Halifax credit card changes - Ombudman says they are fair

dunstonh

Well I learnt something new today, thanks. Seeing as the fee is always applied and always the same I can't imagine slapping the fee on to cost too much in terms of employee's wages to be paid out as a result of my non payment though.

Many years ago when I used to deal with accounts exceeding limits, we had a list each day and you worked through the list. Some you wouldnt spend much time on then but there would come a point when you had to. Some you effectively deferred to another day. Others would take much more of your time (and if you costed that, it would be more than the charges). So, there is a bit of averaging out in there.

o the banks are happy to give a breakdown of costs to the FOS but they don't want the breakdown of costs to be made public, is that the case? I've asked for a breakdown in the letter I wrote last night.

The OFT deemed that charges of £12 or less would not be investigated. Anything above that needed justifying. As it stands, only Egg have gone down the justification route and it was agreed their £16 was fair. So, the FOS go by the OFT decision and wont look at £12 charges (or £16 in the case of egg).

fudgerella08

Hi
I treid to claim back just the £12 charges from MBNA total over £660 plus £130 in interest.

I went through all the letters on this site, and got nowhere with MBNA, they refused to pay anything.

so i thought that was it - last month a wrote to the FOS on the off chance they might look at this for me (i know they say they do not look at the £12 charges).

anyway got a letter in the post this morning from the FOS, saything that MBNA have agreed to a full refund, plus interest!!!!!!!!!!

Just goes to show, you have to try everything with them - DO NOT GIVE UP PEOPLE!:T

dunstonh

anyway got a letter in the post this morning from the FOS, saything that MBNA have agreed to a full refund, plus interest!!!!!!!!!!

Just goes to show, you have to try everything with them - DO NOT GIVE UP PEOPLE!

Again, this is a small amount where the FOS have probably given them the choice to pay it or let the FOS look at it and suffer the £500 FOS fee with an unknown outcome.

jesusjuice

Well the two people who said they've had success haven't said the ombudsman said the charges were fair like they said to me, but my charges total a lot less than £500 so fingers crossed for a successful outcome.

dunstonh

haven't said the ombudsman said the charges were fair like they said to me

The charges are not unfair in the eyes of the law as no-one has been able to test that. So, they are fair until proven otherwise. The FOS will not say that they are unfair where they are £12 or under.

my charges total a lot less than £500 so fingers crossed for a successful outcome.

You gave the impression in an earlier post that the FSA have ruled in your case already and that they were fair. Those above had providers that likely caved in before the FOS charge was levied and an adjudicator allocated. Yours has had an adjudication.

jesusjuice

Sorry, I thought the £500 was when they passed it on to an ombudsman

dunstonh

jesusjuice wrote: »

Sorry, I thought the £500 was when they passed it on to an ombudsman

The FOS fee is £500 currently and applies when an adjudicator is appointed.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS fee is £500 currently and applies when an adjudicator is appointed.

The adjudicator gets a cut of it too - even if they then decide there is no case for the firm to answer. It is a bit like a car clamping scam.

For somebody like DunstonH a few unwarranted complaints could easily put them out of business.

For a bank it will be necessary to factor this possibility into calculating its charges.

jesusjuice

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS fee is £500 currently and applies when an adjudicator is appointed.

I've got a letter regarding Egg and they say that yes, an adjudicator was appointed right from the start, just like the Halifax one. In other worsd, the £500 fee has already been paid.

Shame, it appears that for me despite my fees being well under £500 they've decided to go this route, not as lucky as some it would appear...

magpiecottage

jesusjuice wrote: »

I've got a letter regarding Egg and they say that yes, an adjudicator was appointed right from the start, just like the Halifax one. In other worsd, the £500 fee has already been paid.

Shame, it appears that for me despite my fees being well under £500 they've decided to go this route, not as lucky as some it would appear...

There is a counter argument that some firms adopt that the fee should not be able to be used to blackmail a firm into paying redress that is not warranted.