New Credit Card Conditions

Thunderdolly

Can the banks (in my case Lloyds TSB) just create new conditions for your credit card, to add to the exsisting terms and conditions already in place? I recieved a letter this morning about one, and it doesn't say anything about me having to agree to this, but I feel this is wrong without my signed agreement. Surely this condition would be null and void if it were ever to be challenged as I didn't sign for it as part of the original terms and conditions. Anybody have a clue about this?

[Deleted User]

It's correct. Typically you will have 30 days notice of a change. You'll have noticed in your terms that they have the right to vary the agremeent.

You should however be able to close your account within that period if it is to your disadvantage.

What is it about the change that you don't like? It may be insignificant - many are.

Thunderdolly

The so called new condition is as follows:

New Condition - 15.8
If we owe you any money in connection with any transfers,interest or charges on your account we may use that money to reduce any arrears you owe under this agreement. If we intend to do this we will tell you when we offer to make a payment to you. We will also follow any relevant guidance in a Code of Practice that applies to us, as required by our regulator or another similar body.

All that this is saying to me is that if your trying to claim back any PPI's and your in arrears with the bank due to this, that they'll just swallow up anything that they owe you. They should NOT be allowed to do this. Whatever refund from a PPI you get awarded should be for you to decide where it goes, be it back into what you owe them or towards maybe an even more urgent debt like your mortgage, rent, tax payment (not that I like tax but it is a prisonable offence).

This is what I don't like about the change, people not having a choice in what happens with their money!

opinions4u

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

meer53

Thunderdolly wrote: »

The so called new condition is as follows:

New Condition - 15.8
If we owe you any money in connection with any transfers,interest or charges on your account we may use that money to reduce any arrears you owe under this agreement. If we intend to do this we will tell you when we offer to make a payment to you. We will also follow any relevant guidance in a Code of Practice that applies to us, as required by our regulator or another similar body.

All that this is saying to me is that if your trying to claim back any PPI's and your in arrears with the bank due to this, that they'll just swallow up anything that they owe you. They should NOT be allowed to do this. Whatever refund from a PPI you get awarded should be for you to decide where it goes, be it back into what you owe them or towards maybe an even more urgent debt like your mortgage, rent, tax payment (not that I like tax but it is a prisonable offence).

This is what I don't like about the change, people not having a choice in what happens with their money!

How can PPI make you in arrears ?

If you owe the bank money, surely any PPI payout will help you by repaying some of what you owe ? Then you can concentrate on making repayments towards any other debt you may have.

eschaton

Sounds spot on to me as well.

Gromitt

Thunderdolly wrote: »

This is what I don't like about the change, people not having a choice in what happens with their money!

If you don't like it, you don't have to accept it. Ring them and tell them you don't agree with the new terms and they'll let you stay on your existing terms and conditions. You will not be allowed to use the card further however, and you must make any payments required until your balance is zero. You are then free to open a card with another lender who does not have such a condition.

So yes, you have a choice.

pqrdef

Thunderdolly wrote: »

Can the banks (in my case Lloyds TSB) just create new conditions for your credit card, to add to the exsisting terms and conditions already in place? I recieved a letter this morning about one, and it doesn't say anything about me having to agree to this, but I feel this is wrong without my signed agreement. Surely this condition would be null and void if it were ever to be challenged as I didn't sign for it as part of the original terms and conditions. Anybody have a clue about this?

If you don't like their terms, they don't have to lend you their money. But on general principles, the new terms should apply only to new money. You could refuse the new terms, cut the card up, pay off what you owe on the old terms, and open a new account, if they'll let you. Most people won't bother, and so they get to pull a fast one and apply the new terms to old money. Yes it is sharp practice, but these people are bankers.

In this case though, I suspect the new clause is only a clarification of what was always the case.

_Andy_

I think the most important question that's not been answered yet though is - why are you using Comic Sans?

chattychappy

I see the point in what the OP is saying.

There is a retrospective element in that the money owed by the CC is in respect of wrongfully taken PPI amounts - taken before the T+Cs changed. Now the CC is having to refund these amounts, it is giving itself the right to divert this money to pay of the outstanding debt.

However against what the OP is saying:
1) It is not clear that the T+Cs have really changed as CCs have argued that they have this right anyway. ie the T+C "change" is just a clarification.
2) Whether the PPI was actually paid depends on how the account has been run. If the PPI amounts were simply added to a running debt, then it's reasonable that a "refund" is applied to reduce that debt.
3) There is still the argument that the OP agreed that terms can be varied when the account was opened - and this is pretty open ended. The PPI payments could have been reclaimed as soon as they were made. Though only more recently it has become clear that there was unlawful misselling, this is not because of a change of law. Theoretically the OP could have claimed refunds as soon as they were taken - ie before the change in T+Cs.

Janie4Now

_Andy_ wrote: »

I think the most important question that's not been answered yet though is - why are you using Comic Sans?

A fellow member of the Hate Comic Sans Society :rotfl: