£12 Credit Card Charges?

[Mike295]

Has the new £12 charge for Credit Cards taken effect yet, if not does anybody know when effect will take place? Reason i ask is because only this week i had a charge from Capital 1 for £25.

 

Thannks ...... Mike.

[clint1974]

RBS is £12 as i spoke to them this week and that is there fee

[livelylad]

Has the new £12 charge for Credit Cards taken effect yet, if not does anybody know when effect will take place? Reason i ask is because only this week i had a charge from Capital 1 for £25.

 

Thannks ...... Mike.

hi as far as i am aware all cc are now £12 they reduced their fees on the 28th june or july.

[blacksheep1979]

natwest are now that as well - still doesn't stop you claiming them back

[jb79]

Has anyone had time to claim against this fee yet, could be interesting.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Has the new £12 charge for Credit Cards taken effect yet, if not does anybody know when effect will take place? Reason i ask is because only this week i had a charge from Capital 1 for £25.

 

Thannks ...... Mike.

 

The new £12 charge? Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you are being led astray by the money lenders.

 

The £12 mentioned by the OFT in their report is NOT a "new" fair and lawful charge but rather the level above which the OFT will consider to be automatically unfair. A charge of less than £12 will not automatically be considered fair though.

 

English (and Scottish) Law is clear on the issue. A clause in a contract that imposes a penalty upon one party is unlawful at Common Law and a clause which requires a person acting as a consumer to indemnify another against negligence is void under the terms of Sec.4 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, unless the inclusion of the clause it's self meets a test of reasonableness. The fact that the charge created by such a clause is set at a particular level does not make the actual clause that provides for said charge valid.

 

P.

[Bookworm]

Phantom, what are you on about?

 

OP is asking when the cap was due to be implemented, which was the end of August. He never said anything about "fair" or "lawful".

 

Yes, we know it's not an "allowed" fee per se, but the point is that the c/c companies were all supposed to drop their charges to a maximum £12 by the end of August, and if they haven't, then OP should contact the OFT ASAP and make them aware, as it is a clear breach of the OFT's decision.

[sirowealot]

Hi

 

Just so I understand this properly, just because the banks have reduced their charges to £12 now, it doesn't mean we can't chase them for those too?

 

I ask only because I've only just started sending out SARs, and in 40 days time, I'll probably have more charges levied but at the new rate and I need to know what I can claim for and when the 6 year time limit starts and ends.

 

Thanks

 

SirOweALot

[clint1974]

I am due to send of a claim to RBS Credit Cards £156 in total. One of the charges is £12 so i can still claim this right?

[Glenn UK]

the charges are penalty charges, anyhting other than covering the cost of the admin of the breach which gives rise to the penalty is an unfair charge.

 

So unless they claim that their costs are £12 for sending an automated letter then its a penlaty thats unfair and can be reclaimed.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[Bookworm]

So unless they claim that their costs are £12 for sending an automated letter then its a penlaty thats unfair and can be reclaimed

 

And EVEN if they claim it costs £12 for sending an automated letter!

[Glenn UK]

LOL

 

I suppose in theory if it acutally did cost them £12 quid it wouldnt be unfair, have you seen the report to the treasury that gives an indication of their costs?

 

I dont have it here, its at home but it was as you would suspect pennies.

 

Glenn

[Bookworm]

NO, I haven't, but if you get a chance to scan it:

 

[email protected], please. Or a link.

 

I am VERY interested to read this. (Now there's a sentence I never thought I would state, ever, about costs!)

[dave]

but the point is that the c/c companies were all supposed to drop their charges to a maximum £12 by the end of August,

 

Actually, the OFT said nothing of the sort. In fact they said the complete opposite (about the £12) - they said that "this does NOT mean that credit card companies should simply drop their charges to £12"

[dave]

From the OFT announcement:

 

The OFT is not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.

[Glenn UK]

Try here

 

Banking Review Final Report

 

You want chapter 7

 

Existing price structure

 

7.9

Current accounts are priced in a way which recovers total costs but does not reflect the underlying costs of any one account. There are significant fixed costs in providing a current account, as well as transaction costs. Face to face transactions are more costly to provide than their internet or telephone equivalents so banks usually lose money on them overall. To give an idea of actual costs, ATM withdrawals cost up to 30 pence, automated credit transfers about 10 pence and cashback transactions about 15 pence. Paying in cheques, by whatever method, costs on average 45 pence. Using a branch counter for transactions costs about £1. In round terms, the incremental set up cost of a current account is about £25. Incremental fixed maintenance costs, including quarterly paper statements, add around £10 a year.

 

 

7.10

Banks make money by using the positive balances held in current accounts, on which little or no interest is paid. Accounts in credit in the UK in 1998 had an average positive balance of £1,175, each generating up to £75 income for the suppliers. Banks also charge interest and fees on overdrafts. This implies that, overall, the provision of current accounts is a profitable activity. However, there is significant cross subsidy between different types of customer. The banks do not seem to have the data needed to quantify the degree of cross subsidy, but the direction is clear. The beneficiaries are customers who maintain low positive balances and make heavy use of high cost transactions for which they are not charged. The losers are customers with high positive balances who make few face to face transactions. Because prices are set nationally, there is also likely to be a cross subsidy between geographical locations with different cost bases. Busy urban branches are likely to subsidise small rural ones, for instance.

 

The full report and all sections are available i havent read every word, you'll understand why if you look, but this bit caught my eye.

 

HTH

 

 

Glenn

[Bookworm]

Dave, I know that. What I am trying to say is that we all knew that not a single one of them was going to drop their charges below that, right? So it was reasonable to infer that they would drop their charges to £12.

 

The point is not about the £12 on this thread, it's about WHEN the OFT expected to see the drop, any drop, implemented, and that date was the end of August, as I recall (On that, I am happy to be corrected, it's a while since I read it! ). OP has been charged £25 and it is mid-september, so Capital 1 seems to be in breach of the deadline. You with me, Sir? ;-)

[dave]

Yes, I know that was your point.

 

However, I just didn't want the misunderstanding that seems to be floating around that the OFT said 12 quid was fair to propagate any further.

 

Anyway, the 'offence' could have happened over 28 days ago - hence the charge is over the £12.

[pugsley]

I just opened a natwest step account and the charges are still really hgih I think it was £38 for unauthorised o/d, anyway I hope these charges have been amended and it is a fact that the booklets haven't been reprinted.

[Bookworm]

Nope, bank charges won't have changed and won't change for a while yet. The compulsory lowering of the charges is only on credit cards.

[Bookworm]

However, I just didn't want the misunderstanding that seems to be floating around that the OFT said 12 quid was fair to propagate any further.

 

Ah. You might want to contact a few banks and c/c companies and tell them that then, lol. Because they seem adamant. ;-)

 

 

Anyway, the 'offence' could have happened over 28 days ago - hence the charge is over the £12.

 

Now, THAT's an interesting point.... Surely, the new charge should be applied from the OFT's deadline regardless of when the "offence" happened? In the same way that they are now applying higher inter interest rate on the overall balance, rather than just the new purchases since the new tariff came in force?

 

Thoughts?

[jb79]

Interseting point in the Tresury dociument there is cross subsidy between differing customers this is an illegal trade practice, another string to the bow.

[orfoster]

Just for people that didn't know, i have had to research alot on cheques lately with the banks being silly with me. Someone might find this useful

 

The reason it costs them 45p to deal with a cheque is because its sent to a centre in Milton Keynes i believe (this applies to all banks) and is sent 1st class this is why it can take up to 5 days for a cheque to clear, however the system that is in place should mean that the cheque should clear in 3 days. I realise this is off topic but someone may find it interesting.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Phantom, what are you on about?

 

OP is asking when the cap was due to be implemented, which was the end of August. He never said anything about "fair" or "lawful".

 

Yes, we know it's not an "allowed" fee per se, but the point is that the c/c companies were all supposed to drop their charges to a maximum £12 by the end of August, and if they haven't, then OP should contact the OFT ASAP and make them aware, as it is a clear breach of the OFT's decision.

 

Sorry, from what OP had written I got the impression that he thought that the £12 figure was one which the OFT had ordered the CC providers to impliment as a fair and lawful fighure which couldn't challenged. They haven't, of course, and such a fee can still be challenged.

 

P.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Hi

 

Just so I understand this properly, just because the banks have reduced their charges to £12 now, it doesn't mean we can't chase them for those too?

 

I ask only because I've only just started sending out SARs, and in 40 days time, I'll probably have more charges levied but at the new rate and I need to know what I can claim for and when the 6 year time limit starts and ends.

 

Thanks

 

SirOweALot

 

In answer to your first question - correct.

 

The 6 year limit runs from the date at which the original cause of action arose. Normally this would either be the date of the charge or the date at which you became aware that said charge was actually unlawful. This limit is set by the Limitation Act 1980. However, the Act provides an exemption from this 6 year limit if you can show that the unlawfulness of the charge had been hidden by the bank that made it, that they had decieved you into paying it. In such a case the 6 year limit will start running from the point at which you discovered the banks deception, or the point at which you could/should reasonably have discovered it. Sensibly, I think the earliest that customers could reasonably have been expected to know about it was the time of the OFT report in May 2006. The banks, I suspect, should have known about it at least two years prior to the report because they must have known that the OFT was investigating. In reality I suspect that the banks knew about it decades ago but it's proving it that is the problem. There is a seperate thread on this matter somewhere.

 

P.