EGG credit card charges mr p **WON**

[Mistermind]

No claimant ever denied that going overlimit or missing the minimum monthly payment was not a breach of contract, meriting a fair charge. 100% refund of penalty charges was an 18-month aberration arising out of the shyness of banks and cards about setting foot in court.

 

We are told the OFT test case will arrive in 8 to 12 weeks time, but that the OFT will drop their case if banks voluntarily lowered their charges to a level the OFT have in mind. When either event occurs, 100% refunds will become obsolete.

 

The looming test case casts a long shadow. I believe 100% refunds may dry up ahead of the first hearing, and claimants who want 100% refund are therefore in a race against time.

[phatram]

So what should I do ?

[TANZARELLI]

Carry on with your claim as normal.

[Mistermind]

Certainties:

 

End of 100% refund -- the OFT test case will adjudicate a lawful level of charge, and retrospective refunds will only be for the excess above that level. If that level was adjudicated at £16 for bank charges and not binding on credit card charges, nevertheless Small Claims Judge is likely to be influenced by same, i.e. you may be awarded zero refund with zero for your legal fees incurred. In the run-up to the test case (in 8 to 12 weeks?) more and more hearings will likely be stayed including credit card hearings, so the end of 100% charges refund will in practice arrive before the test case commencement date.

 

Fate of Contractual Interst claim -- if your previous legal paperwork indicated a claim based on Mutuality and Reciprocity principles, then your interest claim is as good as lost, due to the previous precedent of defeat in the High Court. To adopt a different legal argument, e.g. reclaiming only the interest demonstrably shown as levied on your monthly statements, start again. Interest reclaim is of course dependent on charges refund -- if zero charges refund is awarded, then zero interest refund is applicable.

 

Uncertainties:

 

The date of the test case hearing.

The charge level proposed by the OFT (who said £16 on 5th April 2006).

The charge level awarded by the High Court.

 

Whether there will be appeals by either side all the way up to the House of Lords then to the European Community Court, in this case involving 27 billion pounds of retrospective refunds.

 

130 birds in the hand now,

or an unknown number of birds in the bush god knows when.

 

If you reject the Tomlin Order no doubt you would post about it.

So the absence of such a post might be taken as acceptance of 100% charges refund?

[phatram]

Dont know what to do tbh.

[zootscoot]

The test case has nothing to do with credit card charges. The OFT already stated £12 was a level at which they themselves would not bring an action in relation to credit card charges. Since then numerous people have had 100% of their charges refunded.

 

You are only claiming the 8% interest so that should not be a problem. (Although compound interest can be claimed under the Sempra metals v IRC ruling)

 

You can either sign the Tomlin Order for a short settlement (there is no reason why you should accept less) or continue with your claim for the full amount.

[phatram]

Thanks Zoot

[Micky the Hippo]

I got as far as LBA with Egg and got zip

 

It wasn't enough to go to court on really so I've left it there

 

Maybe they figured it wasn't enough for me to go further on

[zootscoot]

I got as far as LBA with Egg and got zip

 

It wasn't enough to go to court on really so I've left it there

 

Maybe they figured it wasn't enough for me to go further on

 

You could always go the FOS route happy in the knowledge they get charged for the privelege of the FOS investigating

[Micky the Hippo]

ah, only saw that for the first time late last night

 

I need to get all my cc cards rolling, they're all in limbo, some want claiming, some part paid, some only sent some of the statements

 

been real busy

 

thanks

[steven4064]

been real busy

All that wallowing in glorious mud down in the hollow must really take it out of a hippo

[phatram]

The test case has nothing to do with credit card charges. The OFT already stated £12 was a level at which they themselves would not bring an action in relation to credit card charges. Since then numerous people have had 100% of their charges refunded.

 

You are only claiming the 8% interest so that should not be a problem. (Although compound interest can be claimed under the Sempra metals v IRC ruling)

 

You can either sign the Tomlin Order for a short settlement (there is no reason why you should accept less) or continue with your claim for the full amount.

 

I am claiming back the overlimit fees and interest on those fees at the rate Egg charged me for being overlimit @ 22.9% .

Is that going to make any difference Zoot?

Thanks

[zootscoot]

Do you mean 22.9% on the charges from the date the charge was incurred until the date the charge was paid (if they have been paid) or 22.9% from the date the charge was incurred until the date you submitted your claim?

[phatram]

To when I submitted my claim

[zootscoot]

Do you still have a balance on the card which consists of the charges?

[phatram]

No, I paid it off in 2005.

[zootscoot]

What did you put in your POC in relation to interest?

[phatram]

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) The return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £100.00 and any interest charged thereon.

 

b) A declaration from this honourable Court that the term of the contract leading to the application of the charges is unenforceable;

 

c) Court costs; £30.00 if applicable.

 

d) Interest at the contractual Rate of 22.9% per annum as set out on the attached list of charges as of the 14 August 2007 .

 

e) The Claimant also claims interest at a rate of 22.90%, from the date of each transaction to 14 August 2007 of £96.65, as set out in the attached list of charges. The Claimant further claims interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment.

 

The Claimant believes this rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the Defendants cash advance rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account.

 

f) Should the Court find that this interest rate is not applicable, then as an alternative the Claimant wishes to claim Section 69 County Courts Act interest as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the Court deems just.

[Micky the Hippo]

I'm no expert but the mutuality and reciprocity argument is a dead duck

 

there's a new one of one of the CI threads that's at least new although someone says they gave it chapter and verse and the judge would have none of it other acknowledging that they'd 'won the moral victory'

[steven4064]

Phatram

 

Micky is absolutely right, the mutuality and reciprocity argument is dead - see here

 

Skip to the end (or near the end as of today) and you will find stuff on restitution and enrichment which are the grounds you should use to claim compound interest.

[phatram]

I thought they had lost for trying to claim two lots of interest at the same time?

[Micky the Hippo]

no

 

the judge specifically said that the M& argument had no basis in law and that judgement applies to the county courts

 

let it go, honest

 

there's a more sophisticated argument now but it needs learning properly, the banks have been beating CI claims for some time now and are unlikely to pay it imho

 

I'm in court this Monday with a CI claim but frankly I'm letting the CI slide if the bank turn up and challenge it, I simply don;t have the time to research it properly and another that did still getting knocked back for CI made my mind up

 

I'm no expert btw on any of the above, doubtless Steve will be more helpful

[Micky the Hippo]

sorry, I've just twigged this a CC case

 

I'll back out, I do have an Egg case in early stages, the arguments and approaches are very different as I recall

[phatram]

Thanks anyway Micky.

Just to clarify, this is a CREDIT CARD case.

[steven4064]

What Micky said about mutuality and reciprocity still applies though. The main difference with CC accounts is how you calcualate 'demonstrable' interest and in the T&Cs - penalties are easier to show IMO.

 

I (we) believe there is now a route for claiming compound contractual interest on top of charges and 'demsonstrable' interest. Dad's case (HAlliwell v HBOS) killed off mutuality and reciprocity as Micky has said. THis wsa based on several things, particuarly a settled case (Westdeutsche v Islingtin BC) which said that compound interest could only be awarded in cases of breach of trust or fraud. However, a couple of months later there was another case in the House of Lords (Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue) in which the judgement overturned the majortity view in Westdeutsche and went with the minority view that compound interest should be allowable in this day and age, even without having to show breach of trust or fraud.

 

Usingthis case as authority, you can claim coimound contractual interest on top of charges and 'demonstrable' interest on the grounds of restitution - puttting things back to how they would have been, in this case putting the bank back to where they would have been had they not used your money to make a profit (enrichment).

 

I hope that clarifies the situation. All te details are on the thread already quoted.