Telewest

i have today sent off my Subject Access Request to telewests data controller as they over the last 3 years or so have been charging me £10 for late payments on my phone account. i really got p***** with them that i thought lets try this with them. same rule they are data controllers and owe me approx £290-350 in late payment fees. will update if anything should happen.

[wandererpaul]

i understood that a £12 charge was acceptable in reading the bank cases where charges are too high. a more realistic £12 would suffice. so being charged £10 is acceptable within the courts guidelines. I believe credit card companies are no lowering their charges to £12 but increasing interest %'s to make up there shortfall.

I think that if you've missed payments then sometimes you have to accept the consequences.

[Bookworm]

wandererpaul, you understood wrong. Very wrong, in fact.

The OFT said that £12 was the level at which they themselves would take legal action, and specifically stated that it did NOT mean that £12 was an acceptable amount, and that only a judge could decide what was or wasn't lawful.

Furthermore, the OFT is not a court of law, so there is no such thing as "court guidelines".

The law is quite clear: They (be bank, credit card company, or telephone company for that matter) can only charge you what your breach of contract costs them. If it cost them £10, then they would be entitled to charge £10. If it only costs them 50p, then that's what they should charge, otherwise it's unlawful. Simple as that.

I suggest a good reading of the FAQs and indeed the OFT's statement as a matter of urgency if you believe what you posted above.

[Movingon]

Not only that, but the OFT specifically states in their statement that the £12 cut-off was a temporary guideline to begin to force companies "towards compliance".

i think that a lot members of the forum are not reading between the lines. as if you look at it one basic rule can be applied everywhere. be it police fines,pcns,debit card ,credit card etc. can somebody correct me on this ?

[Bookworm]

Incorrect.

Police fines and PCNs are not ruled by contract law, and are meant to be penalties, eg deterrents.

Banks, credit cards, catalogues, telecommunications companies are ruled by contract law and can not make a profit from your breach of contract, nor use the amount to deter you.

you just need to make sense of the rule or guidlines and adjust it as needed for the situation. i believe that if these guidlines were followed the government can be made accountable for every fine they think off. also the same with local councils. doe3s it really cost them £60or £100 in some cases to issue a summons as often there are hundreds of people summonsed for the same day and time so £60 times 200 would net a council £12000 with approx only ££64 for postage and i wouls say £8 for envelopes and £2.00 for the paper and i would say approx £300 for their reps to turn up. also renting the local magistrates court room another £150 for the day ? less than a grand but do not for get that theses are usually held once a week so think of all the money rolling in. i do not think that the councils would be able to justify this in a county court or would it ?

fines can be challenged as well as the government are making aprofit out of every fine they issue. the police are paid through our taxes etc and so on.

[Bookworm]

You're not listening.

CONTRACT law = penalties unlawful.

Police, etc do NOT come under contract law. They are MEANT to be deterrent.

It's not a matter of "interpreting" the rules.

I won't say anymore on the subject, I can't make it any clearer than that.