Cap1 & CCA return

[Sparkie1723]

pliny the penuriosus

 

What I said was that the OFT at this moment in time appear to consider £12 is reasonable THAT is the reason all the credit card companies reduced the fee and I also said that is up to a court to decide if it was reasonablei f someone gets as far as a court.

If the OFT did not say something to that effect...... why did the Companies reduce it to the amount of £12 .....why not 13, 14, 15 ,16 ,17 18 ,19 ,20 21, 22 ,23, or 24, pounds.

 

I am well aware of the Wilson v Secretary of state ruling, what I was getting at on my post was the fact they they charge ANYTHING at all......and that it does not cost the Credit card company a penny to receive a late payment in fact they make more money if someone is late.

 

If you want to report me to anyone go ahead mate, because who are you to correct when you have not got the gist of what I was actually saying me are you a judge of some description?!!!!!

 

SPARKIE

[joesoap]

pliny the penuriosus

 

What I said was that the OFT at this moment in time appear to consider £12 is reasonable THAT is the reason all the credit card companies reduced the fee and I also said that is up to a court to decide if it was reasonablei f someone gets as far as a court.

If the OFT did not say something to that effect...... why did the Companies reduce it to the amount of £12 .....why not 13, 14, 15 ,16 ,17 18 ,19 ,20 21, 22 ,23, or 24, pounds.

 

I am well aware of the Wilson v Secretary of state ruling, what I was getting at on my post was the fact they they charge ANYTHING at all......and that it does not cost the Credit card company a penny to receive a late payment in fact they make more money if someone is late.

 

If you want to report me to anyone go ahead mate, because who are you to correct when you have not got the gist of what I was actually saying me are you a judge of some description?!!!!!

 

SPARKIE

 

Now, now girls! We've already lost Richard Spud. It's not a good idea to lose anymore knowledgeable persons.

[yaffsimone1]

pliny the penuriosus

 

What I said was that the OFT at this moment in time appear to consider £12 is reasonable THAT is the reason all the credit card companies reduced the fee and I also said that is up to a court to decide if it was reasonablei f someone gets as far as a court.

If the OFT did not say something to that effect...... why did the Companies reduce it to the amount of £12 .....why not 13, 14, 15 ,16 ,17 18 ,19 ,20 21, 22 ,23, or 24, pounds.

 

I am well aware of the Wilson v Secretary of state ruling, what I was getting at on my post was the fact they they charge ANYTHING at all......and that it does not cost the Credit card company a penny to receive a late payment in fact they make more money if someone is late.

 

If you want to report me to anyone go ahead mate, because who are you to correct when you have not got the gist of what I was actually saying me are you a judge of some description?!!!!!

 

SPARKIE

 

Dont pull me apart just yet....below is something direct from OFT regarding charges:-

 

The OFT have not capped charges at £12.00 they merely state the charges have to be reasonable (like what Sparkie said) but they are not saying £12 is fair.

 

Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12. Setting a threshold for intervention is a pragmatic pro-consumer action that is designed to give the industry the opportunity to change its practice without litigation. It is supported by detailed guidance to the industry as to how to reduce the likelihood of public enforcement.

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults

Where we conclude that a fee above the threshold is unfair we are likely to challenge the charge but will have regard to all the circumstances in deciding whether to do so or not. We will regard default charges set below the threshold as either not unfair or insufficiently detrimental to the economic interests of consumers in all the circumstances to warrant regulatory intervention at this time. This does not affect in any way the statutory rights of individual consumers, or groups of such consumers, to challenge the level of default charges, either above or below this threshold

[dpick]

What I said was thet the OFT at this moment in time appear to consider £12 is reasonable THAT is the reason all the credit card companies reduced the fee and I also said that is up to a court to decide if it was reasonableif someone gets as far as a court.

If the OFT did not say something to that effect...... why did the Companies reduce it to the amount of £12 .....why not 13, 14, 15 ,16 ,17 18 ,19 ,20 21, 22 ,23, 24, pounds.

 

I am well aware of the Wilson v Secretary of state ruling, what I was getting at on my post was the fact they they charge ANYTHING......it does not cost the Credit card company a penny to receive a late payment in fact they make more money if someone is late.

 

If you want to report me to anyone go ahead mate, because who are you to correct me are you a judge!!!!!

 

SPARKIE

 

hi sparkie I cannot comment on weather OFT said charges unlawful or not as I haven't kept the print of the report I had. But I did use part of the report in my POC , along the lines of the OFT said that they would not pursue a credit card company if the charges were set at £12 or below, but they did not say that £12 was lawful. They are still penalties that do not reflect their loss or pre-estimate of cost.

 

What the OFT report said to me was we don't know true cost of a failed DD etc so if over £12 we will investigate under we wont.

 

And I think everyone is entitled to an opinion yourself included.

 

At least that my opinion

all the best dpick:p

[noomill060]

The OFt did not say that £12 was a reasonable charge.

 

It said that it would investigate CC charges above £12.

[yaffsimone1]

The OFt did not say that £12 was a reasonable charge.

 

It said that it would investigate CC charges above £12.

 

 

OFT said charges have to be reasonable so they have decided not to challenge charges under £12, in my eyes that says to me they think £12 is reasonable.... but they are not saying it is fair!

[paulwlton]

This £12.00 figure is purely a monetry threshold before intervention from the OFT. It should still be challenged.

[Sparkie1723]

That is exactly what I was attempting to get across, it is "implied" by the OFT that it is reasonable....at this moment in time. I certainly did not say they were lawful, and because of this and the fact that I believe credit card late payments do NOT cost the Credit Card companies a penny.......There could well be a cause to challenge them on Being "unjustly enriched" by making these charges ..even if they were £5.00, ....as opposed to the possibilty of a returned Direct debit or cheque carrying some kind of cost (maybe) but even then not £12.

"Unjust enrichment" is where someone gains at the loss of another, the card holder certainly suffers loss of the £12 and the Card company certainly gains the full £12 because it hasn't cost them a thing because it has not cost them a penny.

Now does everyone get what I mean??

In the case i'm going to bring against the RBOS which will "include" my penalty charge back claim, I'm going to make sure the barrister I'm using ensures that this part of the claim cannot be seperated from the rest and the RBOS at least will at last, have to prove their costs in court, and I'm also going for "unjust enrichment".

 

sparkie

[ian1969uk]

So Sparkie, are you finally accepting that there is no recourse to common law for the creditors?

[Sparkie1723]

Certainly no problem ....The last person who was perfect died 2007 years ago everyone can miss a point sometimes.

 

sparkie

[ian1969uk]

But this has been pointed out to you several times and you still persisted in posting it. That's not being less than perfect, that's just being stubborn, stupid or both.

[Sparkie1723]

Ian,

 

What I posted was if you read it again was the creditor "might" look for another way of getting his money....such as under common law and it was then I was pointed to Wilson v Sec State, now I know about that case something else I've learned......but lets face it mate if someone owed you money and you could'nt make him pay one way ....you would look for another way finally I might be stupid but ......I aint stubborn.

 

sparkie

[BLADES65]

Ian,

 

What I posted was if you read it again was the creditor "might" look for another way of getting his money....such as under common law and it was then I was pointed to Wilson v Sec State, now I know about that case something else I've learned......but lets face it mate if someone owed you money and you could'nt make him pay one way ....you would look for another way finally I might be stupid but ......I aint stubborn.

 

sparkie

 

I would hazard a guess you are being deliberately obtuse. :-|

[joesoap]

For goodness sake stop the bickering, grow up and return to the job in hand!

[noomill060]

Richard Spud posts infrequently, but his posts are always informative.

 

I dont think for a minute we've lost him. He'll be back when he has useful something to add.

[elsinore]

For goodness sake stop the bickering, grow up and return to the job in hand!

 

I agree, this thread is supposed to be about CONSUMER CREDIT ACT AGREEMENTS!

 

Els

[ian1969uk]

I'm sorry if people thought I was bickering, I wasn't. It is important for people to know that if a creditor has no credit agreement, then they cannot sue you under common law. Thinking otherwise will only work in the creditor's favour.

[elsinore]

I'm sorry if people thought I was bickering, I wasn't. It is important for people to know that if a creditor has no credit agreement, then they cannot sue you under common law. Thinking otherwise will only work in the creditor's favour.

 

Your point is very valid, Ian.

 

I was complaining more about the discussion on £12 default charges, which is really off topic. I should have made that clearer.

 

Els

[angry cat]

Why are members discussing £12 default charges?

 

This thread is about 'Consumer Credit Agreements'.

 

AC

[Guest Battleaxe]

Maybe the thread needs a massive tidying up and the extraneous posts off topic could be delted, so long as they don't detract from the debate

[joesoap]

Maybe the thread needs a massive tidying up and the extraneous posts off topic could be delted, so long as they don't detract from the debate

 

I agree entirely!

[Peterbard]

HI Peeps

 

Been away for a bit seems a bit chillly on here.

Like to catch up with the debate someone tell me what it is.

 

Anyone miss me

 

i'll take that as a no then

 

Peter

[Josie8]

Of course you were missed Pete..........Good to have you back

[noomill060]

Hi pete- welcome back! Thanks for the PM.

 

(See what happens when you're not here to keep an eye on us!)

[noomill060]

Was wondering about the enforceability of agreements when they are on both sides of a piece of cardboard and when they only send a photocopy of the application form side in response to your CCA request.

 

T&Cs (on the other side of the original document) not supplied, and no logical way of linking the two documents together.