We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
From the weekly e-mail
bookworm1363
Posts: 812 Forumite
I'm sorry, I had to pop in to comment on the above.
No. The OFT will give its decision on an intervention threshold at which they will themselves take action against the banks.
The OFT can not legally decide what represents fair and unfair charges. They themselves recognise it, as seen in their reports on credit card charges of April 5th, 2006. (sorry, links have all been changed on OFT website, so can't supply here)
The OFT clearly state that the intervention threshold is NOT meant to signify a fair charge.
Martin, I think that the charges are likely to be higher, and my best guess would be around the £20 mark. After all, c/c charges were £20 to £25, and the intervention threshold was set at £12. Bank charges, ranging from £30 to £39, are unlikely to have a threshold set that much comparatively lower.
The way a bank works and a credit card company work are different. There are higher costs associated in running a bank (branches, safes, cash, etc... the list is endless) which a credit card company simply does not have, and I'd be very surprised if the OFT didn't factor those in.
Of course, the amount should be lower, we are after all talking of liquidated damages here. Nevertheless, we all know the OFT is not going to set a level which will accurately reflect the banks' alleged losses.
So to sum up, no, I don't think there is any need nor reason for people to panic, and possibly botch up their claims by rushing. This is not a loophole about to close. Penalty law is well entrenched in contract law, and it would take an Act of Parliament to change that.
Hope this clarifies matters a bit. :-)
In April, the Office of Fair Trading will give its opinion on the appropriate amount for bank charges.
No. The OFT will give its decision on an intervention threshold at which they will themselves take action against the banks.
The OFT can not legally decide what represents fair and unfair charges. They themselves recognise it, as seen in their reports on credit card charges of April 5th, 2006. (sorry, links have all been changed on OFT website, so can't supply here)
The OFT clearly state that the intervention threshold is NOT meant to signify a fair charge.
My guess is it'll be £12, though the banks predict higher and I think it should be lower. The banks will be under huge pressure to drop charges across the board, and will probably fall into line.
Martin, I think that the charges are likely to be higher, and my best guess would be around the £20 mark. After all, c/c charges were £20 to £25, and the intervention threshold was set at £12. Bank charges, ranging from £30 to £39, are unlikely to have a threshold set that much comparatively lower.
The way a bank works and a credit card company work are different. There are higher costs associated in running a bank (branches, safes, cash, etc... the list is endless) which a credit card company simply does not have, and I'd be very surprised if the OFT didn't factor those in.
Of course, the amount should be lower, we are after all talking of liquidated damages here. Nevertheless, we all know the OFT is not going to set a level which will accurately reflect the banks' alleged losses.
They can try to offer, and indeed, some already do try to use the same mistaken argument... But there really is no obligation, or indeed need, for anyone to accept. To use one of your analogies, they could also offer you a smack on the head... Doesn't mean you have to accept it.This won't stop people reclaiming past charges, however banks may only offer the difference between £12 and the amount you were originally charged (e.g. £35 - £12 = £23).
And they STILL would have to show that the charge represented a true pre-estimate of their loss, which means they would STILL have to show their true costs...and we all know the likelihood of that happening, don't we? :rolleyes:If you don't accept it, the risk they may defend in court for the first time, citing the OFT ruling, is a tiny bit higher.
So to sum up, no, I don't think there is any need nor reason for people to panic, and possibly botch up their claims by rushing. This is not a loophole about to close. Penalty law is well entrenched in contract law, and it would take an Act of Parliament to change that.
Hope this clarifies matters a bit. :-)
0
Comments
-
Thank you for that explanation as I have had more charges that I want to reclaim but I got a bit scared after reading that in the email .
Bookworm even though your explanation is detailed are you SURE we have nothing to worry about ?0 -
turtle wrote:Bookworm even though your explanation is detailed are you SURE we have nothing to worry about ?
About the amount the OFT will set their intervention threshold? No, I'm not. But somewhere, it is immaterial, as the OFT can not decide what is or isn't lawful.
Am I sure about the legalities? Yes, as sure as I can be without a test case.
The law on penalties is well established, from Wilson to Dunlop, to Castaneda and as recently as Murray (case AND appeal, where even though the decision was reversed, it STILL reinforced the case on penalties). From 1896 onwards, we have case after case telling us that penalty charges are unlawful.
The thought that an announcement by a regulatory body could suddenly stop us from asserting our legal rights is nothing short of absurd, frankly.
Having said that, there is no doubt that as part of their ongoing bully tactics, some banks will try to say that: "The OFT set the limit as...", but that doesn't mean anyone has to believe them.
0 -
Thank you for fully explaining as there is so much confusion over this and now martin appears to not want us to discuss it and get the facts cleares as it's his site.I think that means as it's his site he can say what he wants ,right or wrong doesn't come into it ,and can't be corrected .I am just really worried about all these people starting claims without the correct information and if it goes wrong they are the ones to suffer.but from now on :lipsrseal0
-
Thank you for fully explaining as there is so much confusion over this and now martin appears to not want us to discuss it and get the facts clearer as it's his site.I think that means as it's his site he can say what he wants ,right or wrong doesn't come into it ,and can't be corrected .I am just really worried about all these people starting claims without the correct information and if it goes wrong they are the ones to suffer.but from now on ::lipsrseal0
-
dupilcate post0
-
An excellent explination there Bookworm. Thank you.the way forward is the consumer action group .co.uk0
-
Thank you for fully explaining as there is so much confusion over this and now martin appears to not want us to discuss it and get the facts cleares as it's his site.I think that means as it's his site he can say what he wants ,right or wrong doesn't come into it ,and can't be corrected .I am just really worried about all these people starting claims without the correct information and if it goes wrong they are the ones to suffer.but from now on :lipsrseal
There is actually quite a bit of discussion in the OFT thread here if you wish to join in:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=391787
The thread is still open, not deleted or censored and no one is saying you cant discuss this issue, least of all Martin. He has given his opinion and it is just that. A considered and informed opinion. As is Bookworm1363s opinion. (thank you bookworm )
Those that bring information to the discussion are to be thanked not critisized. The speculative information with implicit regard to the definite impact of the OFT report is to be considered as just that, speculative and not as fact. We all have opinions on the OFT report, posted on a thread or not. None of us are entirely correct or fully informed, we are not the OFT so we cannot possibly be. Until the OFT report is published all discussion is just that - discussion.0 -
Actually if you look at Bookies posts you will see most of her assertions are facts.the way forward is the consumer action group .co.uk0
-
Actually if you look at Bookies posts you will see most of her assertions are facts.
Is that directed at me and in regard to my post ? If so I will reply and await your clarification on the point of reference in this post.
Edit: On consideration I believe it was aimed at me and a line in my post, despite the lack of the usual courtesy quote to indicate this. I will now edit my post to clarify my exact intention in statement.0 -
The report has no impact they do not make law and the law clearly states that penalty charges are unlawful.The speculative information with implicit regard to the definite impact of the OFT report is to be considered as just that, speculative and not as fact.
This report will only have an effect if the banks charge more than the limit the OFT sets.
This is a fact not speculation.The law on penalties is well established, from Wilson to Dunlop, to Castaneda and as recently as Murray (case AND appeal, where even though the decision was reversed, it STILL reinforced the case on penalties). From 1896 onwards, we have case after case telling us that penalty charges are unlawful.
As is this.The thought that an announcement by a regulatory body could suddenly stop us from asserting our legal rights is nothing short of absurd, frankly.
And this.About the amount the OFT will set their intervention threshold? No, I'm not. But somewhere, it is immaterial, as the OFT can not decide what is or isn't lawful.
And thisNo. The OFT will give its decision on an intervention threshold at which they will themselves take action against the banks.
etc etcthe way forward is the consumer action group .co.uk0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards