Change in interest rate

markperky

Deleted_User wrote: »

Not really. It's impossible to prove a negative. Just like I can't prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist.

Just that they haven't yet ruled it that I'm ever aware of. Right or wrong, posting the communication is considered acceptable and I have never seen a case where that has been used as a justification for overturning the reprice. If a defendant has tried it and won, then they've kept it quiet.

But please let me know if you know of cases - would be very interesting to know.

I did say I thought that they would stand a good chance of winning that argument, I don't know of any specific cases.

To my mind the CC company may have done what they are required to by law, but that is only a minimum requirement to stop themselves being sued for negligence. It doesn't mean they necessarily have absolved themselves from any repercussions of the letter not being received. IMO.

chattychappy

Harsh as it may be, in contract law it's often accepted that the postal service is perfect. It's a "public policy" issue - ie courts prefer to take this view because to do otherwise would just make life too difficult. Parties can "contract out" of this naivety - so it does come down to T+Cs. Negligence doesn't enter into it - it's an issue of what has been agreed in a contract. Negligence is an issue between non-contracting parties (eg you bump my car). The upshot is that unless a contract specifically requires a communication to be received, then sending it is sufficient.

One of the most famous cases is Adams v Lindsell (1818) EWHC KB J59 (google for more info). Accepting a contractual offer by post is deemed to to have been communicated at the point of posting - a ridiculous fiction really.

In the context of financial services, there are wider duties including treating customers fairly. There maybe an argument there - but in this case, it was acknowledged by Daisycoo1973 that the postal service was known to be unreliable in her area, so really she was on notice that something like this might happen.

markperky

Interesting, thanks. On the face of it this does seem grossly unfair, in that the consumer could be locked into a much higher interest rate on potentially a large debt simply because they didn't receive a letter in the normal post and missed the 30 day deadline. Furthermore the consumer would have no remedy.

I notice that the new rules give the consumer 60 days now rather than 30 days to essentially dis-agree with those new rates. I can see how this could prevent them being locked into a higher rate by missing the letter because the consumer should be expecting to receive a statement every month, so if they've missed the separate letter the new rates will be on their statement. The 60 days would then give them enough time first to receive thier next statement, not to agree to the new rates, and then suspend their account (i.e. not make any more purchases on the card but simply pay the existing debt off at the original rate). Maybe that was a part of the rational for the new rules (?).

LITTLEMISSDEBT

Hi daisycool1973!
I had exactly the same problem with capital1. What u need to do is write a formal complaint, keep copies for urself. When u has been rejected-which u will-go to financial ombudsman with ur complaints and tell them u never received the letter.
Ombudsman upheld my complaint even although capital1 said it was impossible!
Good luck and post how u got on
X

Daisycoo1973

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all the responses.

Phoned MBNA this morning and they were fantastic about it. They have agreed to reduce the interest rate on my account back to the original rate of 18.9% but I can't make any further purchases on the card which suits me absolutely fine!! Just want to get the debt cleared as quickly as possible now and hopefully one day I will be able to live without my cc.

Here's hoping!!