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.
Now that OFT have said a reasonable charge for late payment or going over limit with your bank or credit card company is £12, is that still as unenforceable as the previous £25 they used to charge.
I have a £12 late payment on my card, can I still challenge this or has the OFT ruling made it untouchable?
You can still fight them by saying it does not cost them £12 for that. The £12 ruling means that OFT will not jump on them, that is all. However I just feel that the fight maybe more difficult or longer.
Unfortunately i'm not an expert in any given field legally and my advice and that of the Consumer Action Group and the Bank Action Group is given without prejudice and without liability so please if in any doubt whatsoever seek help from an insured qualified professional. Contents of my posts are purely my own personal opinions and not condoned or endorsed in any way, shape or form by CAG. Thank you!
Darn Sarf and at home in England's green and pleasant land
Posts
273
Re: OFT Ruling of £12
Originally Posted by Moodymulder
Now that OFT have said a reasonable charge for late payment or going over limit with your bank or credit card company is £12, is that still as unenforceable as the previous £25 they used to charge.
I have a £12 late payment on my card, can I still challenge this or has the OFT ruling made it untouchable?
Have I missed something important from the OFT?
I may well have done but, and it's a big but, as far as I'm aware the OFT have never said £12 is a reasonable charge for late payment etc.
Below is a copy of a "Q&A" from the FAQ's on this site.
Hope it helps and if it does, my scales are at the bottom left!
"Q. I saw something about the OFT..... Can credit cards charge me £12?
A. NO. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) issued a directive to credit card companies to set a point at which they (the OFT) would intervene on behalf of the consumer. They did not state that £12 was lawful - in fact they stated that only a court can decide. "A fair default charge should not exceed a reasonable estimate of certain limited administrative costs which the credit card issuer reasonably expects to incur as a result of default"
In other words - reclaim the full amount unless they are willing to show the evidence of what it does cost."
Jimbo 44 - always happy to help, but always willing to learn from being corrected too!!! Whilst any advice given may be based upon personal experience, please always be sure you seek guidance from a professional in the particular field.
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark, but a large group of professionals built the Titanic.
A 'click' on the scales is always appreciated if I have helped. Many Thanks!
The OFT NEVER SAID that £12 was reasonable. The OFT said that ABOVE £12 they would AUTOMATICALLY step in and take legal action; and that only a court can decide what is reasonable. They further said that the £12 threshold for legal action was a "stepping stone" towards bringing credit card providers towards compliance.
If you're going to be making claims you have to REALLY THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND the bigger picture; otherwise you may jeopardise the result of your action.
The suggestion that credit card companies might bring back annual fees has no direct link to the OFT and their directive earlier this year concerning the level of their 'overlimit', 'late payment' etc., etc. charges.
As the extract from this Forum's FAQ's I posted earlier makes clear, the £12 'limit' for charges is only the level at which the OFT would intervene on behalf of a consumer. It is for the courts to decide what represents a fair charge once the actual costs incurred by a particular credit card company are known to them.
I think The Scotsman are somewhat misleading when they say:
"Earlier this year, the Office of Fair Trading restricted the amount banks could charge in penalty fees for defaulting on credit-card repayments to a maximum of £12."
As I've pointed out above, the OFT did not actually restrict anyone to anything, they merely set an arbitrary threshold over which they would intervene. I suppose to some this would amount to a restriction, but the OFT did not actually use the word as far as I am aware.
Jimbo 44 - always happy to help, but always willing to learn from being corrected too!!! Whilst any advice given may be based upon personal experience, please always be sure you seek guidance from a professional in the particular field.
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark, but a large group of professionals built the Titanic.
A 'click' on the scales is always appreciated if I have helped. Many Thanks!
Got a reply from MBNA this morning saying they got my letter of complaint on 6th Nov and will reply to me by 6th Dec.
Is this 4 week wait acceptable?
Stick to the schedule you imposed upon them; normally if they have not replied within 14 days I would be taking the next step. You haven't made a complaint; you've requested a refund of charges
Phoned MBNA this morning to be told that because I mentioned OFT in my letter they have passed my letter over to their legal team and under FSA rules they have 4 weeks to respond.
24th August 2006 Template letter to Argos demanding late payment fee of 17.50 is returned.
Thats their problem, you are not making a complaint, you are threatening legal action, so FSA rules can go hang, CPR sasy 28 days in total is a reasonable time to try and settle (hence the 14 + 14 letters). Your claim, your deadlines.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
Phoned MBNA this morning to be told that because I mentioned OFT in my letter they have passed my letter over to their legal team and under FSA rules they have 4 weeks to respond.
Well that's p to them; but you have told them that you will "do something" after 14 days. If they choose to ignore that warning, that's their choice. I repeat; after 14 days, take the next step regardless of what they say to you. This is just part of the general messing about and delaying tactics they use, to try to put you off the scent. The technique I'm advising you to use has worked for tens of thousands of people so far (including plenty of people at this site) - so don't panic, just impose your schedule upon them.
OFT Ruling of £12
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Moodymulder
