Bank charges are unfair! - Proof beyond any reasonable doubt? Part 2

On the 27th July 2007, the Financial Services Authority issued a Press Notice, headed - " FSA grants waiver to firms on complaints handling" (1)

In it, Clive Briault, Managing Director, Retail Markets, said:

"We have granted the waiver to help facilitate this test case. We believe it is not in the interests of all consumers for complaints to continue to be dealt with in the current inconsistent way. Once there is certainty on these charges, complaints can be dealt with fairly and consistently."

If the waiver was granted to facilitate the test case, and to obtain certainty on charges, some questions arise:

- was it 100% clear that the test case would indeed obtain the required certainty on charges? No room for any doubts?

- was it 100% clear that the test case would leave no doubts whatsoever, that there would be absolute certainty? No, not one, doubt?

- was it in any way guaranteed that the test case would completely remove the inconsistent way in which complaints were dealt with? No room for any doubts?

Let's remind ourselves what the Supreme Court Press Notice (2) said, and break it down into its individual parts:

This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. 


The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair 


but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair.


Lord Walker made clear that the scope of the appeal was limited 


the court did not have the task of deciding whether or not the system of charging current account customers was fair, 


but whether the OFT could challenge the charges as being excessive in relation to the services supplied in exchange (Paragraph 3).

When you compare the reasons given for the issue of that waiver by the FSA, the need to end inconsistency, the need to obtain certainty, when you compare those reasons with what the Supreme Court was actually asked to address - a narrow issue

You are the jury ... does the final Supreme Court judgement in that test case

- convince you - beyond any reasonable doubt - that all inconsistencies have indeed been removed, and that we now have the promised certainty?

- do you now have a complete legal answer as to whether bank charges are fair or unfair - no room for any doubts, not one?

You are the jury.  Form your verdict.

***************

Lord Turner, the Chairman of the FSA appears to have formed his verdict, he appears to have reached his conclusions?  Let's see if they agree with yours.

The Supreme Court issued that Press Notice, and their final judgement on the 25th of November 2009.

On that very same day, the Treasury Select Committee held a meeting.  Before it as witnesses were Lord Turner, Chairman of the FSA, and Hector Sants, CEO of the FSA.

During the questioning (3), Lord Turner made this comment to the Committee:

" ... the FSA had put in place a waiver for firms so that they did not have to deal with complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges in the time specified under our dispute resolution rules. We had been doing that because we felt that there was no purpose in a flow of complaints before there was legal certainty one way or another as to what the situation was, but that waiver has effectively ceased today; it was clearly linked to this decision and the moment that there was legal clarity that falls away."

Pardon?  Lord Turner appears to believe there was legal clarity.  Well, there was indeed legal clarity - that is the truth - but was it the legal clarity, the certainty over charges for which the waiver was issued by the FSA.  Did that legal clarity - on that narrow issue - remove all inconsistencies, did it remove all uncertainties, was there now no need whatsoever for any waiver - because we all now had legal clarity?

Did everyone now know the answer to whether bank charges were fair or unfair. Well, might I suggest it was everyone except the Supreme Court perhaps ... and yes, me and you.

Perhaps, this further comment from Lord Turner to the TSC on that day will explain what Lord Turner was thinking:


"... I think that it is clearly the case that the argument about whether these charges in the past can be deemed to be unfair, which is probably the basis of most of the complaints that have been brought forward, has been definitively resolved by the Supreme Court ..."

You are the jury

Do you agree with Lord Turner?

Do you agree - beyond any reasonable doubt - that the argument about whether these charges in the past can be deemed unfair [ ... ] has been definitely resolved by the Supreme Court?

Do you agree when the Supreme Court's words were:

The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair 

the court did not have the task of deciding whether or not the system of charging current account customers was fair, 


If you do agree with Lord Turner, despite that evidence of what the Supreme Court actually said, perhaps there is little point in reading further.

Personally, I don't agree, personally I cannot see how anyone could agree with Lord Turner's comments to the TSC - which is why this blog exists, and why since its inception I have ensured that Lord Turner, the FSA, the FOS, the OFT, the TSC and others are all aware of its existence.

If you disagree with Lord Turner's thinking, and feel that there is still a completely unanswered question over the fairness or otherwise over bank charges, then please keep reading.

I will offer both evidence and proof of why - bank charges were and are unfair - contrary to Lord Turner's view.

A bit later on it will include - as only one item of that proof - the reason why I highlighted the word "all" earlier. You didn't notice that?  It's way back at the beginning in Clive Briault's comments, when he referred to "all" consumers. That simple three letter word "all"  - as in "all" consumers has a major part to play.

But for now, let's briefly re-visit the Co-ordination Committee - why are bank charges not on their agenda?

Well, perhaps the views expressed by Lord Turner explain at least one reason why the Co-ordination Committee do not have the subject of bank charges on their agenda.  They may have concluded - perhaps as Lord Turner may have concluded - that the issue is dead. Do you know of any other reason?

You are the jury

Is the issue dead as far as you are concerned? Or would you like proof that - bank charges were and are unfair?

*******************

PS: The links to the numeric notations in this and further posts in this blog will appear in an addendum at the conclusion of the blog.

Bank Charges are unfair! - Proof beyond any reasonable doubt? - Part 1

If you are amongst those who have been following this blog - we are nearing a conclusion.  If you are new to reading these posts - welcome!

To reach that conclusion we need to decide my role, and yours - yes indeed, you have a part to play in all of this - the single most important part of all - let me explain why.

Evidence is information that helps form a conclusion; proof is factual information that verifies a conclusion.

The many posts, so far, in this blog have contained evidence, I now intend to use that evidence (with some yet to be added) as proof sufficient to verify this conclusion:

Bank charges are unfair! 


In most Western legal systems there are two forms of proof - one related to a criminal trial and one related to a civil action in a court.

In a civil action, the proof required, on the evidence presented, is that a conclusion can be reached by a jury - on the balance of probabilities.

In a criminal trial, the proof required, on the evidence presented, is that a conclusion can be reached by a jury - if it is beyond any reasonable doubt.

I intend to take the harder of those two - proof beyond any reasonable doubt - that bank charges are unfair.

That is my task.  And, it ain't easy. Many would say it is well nigh impossible.

What is yours?

Well, we need a jury - you are the jury!


Ultimately - it will be your verdict alone which counts.

**********************************************

Let's have a practice session.

In my last post, I gave you evidence related to a meeting of the Co-ordination Committee, consisting of the FSA, the OFT and the FOS.

I entered into evidence the "Minutes" of the first meeting of that committee - February 2011.

I asked you to see if they discussed the subject of "bank charges".

That was "evidence".  

Does it prove to you - beyond any reasonable doubt: 

- that the three bodies principally responsible in the matter of "bank charges" 

- that the three bodies most closely involved in the long running saga over "bank charges" 

- did not have that subject on their agenda?

You have the evidence - is it proof, beyond any reasonable doubt?

You are the jury! Reach your verdict.

*****************************

In each of the posts that follow - I will take forward some of the evidence presented earlier in this blog, I will also add further evidence, I will then use each item of evidence as proof that bank charges are unfair.

As I do so  - I would ask you to remember THE single most important requirement a court imposes on a witness - that they tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Remember this earlier item of evidence - from the Supreme Court Press Summary?

This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair.

Lord Walker made clear that the scope of the appeal was limited – the court did not have the task of deciding whether or not the system of charging current account customers was fair, but whether the OFT could challenge the charges as being excessive in relation to the services supplied in exchange (Paragraph 3).

Is the reason why to date nobody yet has an answer as to whether bank charges are fair or unfair lies in whether - you the jury -  have been told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?