fees on fees

chattychappy

The £12 fee has become a defacto standard since the OFT (the then regulator) stated that they would presume anything higher to be unfair. They were clear at the time that a fee above £12 wouldn't necessarily be unenforceable and a fee of £12 or less wouldn't necessarily be enforceable - just they wouldn't intervene with charges set at this level. What is legal depends on the circumstances of the case. The OFT based its position on their reading of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Oenalty charges should be a reflection of the costs incurred by the injured party of a breach of contract. It is not meant to be a "punishment" or a profit opportunity.

In the past CCs might make phone calls or send out letters. If you are just a couple of days late they seem to do nothing to "earn" their £12 except put a note on the next statement.

Kim_13 wrote: »

It is legal unfortunately.

So it might or might not be "legal".

Kim_13 wrote: »

The late fee is a flat fee for a late or missing payment, it doesn't have to be proportionate to the amount that was actually late or related to a purchase transaction.

The very nature of it being a flat fee does cause a problem. You are right it to say it doesn't have to be proportionate to the amount that was actually late or related to a purchase transaction, but it does have to be proportionate to the costs incurred.

OP: there is nothing wrong with "fees on fees" per se. But if you wish to challenge any fee, you should do so by demanding to know how the breach cost them the £12 they wish to recover.

Anthorn

If you didn't know about the fee when you got the card and therefore could not have agreed to it then you can challenge it. But the chances are that you at least were given that information and you agreed to it before you got the card. Not a lot you can do about it.

The late fee is added to the balance so if you pay late again then you have to pay the late fee on the balance which includes the previous late fee. You could argue that they acted irresponsibly in allowing the account to stay open but hardly worth it for such a small amount.

Usually with the second consecutive month of failing to abide by the T&Cs it will appear in your credit report and not a lot you can do about that either.

edward131

because you did not pay on time (fees)

Dobbibill

queenbeeno1 wrote: »

I am I pleased to advise that the fees on fees were classed as excessive and I have succesfully had all of them removed and had the account closed.
It was a point of principle.
At the end of the day it was not in MBNAs interest to pursue me for this and the fact they had allowed a transaction on a dormant account was the issue.

I fear you may have won the battle but not the war.

It's probably not worth wasting their time chasing you for such a minimal amount but accurately recording late payments against your CR will last alot longer and will not impact them, only you, for 6 yrs.