MBNA (AA) credit card sleight of hand

prowla

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

I prefer to think I'm interpreting them correctly. ;)They don't need to!

They say you make the payment after the "bill" is issued. You won't know how much you have to pay until you get the "bill".

Where do they say that you must make the payment after the bill is issued?

If you know how much you will pay that month, and know that it surely exceeds the minimum amount, then you don't need to be told.

meer53

prowla wrote: »

Where do they say that you must make the payment after the bill is issued?

OMG !

How the hell can you make the payment BEFORE the bill is issued ? You don't know when it's due or how much to pay !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you really this dim ? Or do you have a crystal ball ?

prowla

meer53 wrote: »

OMG !

How the hell can you make the payment BEFORE the bill is issued ? You don't know when it's due or how much to pay !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you really this dim ? Or do you have a crystal ball ?

There is a preexisting condition that covers how much the minimum payment is: "the greater of £25 or 1% of the balance on your statement", so if your balance is eg. £1000, then you know that a payment of £100 will cover it regardless of what the bill says the actual minimum payment is (there is no rule against exceeding the minimum payment).

And if you know that the month's due date is around the 26th, then paying in the first week of the month meets the requirement: "this must reach your account by the payment due date.".

So, it's rather more precise than a crystal ball (dim or not).

molerat

prowla wrote: »

Thanks - I acknowledged that I mis-read that.



I didn't need the advice on how to pay, as I already mentioned in the OP that it's all paid off, and I mentioned later that they refunded the last charge so I think I'm in credit! And thus if you were me you wouldn't pay anything!:)

The point was and remains that the published T&Cs do not cover the situation where a payment is made before that month's staement is issued, also if you refer to the OP, I said "I thought I'd share this as a warning.".

There have been several judgemental replies, various "everybody knows this" type comments, but the actual T&Cs don't explicitly state that, and so it is hearsay.

The bill / statement, call it whatever you like, clearly states that the minimum payment of £xx.xx must be paid by xx.xx.xxxx. If you make a payment before the production of that statement it is accounted for in that statement and the terms of payment stated on that statement still stand.

thegoodman

prowla wrote: »

There is a preexisting condition that covers how much the minimum payment is: "the greater of £25 or 1% of the balance on your statement", so if your balance is eg. £1000, then you know that a payment of £100 will cover it regardless of what the bill says the actual minimum payment is (there is no rule against exceeding the minimum payment).

And if you know that the month's due date is around the 26th, then paying in the first week of the month meets the requirement: "this must reach your account by the payment due date.".

So, it's rather more precise than a crystal ball (dim or not).

Now you know what happens when you dont understand the T&C:
1. You pay extra charges
2. Your credit file is damaged for six years
3. Your current credit may be reduced. Most card companies review your account
4. May not get extra credit including 0% offers and loans.
5. May end up paying higher APR even for Mortgage if required.
6. May not get buy now pay later offers

The OP have already made the mistake and cannot do anything about it, for others always understand the T&C such as payment due dates and any extra charges. Otherwise you may be stuck with bad credit marks for up to 6 years.

chattychappy

prowla wrote: »

The quoted terms actually say that they will tell you how much you must pay in that month "We will show the amount you have to pay, the date by which you must make the payment and how you can pay, on your statement." and they tell you that you must pay it by a given date "You must pay at least the minimum payment each month and this must reach your account by the payment
due date.".

They do not say that you cannot make that month's payment the day before the bill is issued, and actually doing so fully meets all criteria stated in the T&Cs.

They don't say you can't. They don't say you can. That doesn't mean you can adopt either interpretation. This is civil law, not the "beyond reasonable doubt"/intention stuff of criminal law. The test is an objective one - what was likely to have been meant rather than what you thought it meant. A court would look at the contract at a whole, ie what it says about charges being applied, statements being generated, minimums being calculated etc.

The statement is generated after the "early" payment is received. The T+Cs say how minimums are calculated - ie by reference to the balance. It would only make sense (to me) if this is by reference to the balance at the time the statement is generated, ie after the "early" payment has been received).

molerat wrote: »

The bill / statement, call it whatever you like, clearly states that the minimum payment of £xx.xx must be paid by xx.xx.xxxx. If you make a payment before the production of that statement it is accounted for in that statement and the terms of payment stated on that statement still stand.

Not just "me" has this interpretation. You see - even if your interpretation is different, I'm afraid that doesn't matter. In the case of doubt or a gap in the T+Cs, the law adopts the "officious bystander" test (google if you like). The evidence here is that most people wouldn't adopt your interpretation. A court would go for what a bystander would think was meant.

So I'm afraid you are applying the wrong test. You are arguing that the T+Cs permit you to do something or don't prohibit something so therefore they have no grounds for the sanction against you. But this is wrong - the test in the case of something being unwritten/unclear is what would a mythical bystander think was meant. The evidence from the thread is that most people have a different view from you. This suggests to me that the objective interpretation is not the one you are arguing.

YorkshireBoy

prowla wrote: »

Where do they say that you must make the payment after the bill is issued?

Condition 2.1 et al, by inference.

MonkeyMad

This has to be a wind-up as no-one can be like this in real-life surely?

Despite the minimum payments clearly being calculated on the balance outstanding on the day of the statement, the T&C don't say I can't make a payment that counts towards the minimum before the statement date?? Of course they don't, it would be a physical impossibility.

The T&Cs say that credits and debit will be used to reduce the balance so !!!!!! do you think happens to a payment you make before a bill is generated - it gets used to reduce the balance on which a minimum is calculated!!

MBNA website even has this on the FAQs:

Question:
If I make a payment before my statement is produced will this cover my minimum payment?

Answer:
If you need to make your payment early (for example, due to you going away on holiday) and your statement has not been produced, alternative payment arrangements will need to be made so that the payment will credit the account after the statement is produced and therefore count towards your next minimum payment. Payments can be set up with your bank so that the payment leaves on a specified date or alternatively you can set up a Direct Debit.

My bold
Come on, one more post make this a classic thread

Cell

God knows whether this will help, but here are three examples of how my card issuers treat payments, statement dates etc.

Barclaycard.

Minimum payment is due on xth of the month and that is the date that the statement is issued as well. If I want to pay my minimum off early for the next month I KNOW not to pay until the new statement is produced.

Marks & Spencer

Minimum payment is due on xth month, and I pay that by direct debit. However then statement is issued five or six days (can't recall which) later. If I pay extra between the direct debit and the statement date this is applied to the current statement (ie the one which the DD applies to). Indeed if I pay enough to clear my previous statement in that window I get charged no interest at all, despite it being after my minimum payment date.

If I didn't pay the minimum by the date due but cleared my balance in the window then I KNOW I would be in default of the agreement despite clearing the statement balance before the next one is produced. The minimum payment date is a condition of the account and I understand that.

Cahoot

Statement issued 14th of the month. Minimum payment due 28th of the month. I can pay anything I like before the 28th and it will apply to the current period. If I pay it early enough the direct debit will be reduced (though different cards have different rules - MBNA collect the minimum regardless as do M&S). But I MUST have paid at least the minimum by 28th regardless of how much I pay between 28th and the date the next statement.

It's not enough to make teh minimum payment in any statement period. It has to be paid by the date stipulated, even if your next statement, as with Cahoot, is a couple of weeks away or more.

As I said, not sure if that helps.

In reality you find this out more by experience than anything else, but pay the minimum when it's due and you're covered.

prowla

chattychappy wrote: »

They don't say you can't. They don't say you can. That doesn't mean you can adopt either interpretation. This is civil law, not the "beyond reasonable doubt"/intention stuff of criminal law. The test is an objective one - what was likely to have been meant rather than what you thought it meant. A court would look at the contract at a whole, ie what it says about charges being applied, statements being generated, minimums being calculated etc.

The statement is generated after the "early" payment is received. The T+Cs say how minimums are calculated - ie by reference to the balance. It would only make sense (to me) if this is by reference to the balance at the time the statement is generated, ie after the "early" payment has been received).



Not just "me" has this interpretation. You see - even if your interpretation is different, I'm afraid that doesn't matter. In the case of doubt or a gap in the T+Cs, the law adopts the "officious bystander" test (google if you like). The evidence here is that most people wouldn't adopt your interpretation. A court would go for what a bystander would think was meant.

So I'm afraid you are applying the wrong test. You are arguing that the T+Cs permit you to do something or don't prohibit something so therefore they have no grounds for the sanction against you. But this is wrong - the test in the case of something being unwritten/unclear is what would a mythical bystander think was meant. The evidence from the thread is that most people have a different view from you. This suggests to me that the objective interpretation is not the one you are arguing.

The T&Cs state that you must pay at least the minimum amount each month by the due by date.