Thread: Late payment charges etc by non-current account providers - claim them back

During the Stay, lots of people had claims against loan companies and other non-current account providers suspended by the courts as well.

Since the Supreme Court decision, we are starting to see some of these claims being struck out by the courts - either on the courts own initiative or on the application of the defendant.

the basis for the strikeout is the result of the OFT test case in the Supreme Court.

There seems to me to be no basis for non-pca providers to claim that the Supreme Court decision applies to them.

The Supreme Court held in favour of the banks because charges are used to cross subsidise so-called "Free Banking" provided for customers in credit.
The Supreme Court accepted in their judgment that banks derive 30% of their revenue from charges and that therefore, charges are part of the banks' core business.
Reg.6 UTCCR on unfair charges applies only to charges which are levied in respect of business which is incidental to the banks' core business.

It is highly unlikely that late payment charges form a core segment of loan companies total revenue.
In that case the loan companies and other companies which levy this high rate of charges are not able to benefit from the Supreme Court judgment.

If you have a stayed claim against a loan company - or if you do not but you have suffered excess charges from them then you should be suing them for your money back.

If you have a stayed claim, you should consider writing to the court asking for your claim to be lifted and requesting a hearing.

You may need to amend your POC

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

Would that be the same for a building Society that is now a bank with regards to a mortgage?

yep surely so.

the only thing they stayed was bank a/c's
the rest are fair game and always have been

dx

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

Would that be the same for a building Society that is now a bank with regards to a mortgage?

I don't think that you can be sure.

If they are providing PCA services on the same basis of the banks then they are probably generating the same kind of revenue from their charges.

If their mortgage arm is a different company for accounting puposes then you could be in with a good chance.

Are there any templates avaiable for reclaiming late payment charges on a loan? It is with Bank Of Scotlandand thay have claimed that the charges for late payment and for writing letters informing of late payment are to cover their costs!?
Any help in pointing me in the right direction would be more than appreciated.

Dan

If they have been representing their charges as reflecting their admin costs then please read my article about this on our front page

Dear BankFodder

I take it this means mortgage Lenders are NOT able to claim the SC ruling applies to them then? In your opinion would all their various charges such as

direct debit Recall Charge, Litigation Referall fee, Miscellaneous Repossession Charge, Arrears Administration Charge, Solicitor Interim legal fees, Default Notice Charge and Valuation fee.

be reclaimable? They tend to add these various charges on over the life of a mortgage particularly when it's in arrears.

If so what would be the basis for the reclaim? I suspect this has already been addressed elsewhere and I'd appreciate a pointer to that info if you can't answer fully here. I also appreciate that some of the charges may be 'valid' but surely not all of them are?

Many thanks.

Originally Posted by BankFodder

If you have a stayed claim against a loan company - or if you do not but you have suffered excess charges from them then you should be suing them for your money back.

If you have a stayed claim, you should consider writing to the court asking for your claim to be lifted and requesting a hearing.

You may need to amend your POC

Hi BankFodder, where hast thee gone?

I take it the basis for these claims remains the same, i.e. they are Penalties not charges and cannot be justified by the Lender? In which case, it would be worth challenging every charge item listed by the lender on one's loan/mortgage statement, regardless of the appelation given to it e.g. in the list below.

1. direct debit Recall Charge
2. Litigation Referall fee
3. Miscellaneous Repossession Charge
4. Arrears Administration Charge
5. Solicitor Interim legal fees
6. Default Notice Charge
7. Valuation fee (for property)

Basically, they would be required to prove that all these charges are justified and reflective of their costs?

What do you think about adding the arguments listed here
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-scotland.html
into the POC should the matter go to court?

You would consider saying that they are a penalty for a breach or else excessive under reg.6 UTCCR - and if they have misprepresented them then you could try claiming under reg. 5

I'm not sure that valuation or solicitors fees could be recoverable

Originally Posted by BankFodder

I'm not sure that valuation or solicitors fees could be recoverable

Thanks, good to have your feedback.

...true, but they should still be asked to justify it? Experience has shown that lenders charge over the odds for anything and especially where they think they can get away with it...:twisted:

Originally Posted by BankFodder

You would consider saying that they are a penalty for a breach or else excessive under reg.6 UTCCR - and if they have misprepresented them then you could try claiming under reg. 5

Would it be possible to use both arguments concurrently? How might that work?

Originally Posted by lookinforinfo

Bustthematrix, there are actually three possible avenues mentioned in Bankfodder's post and it could be possible that you could raise all three in your claim depending on the circcumstances.

I see the penalty for breach / excessive as one argument and misrepresentation as another.

Please clarify what you mean? Thanks.

Hi lookinforinfo, I appreciate you're trying to help, call me daft or something but the bit with penalties is still not clear to me

I thought the point of law was that as the charges are in fact penalties for breach of contract, they are not reflective of true loss or costs for the alleged breach making them excessive and therefore unlawful?

How do you understand it to be two seperate valid arguments?

...err LIFI, I appreciate you're trying to help m8 but I did find your last post patronising. I've read those comments before.

I'm trying to understand the split you are suggesting between the premise of Common Law and UTTCR.

So what exactly is your point?

How does Common Law precipitate a claim in a way that is not addressed by UTTCR?