@TESCO 19p cost me £12.00!!!!!!

chattychappy

MattLFC wrote: »

you signed a contract, and when you sign a contract, you, and the other parties, agree to abide by, and respect the terms of that contract. You have breached your contractual obligations, and the other party has abided by their contractual obligation in levying the charge.

No. The written T+Cs are only a starting point. Law and regulation serves to modify these. It's common practice for lawyers to draft contracts in the knowledge that some of its terms would never stand up in court - but hoping that the other party will believe they are bound by it.

Remember - a few years ago penalties were often £25. I even had a CC where a missed payment would cost you £35. All in black and white. All signed up to and agreed to. But the law on penalties is clear - they cannot be punitive. They were simply unenforceable. The OFT said that it would presume unfairness if a penalty of more than £12 charged. So the CCs immediately put £12 into T+Cs. But whether they can charge £12 depends on the situation. Indeed the OFT made it clear that £12 wouldn't necessarily be lawful, but nevertheless it has become a defacto standard.

Organisations love to point out to people - well mate, you signed on the dotted line so nothing you can do. The reality is very different - particularly in the case of penalties for a breach of contract.

MattLFC

This old argument again; the OFT took the banks to court over charges, and eventually lost. Although the decision was considered a farce by most, including myself, it was tested and the consumer/OFT lost.

As you say, with regards CC charges, the OFT we're the ones who set the bar.

End of story.

On the other hand, if you'd like to start another test case through the legal system to prove your argument, against the banks/CC providers, to set the precident, feel free, but given the eventual ruling already made, and the fact the OFT have no interest in supporting such a case, I think you'd be hard pressed getting anywhere.

chattychappy

My post stands - you were wrong to suggest just because something is written in the T+Cs, it is legally enforceable. Sorry if it's the same old story and you don't like it.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (and other legislation) governs penalty charges. The OP doesn't need to set a precedent - it is an argument she can run if she wishes.

The case you refer to was bank charges, not credit card charges. You are wrong to muddle them up - I suggest you read the judgment. If it had applied to credit cards then you can be sure that the CCs wouldn't any longer be adopting the £12 in the OFT guidance http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf.

Prior to the OFT report, there was a successful challenge to CC charges - by a law student representing himself, I recall.

MattLFC

Firstly, I wasn't muddling them up - I was well aware of the distinction between CC charges and bank charges. But since the bank charges case, was centered around the "fairness" of terms and conditions (and unreasonable charges), then the outcome of the same argument against CC charges, would inevtiably be the same.

If you can provide concrete proof, precident or indeed challenge the system yourself, then we will agree that the terms and conditions needn't apply here, as they are unfair. Since you can neither prove it, nor have the inclination to challenge the CC providers yourself (put your money where your mouth is), then I fail to see the point you are making?

Or, are you being a weasel and trying to entice the OP into challenging the terms through court, at the cost of considerable expense and time, whilst you sit back and watch your theory be proven right/wrong?

chattychappy

MattLFC wrote: »

Firstly, I wasn't muddling them up - I was well aware of the distinction between CC charges and bank charges. But since the bank charges case, was centered around the "fairness" of terms and conditions (and unreasonable charges), then the outcome of the same argument against CC charges, would inevtiably be the same.

Sounds like you HAVEN'T read the judgment. Whether you have or haven't, nothing inevitable about its applicability to credit cards in my opinion given the reasoning.

I repeat, I am simply providing grounds that the OP can use to argue with the CC. There is an argument that the charges are unlawful. It's not worth going to court over £12. Ultimately a threat of an escalation to the FOS might provoke a compromise. Or, the OP can write it off to experience.

Frankly I would never advise a client to fight a case to set a precedent or as a matter of principle. It's just not worth it unless an organisation wishes to take it up, a law firm wishes to make a name for itself and do pro-bono, or there are enough people to make it worthwhile doing a group litigation.

iantresman

The banks are bunch of crooks. Do you think I could charge my customers £12 for making a 19p mistake, or being a few days late?

This is legalised usury and is unreasonable. The same goes for the regulators and the government for allowing it.

meer53

iantresman wrote: »

The banks are bunch of crooks. Do you think I could charge my customers £12 for making a 19p mistake, or being a few days late?

This is legalised usury and is unreasonable. The same goes for the regulators and the government for allowing it.

Okay !!!

Gromitt

iantresman wrote: »

The banks are bunch of crooks. Do you think I could charge my customers £12 for making a 19p mistake, or being a few days late?

If you don't want to pay the fees, don't take out the card! Simples.