Jump to content


Something to use where Egg say they will only pay 12.00

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3738 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Heres a very good piece to put in your defence and argue at trial-in particular if you have multiple charges that were applied consecutively.You should use both arguements.




Now that the the OFTs rulings have been universally applied, and them saying they would take legal action against Credit Card Companies levying default charges above £12.00 each,

we are now starting to see Credit Card companies only agreeing to refund the portion of every charge over £12.00. In fact CitiCards supposedly "proved" (I'm using the term very loosely) that this is the amount it costs them per default.

Actually Citi claim that it costs them MORE than this !!!


To counter this strategy, it is necessary to use what I call the "consequential charges" arguement. In short what you argue is that but for the bank levying the first X unlawful, or partially unlawful, charges (usually a small number) then you wouldn't of incurred ANY of the other subsequent charges. Accordingly the subsequent charges should be refunded in full.


To illustrate this example lets assume that when you first open your account you incur £250.00 of default charges in your first two months of holding the account. Let's further assume that at every subsequent incidence of you incurring a default charge the balance of your account at the time is such that you wouldn't of incurred such a charge but for the PREVIOUS unlawful charges (i.e. you wouldn't of incurred the charge but for the previous £250.00 of charges levied on your account). Under such circumstances according to the BANK'S reasoning you would be entitled to a refund of every one of your "subsequent" charges in FULL and the portion over £12.00 of the initial charges.


A second arguement is the "inflation" arguement. Basically, the arguement goes that £12.00 today would be equivalent to £10.00 six years ago. Not much of a difference but the combined effect of this and the above arguement, in some circumstances, can be much more effective than the above one on its own.


Both of the above arguements would usually be brought up in a reply to a Defence. It is important to put at the start "the Claimant denies the Defendant's allegation that the Defendant's refunding of the portion of every charge over £12.00 relieves it of its liability to the Claimant".

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...