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 spoken to Egg callcentre staff regarding £16.00 late fee.
Me; These charges are probably unlawfull, and are £4.00 more than the OFT limit
Call centre: Well we've been told that because we are an internet bank, there is less chance of customers incuring charges, so the OFT allow us to charge £16.
Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.
Re: The OFT has given Egg dispensation to charge £16
Originally Posted by rippedoffagain
Just spoken to Egg callcentre staff regarding £16.00 late fee.
Me; These charges are probably unlawfull, and are £4.00 more than the OFT limit
Call centre: Well we've been told that because we are an internet bank, there is less chance of customers incuring charges, so the OFT allow us to charge £16.
Anyone else had this?
yes this has been known for quite a long time. However they have just settled in full with me today.
Re: The OFT has given Egg dispensation to charge £16
Egg are no different to any other bank, their penalty charges are unlawful.
Please read the top part of the forum "FAQ's" which is marked in RED and follow the step-by-step guidance on how to re-claim your money taken via charges...Reclaim the Right!!
You will get all of your money back, if it was taken from you, in the form of penalty charges/fees.
All that you have to do is persevere - Basically, if you don't ask/demand then you don't get!
Re: The OFT has given Egg dispensation to charge £16
Thanks both.
I wonder if OFT know they have given this dispensation
Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.
Re: The OFT has given Egg dispensation to charge £16
I am in the very early stages of tacklinmg Egg.
They have as soon as ia sked for the penalties to be refunded closed my account 9nov 06) just they didn't bother to tell me.
On the phobne recenrtly they also told me they were allowed by the OFT to charge £16.00 and i shoudl stop reading posts in forums such as this and get competent legal advice, oh how i chuckled...
I did send my SAR, and got a reem of forms back, when challenged on the phone, i was informed it was a legal requiremtn for each section fo the form to be completed, if i didnt they were not allowed in law to send my statements and or any other information.
I suggested they read thr CAG forum to get a handle on what the law says....
Apparently my account closure was due to the fact i had taken legal action against them, i did ask what legal action that was ias i was unaware to date i have doen nothing but ask for the penalites to be refunded.
They will apparently get back to me.....
I'm not in a hurry with Egg, my balance isnt that much and will soon be paid off, sp me thinks i will wait until the accopunt is clear and then deal with this properly, plus the interest will continue to mount whilst i'm waiting.
Nice to have a few beer tokens for the summer hols.
Re: The OFT has given Egg dispensation to charge £16
The OFT have not given Egg special dispensation. This is from the OFT:
"Dear Mr Hyde* (*that's me, f**k your confidentiality clause Egg!)
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the charges imposed on you by Egg. You state that Egg are misinterpreting the statement made by this Office about the level of charges which we would consider acceptable.
I should explain that the £12 threshold for intervention is not a price cap. We are not saying that default fees should be set at £12 or that a court will consider a default fee to be fair just because it is at or below £12. We expect and are calling on the market to apply the principles of fairness set out in our statement, which leave room for different levels and models of charging provided they are based on limited administrative costs, and to recalculate their own fees In line with its current enforcement policy, the OFT will investigate the fairness of any fee set above the threshold. In limited exceptional cases, a card issuer may be able to show that it is fair and consistent with the principles set out in our statement to charge higher default fees.
In relation to Egg's claim that we have approved a charge of £16, that is not exactly the case. What we have said in our statement of principles at para 1.6 is:
On the analysis we have undertaken we have concluded that generally credit card default fees have been set at a significantly higher level than is fair for the purposes of the UTCCRs. The level of a fair fee will, however, be dependant on the precise business circumstances. Some exceptional factors, for example whether a card issuer requires (not merely allows) customers to give it direct debit authority to ensure a minimum payment is made, may lead to a lower level of instances of default. A card issuer operating a policy of this kind may be able to justify a higher level of default fee than one that does not because its relevant business costs are being recovered from a proportionately smaller number of defaults. However, even in the circumstances of this kind the card issuer may only recover the relevant limited administrative costs arising out of those defaults.
In other words there may be circumstances in which a charge in excess of £12 will be considered fair by a court if it can be shown to have been calculated in line with our principles and a true pre-estimate of the costs they have entailed in recovering losses.
In this context, we are grateful for the information that you have provided and we have logged it on our records in order to further our understanding of this market.
Re: The OFT has given Egg dispensation to charge £16
Evidently Egg pulled the wool over OFT's eyes, insinuating
On Late Payment punitive charge:
that because monthly minimum payment is in the case of Egg (different from other cards) extracted monthly via D/D, allegedly a lower proportion of Egg cardholders miss this monthly payment resulting in lower number of Late Payment penalties levied by Egg to finance the fixed costs of their late payment chasing office. If Egg wants to make this case, they need to present their actual statistics as evidence in court, under oath.
On Over-limit punitive charge:
Where this charge is extracted at a punitive and unlawful level by D/D month after month, in what way are such collections more costly for Egg than for other card companies? Quite the opposite, it costs Egg less to collect over-limit charge than for other cards.
The red herring
Punitive charges do not only result from the bouncing of D/Ds, plenty of over-limit punitive charges were levied by Egg via successful D/Ds. Egg evidently used the D/D as a red herring to bamboozle the OFT. All financial institutions who levy D/D's are required by law to give the undertaking at inception, that in cases where errors (including unlawful extractions) have been made, the institution wil refund said D/Ds in full.
So there you are, Mr Egg. You opened Pandora's box claiming preferential treatment, now make your stats public to back up your case. Come to court and present your figures under oath.
The OFT has given Egg dispensation to charge £16
callcentre staff regarding £16.00 late fee.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by rippedoffagain
