Mrs.SS v Cap One - reclaim of Credit Card Charges

[Brian2009]

I'm sorry you lost, as you had put so much work into your claim. On the positive side, i wonder how much it cost them for the barrister to prepare and attend todays hearing?? Would it have been cheaper to pay you instead?

Brian

[slick132]

Hi SS,

 

I'm really sorry to see this - I know just how much work you put into your preparation. This must be seen as a warning to those who think they can just follow a formula, expecting the bank to fold before the court date.

 

Your clearly impressed the judge with your preparation and presentation of the case. It was also very good that the judge allowed you to run the case on behalf of Mrs SS. Other claimant's have no been so fortunate.

 

As I understand, Cap One's barrister did not seek costs against you and, for that, you must be very relieved.

 

I'll report this to the Site Team. It may be that we need to reconsider how the Limitation Act 1980 should be used where charges are claimed beyond 6 years.

[Still_surviving]

Thank you for the kind words guys....at the end of the day its only money lol (and as slick said, the question of costs had started to worry me once i saw the kind of barrister they had retained)....

 

One point I wanna make....

 

In response to Brian2009's point about how much it must have cost them with the barrister..... Think of it this way - perhaps they took the view that by retaining a top class barrister, she could develop some arguments that could not only squash little old me, but could used against lots of other litigants. (Hmmm i think that makes me a guinea pig lol). By knowing that this argument against the limitations act is a winner, think of all the future hefty charges + compound interest over six years old claims they can beat in the future..... probably a damn good investment on their part.

 

On the other hand I could have just got a duff judge, but i really really dont think so. He was good on consumer law, and we spent a damn long time going through the 90 odd pages of the Kleinwort benson case.

[bustthematrix]

SS

May I say a very very well done for pursuing this in the manner that you have. It is always a David and Goliath affair when coming up against the banks. I feel for you and your Mrs but am heartened by the positive way you have responded. As you say "it is only money" at the end of the day and this attitude says a lot for you. To the banks it's ALL about money.

[bustthematrix]

I'll report this to the Site Team. It may be that we need to reconsider how the Limitation Act 1980 should be used where charges are claimed beyond 6 years.

Hi Slick, yes please do! As I posted earlier, as a community, CAG now really needs to look at these new arguments and strategies lenders are furnishing, at a much higher legal level. They've gone back to the drawing board and revised their approach so we have to adapt accordingly to have any chance of success. Reclaiming of charges has been a mainstay of the advice here for years and it now appears the banks are certainly willing to put in much more of a fight than before and if CAG continues, as it does, to advocate that people reclaim, then the work must be done to ensure every chance of success in the real world - not dreamland. Are the POCs, as they stand, still worthwhile? Knockbacks from recent cases suggest they need revisiting, even if only to address some of the new objections being raised.

 

I doubt the recent losses are just down to biased poorly informed judges.

[bustthematrix]

They are also using the OFT v Abbey National test case as concrete proof that default sums cannot be assessed as penalty. Yes yes yes I know the case didn not apply to credit cards (must have said that in court three times) but they now assert that s6.2 of the UTCCR 1999 enables the two to be linked.

Slick, I think this above point MUST be added to any further detailed high level review CAG/MSE or its partners now conduct. From responses received from lenders and comments I have seen on some mortgage arrears fee threads, it is now very clear that lenders now wish to use the above OFT test case (which was previously understood to be a narrow victory applying only to bank held current accounts), as a weapon to shoot down ALL penalty charge claims.

 

Can this really be allowed to happen?

[slick132]

Site Team are already discussing the outcome of this case.

 

[bustthematrix]

Good on yer!

[Old Cogger]

Well 6 years, in that case any alledged purchases on a credit card cannot be chased in court as beyond 6 year limitations, wonder if a court case by somebody soon, they cap one would wish they stopped spending their profits on somebody to attend court for saving pence, in their case - there is a thought?

[MARTIN3030]

Well 3 things come to mind here.

 

1.Andrew Smith did not look at any Credit Card Terms and Conditions in the test case,and I would say that Credit Card terms and conditions are VERY MUCH materially different to those of bank current accounts.

 

2.That when the OFT concluded their investigation into credit card charges and forced the card issuers to fix their default fees at £12-the banks were very quick to point out that this could not be seen as any impact on current account charges since the two were completely different.

 

3.Site team are aware of a case for reclaim of CC charges,in which the Barrister when questioned by the Judge as to whether the action of the claimant could fall on the back of the Supreme Court ruling into bank charges,replied that it could not since it did not apply to Credit Cards.

[Still_surviving]

Martin

 

Well I must have a good 5 mins during my court hearing, where I had the chance to stress that the case was specifically not about credit cards and how the two operate on wholly different business models. The judge in my case seemed to be quite well up on the case, but he was at pains to stress that in his view, because of UTCCR 6.2, default sums could not be assessed as penalty charges.

 

If that was/has been the case, how the hell did so many people win their claims previously?

 

In my particular circumstance, Cap One paid out all the charges up to six years old, just as they filed their defence, without any consultation with me, and with the minimum of interest. This in effect made the bulk of my claim about the older charges, and thus about limitation. The judge frankly just wasnt interested when or why they repaid the newer sums - he just said 'well theyve been repaid'. We then spent a very focussed time on the limitations act s.32.1c and on the skeleton argument that had been devised to blow the Kleinwort Benson case out of the water.

 

Now Ive had time to reflect, I do feel I was treated okay, its just that judges will naturally lean toward the qualified side of the room for directions on the way the case should proceed. There was no chuminess between the two, it was all very businesslike. Maybe if i hadnt been a LiP things could have panned out differently....but I also think the judge was minded this was a small claims case, and once the barrister started mentioning how much time would be needed to dissect the terms and conditions on the subject of penalties, he backed off. Only he knows his motive.