Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
just thought I'd let you all know that Capital One has given me a partial refund of charges without any quibbles. We're not talking about a large amount here but still, it was more than I had expected and it's a a victory nonetheless!
If we were talking about a larger amount, it would definitely be worth it, but it's a very modest sum so I don't know if I can be bothered. Do you think I should? I have read somewhere that credit card companies are actually allowed to charge penalties of £12. I think they are just refunding me the difference. I am, however claiming over £6k from HSBC (Thread name: I'm claiming £6k from HSBC!) and then I will definitely NOT accept a partial refund! NO WAY JOSE!
I rang and they said they could offer me a reduced figure so I paid (reduced by £400)
I have claimed unfair charges from them and they have agreed the difference between £12 and what I was charged (approx £300)
They have paid it into my cap one account. I told them I didn't have an account with them anymore and they said I did as I had only partially settled my account the £400 reduction would remain on my credit file as unpaid!!!!
So vikingbird whats good for the goose and all that.....Take the partial settlement then claim the remainder thats what they are doing to everyone else.
If we were talking about a larger amount, it would definitely be worth it, but it's a very modest sum so I don't know if I can be bothered. Do you think I should? I have read somewhere that credit card companies are actually allowed to charge penalties of £12. I think they are just refunding me the difference.
No, hon, that's what they'd like you to believe.
The OFT report of April 2006 specifically said that £12 was NOT to be treated as an authorised charge, merely the level at which they themselves would take action against the companies, and that only a judge could decide what constitutes a fair charge. so far, hardly any c/c company has been willing to test this in court (Citi being the rare occasional exception and getting the backside kicked in court) and Capital 1 has not been one of them.
When you say it's a small amount, surely, the amount they are not refunding you is more than what they are refunding you? I mean, their charges were £20, now they're £12, so the difference is £8, so for each £8 they are repaying you, they are keeping £12. That's a lot!
Up to you, of course, but I know I wouldn't (and don't) let them get away with a penny of my money. ;-)
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
I rang and they said they could offer me a reduced figure so I paid (reduced by £400).
I have claimed unfair charges from them and they have agreed the difference between £12 and what I was charged (approx £300)
They have paid it into my cap one account. I told them I didn't have an account with them anymore and they said I did as I had only partially settled my account the £400 reduction would remain on my credit file as unpaid!!!!
So vikingbird whats good for the goose and all that.....Take the partial settlement then claim the remainder thats what they are doing to everyone else.
I had the same thing from HFC through the fos, where i had settled a £2000 by a 30% settlement (£600). £1400 written off. I claimed charges of £1200 plus interest, total £2900, they offered £1200 and i got compensation of £300 for a wrong default. HFC got to keep £1400, i got offered £100. Still fighting.
The thinking is that i am not entitled to money i haven't paid (the £1400).
In recent decisions by the FOS, i have had my refunds paid to the DCA, who were never a part of the complaint. Again, the thinking is that i can't get something i didn't pay, as the bank sold the account. But i say the DCA made a part payment and the rest was written off by the bank, which may resurface again as per my HFC claim (and now Citi as well). By the same thinking, the DCA is not entitled to something it did not pay, but yet it still asks for the whole amount.
Somehow i want to use these decisions to my advantage.
E.G. on one account i pay £100 to settle a £1000 account, bank write off £900. On another account DCA pays £100 to settle a £1000 account, bank write off £900.
I claim charges of £900 from my own settled account and bank want to keep towards write off, because i didn't pay it.
I claim charges of £900 from the sold account and money is sent to the DCA. Shouldn't the bank keep the £900 towards the write off as the DCA have never paid this and are therefore not entitled to it. Therefore DCA is not entitled to ask for this money, as they all do.
By the same thinking, the DCA is not entitled to ask for something it has never paid and would only be entitled to interest as per a valid agreement, above the amount it paid to 'settle' the account when it bought. That is all a bank is ever entitled to within the same agreement.
Why i've wrote this is that 'what goes for the goose goes for the gander' does not seem to apply to consumers.
Suffice to say, i am still fighting all my claims and the inconsistent FOS decisions give a lot of questions for them to answer, some of which i have stated here.
I agree with your post. Where i was claiming £1000 and was offered £500 and accepted, i in effect 'wrote off' £500 which i will now carry on requesting, as per the banks' own statements.
They offered to refund me £56 and if I was to go for the rest I'd be pursuing £68. In their letter they're saying (among other things) "the OFT hasn't challenged the right of banks to charge default sums, but merely the level of sums". They also sent me a form to fill in and sign to get the cheque sent to me and if I do this they will consider my complaint closed. If I do accept the £56 as a partial refund only and let them know that I intend to keep pushing for a full refund, can they suddenly then turn around and refuse to pay me even the £56? Also, how far would it be worth taking this? The fee for filing a court claim would cost more than the outstanding amount, wouldn't it? Hmmmm...I'm really in two minds about whether to keep rocking the boat on this one.
i've done this with some complaints where it is not worth fighting for the extra £100s you might get, or you might get nothing in the end.
as an example, i got offered the full £2900 by HFC over the phone and £1200 in writing, i passed it to the fos and HFC then bought up the write off. I have ended up losing that £1200 as well as an extra £200 from my compensation.
the FOS will always back the banks, in everything they say and do.
I meant £68 on top of the £56 but still, I don't think it's worth it with regards to the cost of filing a claim. So I guess there would be limits to how far I could take it.
The court fee is reclaimable too, so that's not an issue. If you read other Capital 1 threads, you will see that as long as you're not going for complicated interest and stuff, they usually settle within a month of you initiating court claim, but not if you don't.
The letter they sent you is the standard one they send to everybody.
Can they refuse to pay you the £56? Well, sure, they can... But you'd then be suing them for that too...
It's really down to whether you want to keep dancing to their tune or not... £12 is not a huge amount, so it boils down to whether you let them deceive you and intimidate you and deprive you yet again of what's yours, or whether you are taking the lead and challenging those people.
I'm a bit unclear on your case though: If you pursue the remainder, would it come to you (as you mention a cheque) or would it go towards the written-off balance? If it all goes towards the balance, then I wouldn't bother either, it's all imaginary money anyway. If it's money in your hand, then it's different.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
there will be a court fee of around £35 but what worries most people is the £300 hearing fee, which may need to be paid, i think. I personally haven't filed any claims because, by the time i got to it now, i am out of remission and the hearing fee of £300 has put me off. I know people can claim this back, and i can as well, but you need it first. Or if you claim remission from the start there is A LOT of proof they now require.
You could accept £56 and 'write off' the £68, to be used at a later stage in case, just like they do.
I agree, tifo. I think I will accept the £56 for now. I'd rather concentrate my efforts on HSBC, and we're talking over £6k here, over £7k if interest is added! That's an obscene amount of money to be stealing from a customer and I'm gonna get it back!
In Viking's case, his payable fee would be £25 or £30, depending on whether he does it with MCOL or through his courts, + £25 hearing fee, and that's all (no aq fee below £1500).
As far as I can make it (maths' not my strong point ), a £3k claim would cost from £265 to £343 (depending on whether MCOL or not, and whether under or over £3K).
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
You pay court fee on filing, then the aq fee when returning the AQ (if applicable) and the hearing fee, I have no idea, as I've never done one of them yet, but I reckon it might be when the date for hearing is set, they might ask you to send payment at the same time as they send out court directions. I'll have to find out.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Another little success story!
has given me a partial refund of charges without any quibbles. We're not talking about a large amount here but still, it was more than I had expected and it's a a victory nonetheless!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Vikingbird
