Jump to content


peterbard

Credit Card charges vs Bank Charges

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3056 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

My understanding is that cc charges are mostly being paid back without the need for going to court. I just think the person in this case used the wrong arguments as far as I can see. Unless I'm missing something which as we all know is quite likely.:lol:

 

 

Hi Caro

 

No C you dont miss much, I think the banks are still paying out rather than going to court on credit card accounts in general.

In this case though, because the charge issue was an integral part of an enforceability action brought by Paul they had to make a judgement on the whole thing. Similar scenario to the Brandon case in that respect (with a similar result)

I think we have to take care not to convince ourselves that we have a winning argument just because the banks chose not to take it to court. It could be argued that this is where we went wrong in the bank charge issue. I know this has been a common misconception in several enforceability arguments.

I think the only true indicator of a successful argument is when it does go to court and wins.

Not saying of course that people shouldn’t challenge their credit card charges, but it is worth considering; after all there is Brandon as said earlier.

Looking at it from the banks perspective, it isn’t good business to go to court, there must be dozens of cases like the one I posted here every month yet none of the make the news, it just takes one win and the flood gates would open. It just isn’t worth the risk to them no matter how slight, unless they are pushed too hard and too often.

As I think I mentioned before, there seems that the banks are saying, yes these are penalty charges but they are also agreed charges under the contract.

Can anyone say why a penalty charge cannot be agreed under the contract, I struggle to see why it cannot? In fact I know that of several cases in contract law where a breach of contract triggers a contractual penalty which legitimately exceeds liquidated damages.

It is quite comon place in hire agrements for instance to have a clause that all breaches will be considered to be repudiatory.

You just have to say in the T and Cs that if a party does such a thing then they will incur a penalty of X nothing in either common law or the CCA to prohibit such a term that I know of.

I think that the telling point is that if the penalty charge is not considered in the agreement and is just triggered by a breach, then common law and the liquidated damage rule would be incurred.

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many builders and other builders contracts have penalty clauses built in which seems to be perfectly acceptable practice, but I guess that's not consumer law per se.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many builders and other builders contracts have penalty clauses built in which seems to be perfectly acceptable practice, but I guess that's not consumer law per se.

 

HI

it would seem that the courts are saying that it is consumer law, anyway hopefuly the appeal in Brandon will re adress the subject in our favour July i think.

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many builders and other builders contracts have penalty clauses built in which seems to be perfectly acceptable practice, but I guess that's not consumer law per se.

 

They are structured so that the builder is paid a bonus for completing early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or penalised if they don't complete on time aren't they?

 

Must admit I've not actually seen any such contracts but that is my understanding. Likewise if a supplier doesn't fulfil a contract on time they can be penalised - or is this also a bonus for completing early/on time?

 

I'm not disagreeing with you - just trying to learn. :-)


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or penalised if they don't complete on time aren't they?

 

Must admit I've not actually seen any such contracts but that is my understanding. Likewise if a supplier doesn't fulfil a contract on time they can be penalised - or is this also a bonus for completing early/on time?

 

I'm not disagreeing with you - just trying to learn. :-)

 

Whilst the effect is the same if the job is priced at £x and you provide for a bonus of £y for completing on time or if the job is priced at £x+y with a penalty of £y for completing late, the law allows an incentive but not a penalty where the party not at fault does not suffer a loss.

 

In the days of private mortgages if you agreed a rate of x% the mortgage deed would provide for a rate of x+2% reducible to x% if paid on time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleased to note that some are coming round to my way of thinking. :-)

 

In particular I think that the "All right the contract may be fine but have you applied it correctly or fairly?" approach is the right one.

 

What peterbard says in the first half of post 28 is worth taking on board. I am however having a little difficulty in following the second half from "As I think I mentioned before..." onwards. Would you care to run it past us again, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pleased to note that some are coming round to my way of thinking. :-)

I think it's worth exploring any and all ideas to see if they have merit. Personally my problem with the issue of fairness is how to define it in a way that can be demonstrated to the court. If you ask me I'd say bank charges are unfair - end of story. Unfortunately as we all know it's never that simple.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pleased to note that some are coming round to my way of thinking. :-)

 

In particular I think that the "All right the contract may be fine but have you applied it correctly or fairly?" approach is the right one.

 

What peterbard says in the first half of post 28 is worth taking on board. I am however having a little difficulty in following the second half from "As I think I mentioned before..." onwards. Would you care to run it past us again, please?

 

HI

Sure

Perhaps i phrased it badly

 

in Brandon the judge says

21. The law on this point is if the parties agree a reasonable sum to be paid as compensation for breach of contract, known as liquidated damages, the courts will enforce the agreement. The courts will not enforce a term that is a penalty for non-performance."

47. And he went on to express his view that these were a genuine pre-estimate of loss which is the test for liquidated damages and not a penalty. In my judgment that was a view to which he was perfectly entitled to come

To me this means that the judge is accepting that these are a charge for breaching the agrement, he seems to be saying that the only difference between it being classed as a penalty charge or liquidated damges is that it is mentined on the T and Cs.

In other words he is accepting that it is a puntive charge for going overdrawn on the account but it is an agreed charge never the less, and that even though it is not reflective of the actual cost, is never the less legitimate and not a penalty because it is agreed.

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

JUst to ensure you se what i am getting at itis this bit of the judgement

 

in Brandon the judge says

21. The law on this point is if the parties agree a reasonable sum to be paid as compensation for breach of contract, known as liquidated damages

 

Parties can agree for a resonabe sum to be paid for compensation for breach, so it does not have to be an actual reflection of cost as long as it is agreed in the contract.

 

As i said there is a fairly standard clause in many hire agrements that says that all breaches wil be considered to be repudiatory, this is , to me a silmilar thing. It is saying that the sanction for any breach can be over and above the actual losses on the contract( in the case of a hire agrement future income from hire charges).

In effect the agrement of both parties to the term in the contract seems to determine whart are genuine liquidaated costs under the contract.

 

In other words , it is pointless going into court and sayng that the cost of sending a letter is x and the cost of returning a payment is only y because you have already agreed the total charge for a breach, the actual real cost is irrellevant.

Peter

 

Peter

Edited by peterbard
hmm

VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HI

Sure

Perhaps i phrased it badly

 

in Brandon the judge says

21. The law on this point is if the parties agree a reasonable sum to be paid as compensation for breach of contract, known as liquidated damages, the courts will enforce the agreement. The courts will not enforce a term that is a penalty for non-performance."

47. And he went on to express his view that these were a genuine pre-estimate of loss which is the test for liquidated damages and not a penalty. In my judgment that was a view to which he was perfectly entitled to come

To me this means that the judge is accepting that these are a charge for breaching the agrement, he seems to be saying that the only difference between it being classed as a penalty charge or liquidated damges is that it is mentined on the T and Cs.

In other words he is accepting that it is a puntive charge for going overdrawn on the account but it is an agreed charge never the less, and that even though it is not reflective of the actual cost, is never the less legitimate and not a penalty because it is agreed.

Peter

 

Yes

These types of contract are within the domain of private law and the Judge is practically saying that whenever there is a consensual agreement between the parties to the contract...subject to the principles of capacity,object,...etc it is an agreement between the parties...'Doctrine of Privacy' asnd so the issue as to costs is irrelevant no matter what the liquidated (agreed) damages amounted to.

 

m2ae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

For the sake of argument, I would say that maybe we have this wrong.

Maybe a contractual breach only reflects genuine liquidated costs because it is just a mechanism to distance it from the repudiatory breach of contract.

In that the former cannot entitle the contractor to claim all liabilities under the contract.

It is not really meant to be used in the context that we are using it in.

This has to be the case. If we said that the reason a penalty charge cannot be enforced is because a contractor must not profit from the contractual breach, then no charge over basic costs would be legal.

It has been established that these charges do make a profit for the banks and that theses profits subsidise their free banking model.

However you look at it eventually it comes down to the agreement.

You say a default charge must be representative of the true cost to the contractor.

So who decides what that true cost is? Surely the most equitable way is by opinion or agreement of the two parties involved.

This is what the contract does; it states what the charges will be;

Back to square one.

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are on the right lines here. The point to remember is that the aim of the remedies for breach of contract is to put the party not in breach in the same position he would have been in if there had been no breach and no more. Accordingly, if remedies are written into a contract they must not be penal, that is they must not result in the non-defaulting party ending up better off. Because the law likes to be flexible and interfere no more than necessary in private agreements, it allows the parties to agree in advance what the amount of damages should be in the case of specified breaches - so long as the amounts agreed are a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In determining whether a liquidated damages clause is penal the court will take various factors into account but having regard to the overriding principle that the amount to be paid should not be "extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be provided to have followed from the breach" [Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Co Ltd]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we've gone back about 3 years on these arguments - all this is splashed all over the forum about bank charges, are we saying we're giving up the fight on cc charges next as well? I, for one, am not defeated by this.


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people are on the right lines here. The point to remember is that the aim of the remedies for breach of contract is to put the party not in breach in the same position he would have been in if there had been no breach and no more. Accordingly, if remedies are written into a contract they must not be penal, that is they must not result in the non-defaulting party ending up better off. Because the law likes to be flexible and interfere no more than necessary in private agreements, it allows the parties to agree in advance what the amount of damages should be in the case of specified breaches - so long as the amounts agreed are a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In determining whether a liquidated damages clause is penal the court will take various factors into account but having regard to the overriding principle that the amount to be paid should not be "extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be provided to have followed from the breach" [Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage Co Ltd]

 

HI

Yes thanks for that( sorry Car i wasnt invovled in the arguments some years ago so i am attempting to catch up somewhat)

 

So the argument can still be made that the charges on credit cards are unreasonable under common law even though they are "agreed" in the contract, because they are brought about by beach.

 

It would seem then that the OFT sets the guidance as to what is agreed, i see.

 

This would then seem to be the only argument available to credit cards as the Utccs would not apply if the payments were negotiated(as per section 5)and an ancilliary charge so exempt under 6.

 

Peter

 

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bump


£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HI

Yes thanks for that( sorry Car i wasnt invovled in the arguments some years ago so i am attempting to catch up somewhat)

 

So the argument can still be made that the charges on credit cards are unreasonable under common law even though they are "agreed" in the contract, because they are brought about by beach.

 

It would seem then that the OFT sets the guidance as to what is agreed, i see.

 

This would then seem to be the only argument available to credit cards as the Utccs would not apply if the payments were negotiated(as per section 5)and an ancilliary charge so exempt under 6.

 

Peter

 

Peter

 

More or less, yes.

 

A contractual provision which imposes a penalty is unenforceable whether individually negotiated or not. The question can be decided without regard to the UTCCR - indeed that has to be the case because not all contracts are subject to the UTCCR.

 

The whole purpose of the UTCCR is to protect consumers from small print conditions, that is conditions that in practice the consumer is not going to read. If a term is specifically negotiated between consumer and supplier then it is not open to be challenged under the UTTCR, but can still be challenged otherwise, for example under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or the law relating to contractual penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

So as i now understand it a degree of negotiation is permitted between what is regarded as an actual cost and a penalty. Yet the amount of this negotiation must be reasonable in proportion to the cost of the breach.

So it does set parameters regarding what is allowed(even if agreed) and these can still be challenged.

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

So as i now understand it a degree of negotiation is permitted between what is regarded as an actual cost and a penalty. Yet the amount of this negotiation must be reasonable in proportion to the cost of the breach.

So it does set parameters regarding what is allowed(even if agreed) and these can still be challenged.

Peter

 

No, Penalties are always Penalties and are unenforceable by their nature. The difficulty is in assessing whether it is a Penalty, not about whether it's unenforceable because it is/isn't a Penalty. No amount of negotiation can determine a Penalty as being enforceable - UCT 1977 puts an end to that. (as did a lot of caselaw before it) The effect of a Penalty charge is for one party to profit from a breach. (or a detriment to the other, whereby they still profit in practice) There's also the issue of proving what is a breach and what isn't - the argument goes that a breach covered in the contract is not a breach, as the parties considered it on entering the agreement. (Which is where the UTCCR come in for protection of consumers, who aren't capable of full understanding of contract law in it's raw form)


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Car

Yes i unerstand that but the Dunlop case and also the Brandon judgment suggests that the the assesment of what is a penalty is not set in stone.

It does not have to absolutely reflect costs, that to an extent it can be agreed.

Isnt this what the OFT are aying when they set the level at £12.

I think the argument could be that this amount s not reasonable or proportianate and does in fact represent a penalty.

I must agree with A that can see no way that the Utccs can be used here.

 

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Car

Yes i unerstand that but the Dunlop case and also the Brandon judgment suggests that the the assesment of what is a penalty is not set in stone.

It does not have to absolutely reflect costs, that to an extent it can be agreed.

Isnt this what the OFT are aying when they set the level at £12.

I think the argument could be that this amount s not reasonable or proportianate and does in fact represent a penalty.

I must agree with A that can see no way that the Utccs can be used here.

 

Peter

 

The OFT have said that they won't investigate under £12 - that doesn't mean they think this amount is fair. It could be said that they don't have resources available to deal with claims under this amount, for example. There's too much "the OFT says £12 is fair" for my liking.

 

The UTCCR can't be redundant in these arguments when the SC themselves hinted that some of the regs that went unexplored in the test case should be considered in the future. They also said it's for Parliament to review the situation, so I understand it to mean they found that judgment on the law, but don't agree with it and want it looked at. Had the UTCCR being enshrined in caselaw, we wouldn't have been in this situation as it would have changed.


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Car

 

My point was more bthat the OFT were considering the charge as not to represent a penalty although still being brought about by the breach.

 

As said within limit the amount of liquidated damages can be agreed. They have been.

 

Did the SC say that the Utccs could still apply?

 

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not entering this "debate" as I have no formal legal knowledge to equip me to do so - only a Rocket Science degree augmented by around 40 years post graduate expereince in the University of Adult Life. I used to understand Rocket Science and things likeWave Particle Duality, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (but not sure about this now) and Einstein's Theory of Relativity (and why Time travel is theoretically possible). However I have NEVER understood much of what our Legal Systems call "justice".

 

To provide some HARD FACTUAL INFORMATION. This site abounds with countless examples to support Car's post #46 above - where claimants have challenged the Credit Card companies to PROVE or SUBSTANTIATE their claim that their new "lower and fair"£12 charges are "fair". I know of many cases where the card companies have chickened out of doing so by not going to court - and have paid back ALL the charges - including the first £12 - and ALL associated contractual interest.

 

I know of NO CASES since the OFT report where the card companies have taken this to the wire and gone to court to argue the £12 charge is "fair". I don't believe this was a commercial judgement because it was "cheaper to pay the claims" - as many such claims can be significant four figures or even five figure pay outs. I myself was given over £5k by HBOS as a full refund of all visa credit card default charges and associated contractual interest as soon as I threatened court action! Surely it would certainly cheaper to fight mine or some of the even larger cases - provided they knew they would win?

 

I therefore contend the card companies KNOW they risk being hammered - and getting the precedent set in court - if they fight these claims too - and are happy to accept the status quo where even now the majority of default charges are not claimed back - and those that are by and large accept the fiction that the OFT has deemed £12 to be "fair".

 

I sincerely believe the Banks would probably have continued to pay out most bank charge caases if the OFT had not suck its oar in and muddied the waters with an action where they were totally outmanoeuvered by the collective might of all the Banks and Nationwide.

 

BD


£50k saved and £7k charges refunded:

MBNA & A&L 35% F&F direct - saved £23k. Birmingham Midshires £1700 charges refunded

Abbey Loan/BCW 50% - saved £2k. Barclaycard/CSL 40% - saved £6k

Monument/DCA 35% - saved £1k. LTSB/Wescot 50% - saved £4k

HBOS Visa £5k charges refund via Blair Oliver Scott

RBS Direct Line/(genuine) solicitors June 2010 40% - saved £3k

Morgan Stanley/Aktiv Kapital £11k SB Nov 2010

Over £40k balance write off and charges refunds to fight for:

HBOS O/d Charges £5k. Egg Loan/Aktiv Kapital CCA Dispute £8k

Egg Card/Fredrickson taking £5 monthly but CCA & Charges Dispute £4k

Goldfish/1st Credit DN/TN Dispute £9k. Capital One/CSL charges claim £4k

Barclaycard/CSL taking £5 monthly on £10k debt

 

I hope I have helped - if I have please hit my star - and recognise the others who have helped too.

Bigdebtor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Yes i managed to get a couple of payoutss my self some years ago.

Unfortunately banks not prefering to take thier chances in court is not evidence of a succesful argument.

As said earlier.

 

Therre are two cases earlier in this thread where courts have said these charges are legitimate i am affraid and more on the foruim.

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aquitas

Thanks for the info, I am trying to get my head around the technicalities of this as you may have seen.

I apologise to those who are not interested ( well no I don’t actually, its my thread)

One of my problems is differentiating between a contractual breach and a penalty for triggering a contractual term.

For instance if the agreement says “ you pay so much a month”, and you don’t then that is a breach of the agreement, and as you say the penalty must put both parties in the same position post breach.

But what happens if the failure to pay mearly triggers a clause in the agreement, which says “ if the debtor fails to meet a payment then he must pay a fee”.

This is not really a breach is it? It is just an option offered by the agreement which incurs a particular cost. Does the cost have to be proportionate under common law?

Peter

Edited by peterbard

VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3056 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...