'Inertia' Interest Rate Rises - New Card Scam?

MacBoy

Missing you already. :wave:

another great ambassador - Martin must be so proud

Dylanwing

MacBoy - Stick with this Forum, it is fun and hugely informative.
Jamal makes some good points (No shooting from me!), and is totally right re the T&C's, but it must be great having T&C's that basically say "We can do what we like and if you don't like it, tough".:mad: So, we lend you money at an interest rate that we can just randomly raise by any amount we like, and we set you a limit that we can randomly withdraw. Is that really fair trading? In my Banking days, most of these T&C's were only there to be used in exceptional circumstances, such as bad conduct or non-payment.
Most of the problems are a case of light regulation on very greedy Corporations (As with the Utilities and Rail), and unless they are better regulated, things will get a lot worse. How about insisting rates are linked to Base/ LIBOR? Proper consumer protection, and it will barely dent the Banks profits.

MacBoy

Thanks Dylanwing - yes I will stick with it - I guess I was just surprised a little - it's not exactly a welcoming community, but the quality of discussion is good and you're not all like that. And I didn't have a problem with Jamal at all It was just the one or two snarky, unnecessary remarks from others that jarred a little.

But I would contend that just because something is in the Ts & Cs doesn't mean it's legal. Statute law would I believe take precedent. Therefore they are always open to legal review and interpretation in my view.

I do agree however with your assertion that the banks need watching a little more closely. They also shouldn't be allowed to conduct data-mining to apply discriminatory measures either IMHO (fine for marketing though - I don't believe data mining's evil in and of itself); which was my main reason for starting the thread.

To Jamal I would say of course - I realise that a credit card's rate is variable. My point centres simply around the identification of a section of customers that are then given punitive rises on an inertia basis; so that the rest can keep on enjoying 0% deals. 'Tarting' has victims too, not just beneficiaries.

inmypocketnottheirs

Following Barclaycards decision to reduce the minimum repayments as a step to generate profit after their wholesale move to reduce credit limits (thus reducing their earnings), I have written to them to close my account as I wish to distance myself from an unscrupulous lender who seeks to trap their customers into paying more interest. So far the two responses I have had from their customer services team, have not addressed the issue that I have raised, and have simply chortled on about 'responsible lending' blah blah blah.

Responsible lending, my ar$€!

MacBoy

Yes, this is another trick being played. I forgot to mention, on one one of the interest rate notifications I got, the minimum payment was reduced from 3% to 2.5%. Thanks for reminding me.

The Usurers are so caring!

inmypocketnottheirs

MacBoy wrote: »

Yes, this is another trick being played. I forgot to mention, on one one of the interest rate notifications I got, the minimum payment was reduced from 3% to 2.5%. Thanks for reminding me.

The Usurers are so caring!

This really p****s me off. Just who are they trying to kid!

deary65

I have done just a little research this is what you will be up against!


The courts have a lot to answer for. Section 138(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 which was to protect consumers from 'extortionate' credit bargains provided such agreements were 'regulated' agreements and were not 'exempt' agreements under section 16 was limited and distinguished almost out of existence by the court in landmark cases such as Ketley v Scott [1980] CCLR 37 where Foster J held that an interest rate of 48% was not 'extortionate' in the statutory sense.

Barcabe v Edwards [1983] CCLR 11, where a county court judge thought that it Prima facie extortionate to lend money at a flat rate of 100% when similar lenders charged only 20%. The APR for the loan in that case was actually 319% and the court substituted a flat rate of 40% (ie, an APR of 92%).

The Court of Appeal in Paragon Finance v Nash [2002] 1 WLR 683 which held that there was to be no judicial intervention where credit was merely 'extortionate' it had to be 'grossly' extortionate'.

How 'gross' does 'gross' have to be?

So bloody arrogant and !!!!-sure of themselves are established lenders that when the CEO of Barclays gave evidence to a Commons Select Committee two years ago, he admitted that he would not touch a Barclaycard with a Barge-pole or allow his children to have one as they were, according to him, 'too expensive'.

YorkshireBoy

deary65 wrote: »

...when the CEO of Barclays gave evidence to a Commons Select Committee two years ago, he admitted that he would not touch a Barclaycard with a Barge-pole or allow his children to have one as they were, according to him, 'too expensive'.

I think you've embellished the above. More accurately, he said (4 years ago in 2003), that...

"I do not borrow on credit cards. It is too expensive. I have four young children. I give them advice not to pile up debts on their credit cards."

housebuyer_abc

MacBoy wrote: »

Yes.. well er, .. thanks for the constructive advice :rolleyes:

He was being as constructive as your post allowed.

You agreed to the T&Cs when you took out the card, which specifically allows them to vary the interest rate any time they want. You gave them this power, they are merely choosing to exercise it. If you hadn't agreed to allow them to do it then they couldn't (admittedly they couldn't give you a card either).

They are entitled to charge whatever interest rate they want, in exactly the same way as you are entitled to pay of the money you owe and tell them to stick their card anytime you want.

The sooner people start to realise that a credit card (and associated borrowing power) is a privilege (with risks and costs attached) and not a right, the better the world will be !!!

GreyPilgrim

deary65 wrote: »

So bloody arrogant and !!!!-sure of themselves are established lenders that when the CEO of Barclays gave evidence to a Commons Select Committee two years ago, he admitted that he would not touch a Barclaycard with a Barge-pole or allow his children to have one as they were, according to him, 'too expensive'.

I think it was harsh that this chap got slated for making a 100% truthful, honest, down to earth statement.