Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

- Onus of proof now on Scottish bank to show charges were not excessive

THE BANK OF SCOTLAND has failed in its attempt to prevent a customer amending her claim for unfair bank charges, recalling the sist, and fixing a full evidential hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court this morning (Friday, 19 February 2010).

UK banks have been telling over one million of their customers in the UK that they now had no legal basis to reclaim unfair charges in light of last November's Supreme Court ruling. However, the Supreme Court itself had suggested that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and Govan Law Centre (GLC) had sought to amend their client's claim to incorporate a revised 'regulation 5' case under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), and significantly, an additional claim under the new section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA, as amended in April 2007).

Counsel for the bank, instructed by Dundas and Wilson CS LLP, had objected strongly to the pursuer's substantial amendments, arguing it would be 'improper' to allow the customer to amend her claim in this way. GLC's Mike Dailly, representing the customer, explained to the court that it was necessary to amend the claim in order to take on board legal developments, and although consumers could no longer attack charges as 'excessive in price' under the UTCCR, they could do so under the s.140A of the CCA. The ability to do so was hugely significant, as was the fact the onus of proof to show charges were not excessive was on the bank under the CCA.

In Sharp v. Bank of Scotland plc, Sheriff Baird, a senior sheriff at Glasgow Sheriff Court, rejected the submissions for the defenders, and granted the pursuer's application to substantially amend her Statement of Claim and Crave, recalled the sist, and fixed a full evidential hearing (know as a 'proof' in Scotland) for 11th June 2010.

Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor at Govan Law Centre said:

"Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November's Supreme Court's decision. Of course, the Supreme Court itself had explained that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and that is what Sheriff Baird has permitted our client to do today at Glasgow Sheriff Court".

"But besides a challenge under reg. 5 of the UTCCR, the Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act. That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair. Given that our banks have admitted they subsidise 'free-if-in-credit banking' by squeezing more money out their poorest customers through bank charges, they will now have to defend the indefensible. And, they will have the added problem that we are asking the court to prohibit them from imposing future charges under the CCA".

"In a nutshell, our new arguments are hugely more powerful than the ones deployed by the OFT in their unsuccessful test case. Evidentially, the new arguments require the bank to prove their charges were fair - which is tactically significant for consumers. The new arguments not only enable consumers to seek a refund of past charges, but entitle them to ask the court to prohibit future bank charges. That is hugely significant, and in many respects, we believe the new bank charges campaign is going to be a tougher propsect for the banks than the pre-July 2007 campaign. And of course that previous campaign saw refunds in excess of £1bn for consumers across the UK - so we are incredibly optimistic".

Bank charges update: 'where are we now?'

GLC had instructed a senior team of London barristers with expertise in UK banking law on behalf of Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com (MSE) with a view to identifying stateable legal routes forward, following the Supreme Court's ruling last month. That initial work is complete. There are two possible ways forward.

First, as the Supreme Court itself noted, it remains open to the OFT (and indeed individual consumers) to challenge the legal fairness of bank charges under regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR). Secondly, some consumers may be able to found upon sections 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and argue that the terms of contract which permit their bank to levy charges are an 'unfair relationship'due to excessive cost, among other arguments. The onus of proof under s.140B of the CCA is upon the banks to prove otherwise.

A good summary of these arguments has been posted on MSE here.

No amended template documents have been produced at this stage, because it has become apparent that the best solution in the public interest, is for the OFT to raise fresh proceedings against the banks and take further enforcement action. Why?

There are various reasons, including (a) an estimated 12 million UK consumers have paid bank charges in the past and it is unrealistic, unreasonable and impractical to expect all of them to be able to take personal action to reclaim these charges, (b) if the OFT does not take action, there will be widespread scope for claims management companies and 'claims farmers' who operate in a parasitical, viral way, to make a lot of money (e.g. a 40% take of your award, with upfront costs on top)by exploiting vulnerable members of the public.

And finally,(c)the skill and arguments necessary to present claims in adversarial court proceedings is likely to be beyond most party litigants (we saw this in the Hull strike-out cases, where GLC as part of the UK unfair bank charges legal team had to undertake a huge amount of amendment work, with Mr Raymond Cox QC appearing on our clients behalf, in order to stop 44 cases being struck out - we won, but it was a massive amount of work).

If the OFT did decide to take up the new legal challenge(s), and subsequently won, then consumers would be able to seek a refund without the need to pay anyone at all. Furthermore, if the OFT continued its legal challenge this should prevent one million current claims being rejected. If the OFT ultimately, decide not to take this issue forward then we will need to carefully consider our strategy. The OFT are expected to make a decision in the next few days - so watch this space.

Meantime, in Scotland, GLC has enrolled applications to recall sists (stays) in bank charges cases with a view to obtaining compensation for some of our clients in the South West of Glasgow. This is a completely free service, as we are charitable, community law centre. At this stage, we cannot offer this service to non-existing clients or clients outwith the South of Glasgow given resource implications, and the fact a large proportion of our resources are currently dedicated to preventing homelessness, defending eviction and repossession cases across Scotland.

However, we will report on any progress that we can make, with a view to helping consumers strategically in Scotland and in the UK generally.