In the last few years, an unprecedented wave of mass litigation has swept the UK. Thousands of UK bank customers have made sheriff court or county court claims against their banks to reclaim charges for unauthorised overdrafts, bounced cheques or failed direct debits. However because settlements are typically reached at the eleventh hour, no legal precedent on the issue has yet been set.
The customers have argued that bank charges are unfair because the actual administration cost of exceeding the banks' credit limit is estimated to be £2, yet the majority of banks charge consumers £39. The banks have retorted that these charges are justified to offset the cost of bad debts incurred by customers, and that the future of free banking may be threatened if charges are found to be unlawful. It is estimated that UK banks make £3.5bn of fees each year from charges.
From a legal perspective, bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts and bounced cheques are a charge for breach of contract, known as liquidated damages. It was established in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co that liquidated damages clauses should be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Otherwise a liquidated damages clause becomes a penalty clause, which is in theory unenforceable by the courts. A penalty clause, where the financial recovery to the innocent party would exceed any accurate pre-estimate of loss, is void. Both clauses provide for agreed payments to be made by the party in breach and both serve the same function of avoiding disputes and reducing uncertainty. Furthermore both may also serve as an incentive to performance. In practice, there are many payments that are not genuine pre-estimates of loss but are forced into the category of liquidated damages in order to make them enforceable.
The legality of bank charges has not yet been ruled on by a senior court in Scotland or England & Wales. On 5 April 2006 the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") announced that default charges which are set at more than £12 would be presumed to be unfair and unenforceable in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ("the UTCCR"). Charges above this sum will be subject to legal action by the OFT. On 12 September 2006, the OFT began a factfinding inquiry into the issue. However, due to the number of claims, the OFT decided that it was undesirable to await the outcome of the inquiry. The banks and the OFT therefore agreed that a test case be brought. They agreed to raise an action in the Commercial Division of the High Court in London seeking to determine the legal basis of the claims. The action was raised on 27 July 2007. It is anticipated that a decision will be reached by the end of February 2008.
The first part of the case will consider whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, a set of rules governing contracts between individuals and businesses, apply to the unauthorised overdraft charges. If a penalty clause exists within a consumer contract it will normally be subject to the UTCCR, which implemented Council Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. The UTCCR can apply to almost any type of term that was not individually negotiated, and will invalidate the term if it is unfair. The burden of establishing that a clause is unfair falls on the consumer.
The upcoming test case will be the first time the regulations have been seriously tested in relation to the banking industry. The OFT must persuade the judge that the regulations apply; it will then have to prove at another hearing that the banks' contractual terms are unfair. However the defendants – Abbey, Barclays, Clydesdale, HSBC, HBOS, Lloyds TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland and the Nationwide Building Society – have lined up some of the City's biggest law firms and leading Queen's Counsel to represent them. If the court agrees with the banks that the charges do not fall within the scope of the regulations, the case will fall at the first hurdle.
The case will affect tens of thousands of existing claims before the county courts that have been frozen pending the outcome. It is estimated that the banks have paid up to £1 billion in total to settle claims from individual customers out of court, but they stand to lose billions more if they are defeated in court. This is bad news for English consumers because the OFT test case could be appealed all the way to the House of Lords and in the meantime all cases will remain frozen.
However cases are proceeding in Scotland. In Coleman v Clydesdale Bank, Sheriff Pyle refused the bank's motion to sist the claim on the basis that it was unsatisfactory to compel a pursuer to be delayed merely for a decision of a foreign court, which would guarantee no certainty in defining the law which ought to be applied. The Coleman case was recently followed by Morrison v Bank of Scotland, in which Sheriff Douglas refused the motion to sist, observing that the onus lay on the defenders seeking to sist the action and the OFT decision would not necessarily address Scots common law.
If any of the proceeding Scottish cases reaches a hearing it is likely the banks will lose, as the pursuers can found upon the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co, Ltd. In this case, the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. Alternatively Scottish litigants can of course rely upon the UTCCR. English consumers wishing to proceed with their cases may raise proceedings in Scotland if their bank has its registered office there.
The UTCCR can have significant effects on a business should such a business be found to be in breach of the regulations. The negative publicity an OFT-led investigation attracts can have serious consequences for a business. This was illustrated relatively recently when the OFT announced in 2002 that My Travel Group's contractual clauses were unfair to consumers. Soon after the OFT announcement, the shares in My Travel Group plummeted. Although the announcement was not the only reason for the slump, the decision certainly contributed greatly to the company's demise.
Unfair terms in consumer contracts are found in many sale contracts, insurance contracts and financial contracts. The regulations apply to non-negotiated contracts between suppliers and consumers. The core terms of the contract should be clear. If there is ambiguity then the regulations may apply.
The underlying themes of the regulations are fair dealing and consumer protection. An unfair contractual term shall be void. Fairness requires the supplier to act in good faith towards the consumer. The supplier should not be able to obtain an advantage over consumers by using complex or ambiguous contractual clauses. The parties must act in good faith to ensure there is a balance between the interests of both supplier and consumer. The clauses favouring either party should cancel each other out to ensure that neither party has a more favourable bargaining position.
A contract containing void terms will continue to bind the parties should the other contractual terms be able to do so. Furthermore the contractual clauses must be free of legal jargon, written in plain English and legible type, have important terms highlighted and have no hidden terms. Thus terms such as "delict", "without prejudice" and "indemnify" may all be in breach of the UTCCR.
A consumer contract falls within the ambit of regulation 5 of the UTCCR. The banks' charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 to the regulations:
"Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair
"1. Terms which have the object or effect of -...
(e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation".
Penalty charges are generally imposed by banks throughout the world, but are subject to different limitations in each country. In the United States, for example, banks are generally allowed to charge whatever they see fit; such charges are often a source of considerable revenue. However there is proposed reform in light of the UK experience. There is also support for reform in Australia. A report on bank charges by the Consumer Law Centre in Victoria, Australia concluded that consumers, especially low income consumers, were unable to oppose penalty fees on their bank accounts and that regulators should step in to protect them from being punished by their banks.
The much-anticipated OFT test case on bank charges will settle once and for all whether bank charges are unlawful in the United Kingdom. If the result falls in favour of the consumers then consumers should expect banking to become more expensive in the years ahead as banks seek to recoup their losses by charging customers for services that are mostly free at the moment, such as cash machine withdrawals, direct debits or standing orders, which is common practice in some other countries.
In the aftermath of the test case many industries such as the retail warranty industry or payment protection insurance will be hoping the OFT (utilising the UTCCR) does not turn its attention on them.
Neil J Morrison is a trainee solicitor with Miller Samuel LLP
Current Submissions04.07.08 Getting a Get in Scotland - 2This follow-up to the article published in March 2006 explains how current Scots divorce law affects Jewish clients and how solicitors can give appropriate advice 12.06.08 No place for secrecyFuller version of the Opinion article, Journal, June 2008: critique of the system for appointment as Queen’s Counsel in Scotland 11.03.08 One Scotland, many cultures?Despite the protections of the Human Rights Act, the position of travelling people in Scotland appears to have worsened in recent years - why? 26.02.08 Bank charges and the Unfair Terms RegulationsThe significance of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations in the context of the current litigation over bank charges 21.02.08 CGT: Don't lose out on 6 April 2008Couples should consider asset transfers before then to preserve indexation relief 14.12.07 Common sense prevailsThe options open, and the issues that arise, now that the proposed planning gain supplement is not to be introduced 07.12.07 Discounting justiceAuthor contends that sentencing discounts and other developments have created an imbalance in the justice system 10.10.07 Advocacy in mediationAn overview of the mediation process and the opportunities for solicitors and clients 06.09.07 TUPE: stay your handA Court of Session ruling on a law firm redundancy marks a fundamental change in TUPE 24.07.07 EAT breaks ground with TUPE insolvency rulingRuling on when insolvency proceedings begin leaves successor employer liable 06.07.07 Confidentiality clauses - beware!The Information Commissioner's decision in the VisitScotland case requires very careful drafting of confidentiality provisions in public sector contracts if they are to work 06.07.07 The power of marks: Frankie goes after Hollys nameHow failure to address issues of ownership of the band's name stored up trouble for Frankie Goes to Hollywood 14.05.07 Court plans with little appealThe fuller version of the Opinion article in the Journal for May 2007 14.05.07 Winning waysThe fuller version of the article in the Journal for May 2007 08.02.07 Routes to qualification: the Italian pictureAn Italian lawyer with an interest in training in different jurisdictions reports on current developments in the Italian legal system 09.01.07 Contractual handcuffs: enhanced redundancy rightsThe Court of Appeal decision in Keeley v FOSROC International Ltd requires employers to exercise caution when referring to redundancy rights in staff handbooks 27.12.06 The Isle of ManAn summary of the current legal and tax regime for individuals and companies based on the island (a longer version of the briefing in the November 2006 issue) 15.11.06 Costume Wars: copyright storm over the troopersA row over "Star Wars" costumes illustrates the need to protect all intellectual property rights in written agreements 13.10.06 Survival of the fittest? A replyReply to article on selection for Diploma and traineeship places by Michael Torrance in the September 2006 Journal 13.10.06 TUPE passes the buckFar from providing clarity, the new regulations will need litigation to decide the effect of the insolvency provisions (longer version of October 2006 briefing article) 17.08.06 For supplement read tax - an updateAuthors update their previous Journal article on the proposed planning gain supplement 17.08.06 Technology and the Scottish courtsAn update on the use of technology in the Scottish courts, based on the author's experience of a recent patent case 26.07.06 A lack of trustForthcoming in August issue, put online because of its urgency, the article outlines the final form of the trust tax changes in this year's Finance Act 17.07.06 Ireland 4, Italy 0The ECJ decision in the Irish-Italian dispute in the Parmalat companies liquidation proceedings provides important guidance on jurisdiction 05.04.06 Legal science or law-lite? A responseThis reply to Professor Gretton argues that changes in Scots law teaching are a necessary response to changes in universities, the wider community and the law itself 03.04.06 Opening a binding global route for personal dataIn a significant move the Information Commissioner has allowed a company to transfer employees' personal data outwith the EU under binding internal rules 02.04.06 Mentally disordered offendersOverview of the options available to the courts when dealing with offenders who have or may have a mental disorder, following recent legislative reforms 30.03.06 Bias and mental health tribunals: a replyReply to criticisms of the new tribunals, arguing that the composition of the tribunals is not inherently unfair and only research can assess their performance 17.01.06 Legal aid in children's hearing referralsThis paper delivered at the legal aid conference, argues that the interests of justice require better remuneration for solicitors appearing in children's hearing cases 09.12.05 Holes in Scotland's corporate killing proposalsGaps in the expert working group's proposals could make them unworkable and bad for business 10.08.05 Prosecuting bigotry offencesTwo appeal decisions have exposed limitations in the statutory offences directed at racial abuse 08.07.05 Commissioner: Public Authorities must do moreInformation Commissioner's first appeal decision highlights areas for improvement 14.04.05 New identity for criminal justice bodyScottish Association for the Study of Offending launches by removing "Delinquency" from title 14.04.05 Information and Consultation RegulationsBriefing on the regulations in force from 6 April 2005, covering businesses with more than the prescribed number of employees 13.04.05 Retailers seek effective court action on crimeScottish Retail Consortium proposes more effective intervention following 3rd Retail Crime Survey 11.04.05 Appropriate dispute resolutionThis paper, given to the Four Jurisdictions Conference in Nice this year, discusses how family law can make a difference for the better by careful choice of the most suitable method of resolution 09.03.05 ASBOs and young peopleWhat to look for when acting for a young person facing an antisocial behaviour order application 21.02.05 Sell or transfer?Longer version of briefing published in February 2005 issue, page 44 08.02.05 Promoting competitiveness or competition?Discussion of EU rules on state aids with particular reference to Highlands and Islands ferries 10.11.04 Guarding the inner sanctumHow to minimise the risk of breaches of internet security 10.11.04 The Clinical Trials Directive - a summaryWhat the EU Clinical Trials Directive means for trials of medicinal products 13.10.04 Sheriff Court Rules Council consultation paperConsultation on proposals for further extension of the use of information technology in civil cases in the sheriff court (response date: 15 November 2004) 13.10.04 Ignorantia juris: it's all Greek to meSecond annual APEX lecture given by the President of the Law Society of Scotland, on the rule of law and its essential components 13.10.04 Virtual firms: transactional learning on the webHow today's Diploma students are introduced to legal transactions in a virtual environment 13.10.04 Drafting consumer contractsGuidance on drafting consumer contracts and ensuring compliance with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |