Bank's double standards with OFT ruilings

george_pool

In Paril 2005, the OFT announced that credit card charges should be capped at £12. However, my bank (HSBC) now charges me instead of the £30 straight, £12 + an administrative fee of £5 (this fee was never there before). Hence the total comes to £17, 5 more than the OFT ruled. This is just a sneaky way to get more than the £12, and illegal? I believe this can be taken as evidence to support banking charges claims.

Here's my point:

It seems to me the banks are selective when it comes to sticking to OFT rules. When the OFT ruled that banks do not have to respond to new banking charges claims, all of them suddenly followed up the 'command'. However, the £12 cap, has CLEARLY NOT been followed up.

Do the banks have double standards? This can't be legally correct? I believe that if I take this evidence to court, a judge will say the same?

Please respond!

MarkyMarkD

The £12 and £5 charges are for different things so they are legitimate. You would only incur £12 plus £5 if you both had a rejected DD payment (£5) and failed to make your minimum payment on time (£12) - it's quite possible to incur one without the other by, for example, paying by other means when you realise your DD will bounce.

The OFT £12 limit isn't a legal limit at all, so anything over £12 isn't illegal. The OFT have simply said that they are unlikely to consider charges under £12 unfair.

The OFT didn't "command" banks to stop dealing with bank charge claims. The FSA gave the banks the option of applying for a waiver from their complaint handling timescales in respect of bank charge claims.

Obviously the banks have taken up this offer - they'd be mad not to.

And the banks have complied with the £12 limit.

The fact that the £12 limit was maybe a poorly thought out limit, and that people can incur multiple £12 charges in respect of what they might see as the same mistake, is a different matter.