Should i continue?

r055c

a couple of weeks ago I sent a letter to my old credit card company asking for unfair charges to be returned. This totalled to £429 with an extra £126 worth of interest.

Received a letter today from them saying that they are going to refund me £121 with an explanation of;

---
I am delighted to offer you a payment of £121.20. Whilst not agreeing with the analysis of default fees in the Office of Fair Trading's statement, nevertheless we reduce these fees to £12.00 with effect from 1st August 2006. Therefore this refund is equal to the difference between the amount you were originally charged and £12. I also include net interest of £30.20 at an annual gross rate of 8%

Following my investigfation of the complaint i am satisfied that teh charges have been correctly applied to the account. Therefore i am sorry to advise you i am declining your complaint, however, the refund of £121.20 is without admission of liability, to resolve the matter.
---

Whilst i understand their response, i was curious if it would still be worth sending another letter back asking for the remainder of the the money. i was thinkin of asking this time without interest (in a hope that will sway them.

Any thoughts?

thanks

orc_2

Its up to you, but I would hold out for the full amount, with interest.

Write back, be polite and request the full amount with interest. Indicate that once you have exhausted their complaints procedure you will proceed to FOS and seek their intervention.

The £12 is not an agreed charge.

Premier_2

From the MSE article on reclaiming credit card charges:

• It makes a partial offer

There is a chance it’ll offer some of the money you want. If you have asked for the full refund this may be the difference between the fee and the £12 OFT recommendation. Whatever it offers, you need to decide whether it’s worth continuing or just taking the cash.

and also

Should you accept a partial offer at this stage?

This is always a very tough decision. Whilst there’s a temptation to say ‘fight the good fight and take ‘em on’, what’s actually more important is protecting your pocket.

Let’s say you’ve £500 of charges and are offered £350; the first thing is try not to think “I’m £150 short” but instead that you’ve got £350 you thought was gone forever. The ultimate decision is yours. It’s a combination of whether you want the hassle of continuing versus the ‘certainty of the cash’.

r055c

Premier wrote: »

From the MSE article on reclaiming credit card charges:



and also

I'm happy with what they have offered me. I think seeing as it doesn't reallly take a lot of effort, i am going to send another letter back asking for the remainder. see what they say

orc_2

Premier wrote: »

From the MSE article on reclaiming credit card charges:



and also

Just to be clear,

The Office of Fair Trading has stated that a £12 CC charge was not to be regarded as fair. Nothing since has altered that.

Only a court can now decide that and the CC companies settle for full amount way before court. It is also common knowledge, based on claimants feedback that CC companies have a "staggered settlement" policy hoping that anyone will settle for the least amount. There are 000's of posts on here, CAG or elsewhere that state people are getting every penny back.

So personally, I would go for full amount plus 8% interest.

You will get the full amount at FOS, if you have to go there, which I doubt as it should be settled before that. After that, there is always the threat of court action, but the CCs do not want this challenged in court.

Premier_2

r055c wrote: »

I'm happy with what they have offered me. I think seeing as it doesn't reallly take a lot of effort, i am going to send another letter back asking for the remainder. see what they say

Be careful. If you are happy with what they have already offered, there is a risk the company will withdraw the offer already made if you don't accept it, hence the 'certainty of the cash' comment.

natweststaffmember

r055c wrote: »

I'm happy with what they have offered me. I think seeing as it doesn't reallly take a lot of effort, i am going to send another letter back asking for the remainder. see what they say

Make sure you tell them that whilst the OFT set a limit(why Martin refers to it as a recommendation is completely beyond me) at which they would not take legal action to enforce it. The reasoning being that they hoped self regulation would encourage competition in the market. They stated that they did not expect a simple £12.00 reduction in charges would solve the situation, so, as we all know, when you let financial institutions self regulate, they just do what they have to do to avoid enforcement and set the charges at £12.00. They will of course payout in full 100% of the charges.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

... They will of course payout in full 100% of the charges.

Especially if you prove in court that charges in excess of £12 are unfair.

As the OFT said ""Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not" and the OFT won't be doing it for you when the charges are not in excess of £12.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2006/68-06

Draw you own conclusions

orc_2

Premier wrote: »

Be careful. If you are happy with what they have already offered, there is a risk the company will withdraw the offer already made if you don't accept it, hence the 'certainty of the cash' comment.

They may threaten to withdraw the offer, but thats part of their tactics, their game. Martin needs to change his guidance as its misleading and incorrect.

Stick to asking for 100% of all charges plus 8% interest and thats what a claimant will get.

orc_2

Premier wrote: »

Especially if you prove in court that charges in excess of £12 are unfair.

What does this statement mean?

As the OFT said ""Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not" and the OFT won't be doing it for you when the charges are not in excess of £12.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated that a £12 CC charge was not to be regarded as fair. Nothing since has altered that.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2006/68-06

Draw you own conclusions

From the OFT link supplied

"A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12."

And none of the CC companies will run the risk of this going to court, thats why they end up paying 100% in full with interest. That conclusion has clearly been shown.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Especially if you prove in court that charges in excess of £12 are unfair.
Since when did a court say that they were fair?
As the OFT said ""Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not" and the OFT won't be doing it for you when the charges are not in excess of £12.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2006/68-06

Draw you own conclusions

I will draw my own conclusions from their own report. You do like to read the press brief and then omit the actual wording from the report.

"1.14 It must be stressed that this is a statement of our position and reflects the exercise of our discretion as an enforcement agency. Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs. It should be kept in mind that other enforcers may apply for injunctions under the UTCCRs and that the UTCCRs may be relied upon by consumers in private claims."

Remember there are two aspects to fairness, one is about the fairness of the term itself and the second is the level of the charge(as you might guess bank charges dismissed the second aspect to it but could be argued that it did not dismiss the first aspect which is a topic we have discussed over and over again and it not applicable to credit card charges).