Massive inexplicable increase in APR

soul619

izools wrote: »

Hmm... never come across one of those TBH. I would imagine it would constitute a request to re-open the account and accept the new, higher APR.

As always, the onus is on the cardholder to contact any company they had a recurring authorisation with and rescind permission to use that card.

If they company charge the card anyawy, the cardholder has the right to sue / demand all of the extra interest they'll pay as a result, from the offending company.

As always, the onus is on the cardholder to contact any company they had a recurring authorisation with and rescind permission to use that card. - yes it is and these reoccurring transactions are subscriptions and you will find that the credit card provider has to pay them as the customer has agreed they will by signing a formal document by way of a signed document or a tick on a website.

you cannot sue the credit card company for paying these transactions the judge would laugh you out of court!

izools

soul619 wrote: »

you cannot sue the credit card company for paying these transactions the judge would laugh you out of court!

I didn't say you could sue the card company!

I was referring to the fact if you call Company X to rescind permission to use your Ccard for the recurring payments, and the continue to charge it, then Company X can be sued - or more easily, reported to the CCard company for fraudulent transaction(s).

chattychappy

izools wrote: »

I was referring to the fact if you call Company X to rescind permission to use your Ccard for the recurring payments, and the continue to charge it, then Company X can be sued - or ...

Hmm... that's interesting. I'm not sure you could - what would the grounds be? They haven't really caused you a loss - they've put a charge through the visa network which you don't have to pay (because it's not authorised). Of course, as you've said, you could dispute the transaction.

BUT, paradoxically I think you could sue company X if you DIDN'T cancel the authority, but did cancel the service, it wasn't provided, the contract was otherwise terminated, or the payment taken was within the agreed authority but greater than demanded under the supply contract. On this basis the transaction could still be authorised so you couldn't dispute it. Therefore you've suffered a loss - something to sue for. Of course you may also be able to sue the CC under s75.

(Normally cancelling the service could be argued to imply cancelling the authority.)

izools

chattychappy wrote: »

Hmm... that's interesting. I'm not sure you could - what would the grounds be? They haven't really caused you a loss

Well in this increasingly hypothetical example, Company X would have caused a loss by charging a card you've withdrawn permission for them to charge - as the card provider would have taken said transaction as a request to re-open the account and accept the higher APR.

Thereby the loss is the difference in interest charged at the new APR and interest charged at the original APR.

Geenie

gkb wrote: »

Just had the same from Egg, rate up from a ridiculous 21.9% to a ludicrous 26.9%, they may have a point if they look at all my credit outstanding alone but I have never had a missed or late payment and am managing the debt especially as they have just given me a 0% 6 months.

The sentiment of customers not being given too much credit is genuine but I fail to see how charging those who are not paying off the balance outrageous rates is not pure profiteering which I would feel alot more comfortable if they did not pretend they were doing it for other reasons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11153577

This was all over the news sites last week. It may explain the recent hike. Debters is what they make their money from, no matter what you pay off each month, and you will be targeted for loss by others. Good luck OP, grit your teeth, eat bread and water, but pay that card off if you can.

chattychappy

izools wrote: »

Well in this increasingly hypothetical example, Company X would have caused a loss by charging a card you've withdrawn permission for them to charge - as the card provider would have taken said transaction as a request to re-open the account and accept the higher APR.

Thereby the loss is the difference in interest charged at the new APR and interest charged at the original APR.

But they wouldn't have been entitled to process such a charge attempt as a customer transaction - so they wouldn't be able to rely on it as the customer re-opening the account. The lending code (if nothing else) puts the onus of proof onto the CC where a transaction is disputed. Were they to put the transaction through, the customer would be entitled to demand they restore the position to as it was before their "error" and this would fully mitigate the loss (less any time/hassle).

Poosmate

The onus is on the cardholder to cancel any reoccurring payments. It's kind of like a Standing Order from your current account. You set it up, make the payments to company X, when you've paid for what you bought you have to cancel the standing order otherwise company x will still recieve the same payments - it's not their fault, company x can't stop the standing order from your account, they don't have access to it.

So the reoccurring charges on a credit card are the same (effectively) as a standing order from your current account.

That reminds me, I must cancel my AA payment for the next year's cover.

Poo

Poosmate

Oh I forgot to say, I got stung by Barclays last month with a 33% (in real terms - it went from 14.9% to 19.9%)!

And to Chattyhappy, the reason people are unhappy about it is because it's so unfair and if it wasn't for us people paying out debts with interest those with savings wouldn't even be getting half a per cent on their ISA savings!

Poosmate

Geenie wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11153577

This was all over the news sites last week. It may explain the recent hike. Debters is what they make their money from, no matter what you pay off each month, and you will be targeted for loss by others. Good luck OP, grit your teeth, eat bread and water, but pay that card off if you can.

I was a bit confused when you mentioned it was in the news last week but that is not the story I heard either last night or this morning (I can't remember). It too was on BBC but it was some butch from the bank trying to justify why they were hiking the interest rates. (I'll try to find a link).

Reading your link has made my blood boil! I just wonder why I bother and why I don't just jump on the gravy train and go on a dmp myself - God! The thought of having spare cash and not having to pay interest - it's so tempting!

I am a decent person and don't mind paying (interest) for the service I have been provided with (credit) but it's getting bloody rediculous, they're putting good customers in impossible situations and they're going to lose them and have to say goodbye to their nice little earners.

Going to find that link now brb.

Poo

bobsky_2

same for me: they said that its becuase of the following reasons
1- only making min pymts
2- withdraw cash
3-missed paymt elsewhere (externally)
4- having more credit than my wages (so wrong this is)
5-going over my credit limit.

non of these apply to me..why are we at risk. also
they said tht FSA made a suggestion to increase rates so as to "encourage people to pay their debts of quicker!"