of money but you believe in the justice of your case. Explain to the court that you do consider that their action forces you to take the burden which should properly be borne by the OFT who have the power and the resource to bring the necessary test case but who refuse to do so.

Write to the OFT and complain that you have accepted their report, that you are claiming your bank charges and that you have now been transferred to the Mercantile Court where you have to bear the stress and the risk when it is in fact their responsibility to deal with the banks themselves.
Complain about your bank's penaty charge regime as being contrary to UTCCR 1999 and require them to investigate the complaint.

Write a similar letter to the FSA

Write a letter to your MP expressing anger that because of the failure by the OFT to carry out its proper function, you and many others are having to bear the burden of being the public guinea pig in a test case which will cause you stress and may carry a risk of fincancial loss. Do not think that these letters will be too much trouble or ineffectual for you. They will be very useful. There is a crisis brewing and now is the time to write.

Even if you are not affected by a transfer, if you feel like writing these letters then you should do so and express anger that others are being faced with these difficulties as a result of OFT inaction.

Please post what you have done in the new Mercantile Court forum

Best answers:

  • Will the MC be able to decide on its own iniative or in conjunction with the OFT frome vidence presented in open court or in camera an appropriate levle of charge? If it can and does make a ruling surely then claims for 100% refunds will have failed, as the amounts in dispute are the penal elements of the charges.
    As to the matter of costs being awarded in the case of failed cases. I would not want anyone ruined by costs, but equally would want and expect investigation in to all means of failed plaintiffs to be undertaken, as one cannot assume that an overdawan account equals lack of means.
  • expect investigation in to all means of failed plaintiffs to be undertaken
    -----
    are you suggesting you want the courts to look at the Profit and loss accounts of the Banks ?
    Mike
  • Read my actual post in its context, please
    --------
    I read it - you were supposed to grin ...
    I dont see how the MC could decide it was a fair charge unless the banks reveal their costs - which seems unlikely. If its a penalty charge then it is unlawful, you cant say only part of it is unlawful.
    Mike
  • I doubt in camera would be allowed ...
    ------
    The exercise of the power should be confined to cases where the public's presence would genuinely frustrate the administration of justice. There has to be a compelling reason to adopt such a course: R v Malvern Justices, ex parte Evans; R v Evesham Justices, ex parte McDonagh (1988) 87 Cr. App. R. 19. A decision to sit in camera is not justified merely to save parties, witnesses or others from embarrassment or to conceal facts which it might, on more general grounds, be desirable to keep secret.
  • Hi!
    'Scuse me for being thick...
    If I claim using the small claims process then I am not liable for the defendants costs or the courts costs over and above the initial fee.
    What I understand has happened is a number of seperate small claims have been bundled together and are being heard at the Mercantile court, the reasons the courts have done this is unknown and the subject of some speculation, but it is not due to the actions of the claimants.
    Therefore would I be right in the belief that the claimants are still bound by / subject to the conditions of the small claims process and in the event the banks win then the claimants are not liable?
    Regards
    Kevin
  • It is not a number of claims bundled together - these are single claims.
    It is for a judge to decide which court a case is heard in when the AQ is completed and returned.
    If a judge feels that taxpayers money is being wasted by 'vexatious defendents' he may very well (and properly) order that the case be heard in a court where precedence could be set, in order to curb unnessicary financial waste to the country.
    That is what I believe is happening. You may be interested to hear that the few cases that have been allocated to the MC have ALL been settled before hearing, so far, by the banks in question paying up in full.
    If costs were awarded (should a claimant lose), then you could appeal on the argument that the case should reasonably have been heard on the small claim track. You could also, of course, be ordered to pay MORE costs.
Please Login or Register to reply to this topic