Unfair Over Limit Fee?

Voyager2002

chattychappy wrote: »

I can think of 3 approaches to get your fees back:
1) Try and show that Aqua weren't following the lending code in the calculation of the minimum due, or in some way were breaching their own T+Cs;
2) Argue that the fees applied were unfair considering the cost of the breach to them - ie ask them to show how they incurred £12 of costs each time you went overlimit. Penalties are meant to be a reflection of the cost to the injured party of the breach.
3) Phone up, be nice, say it was Christmas, say you messed up, say you'll take more care in the future and that perhaps in cause of goodwill they'll refund back the charges.

I'd go for (3) in the first place. (1) seems unlikely. I think (2) is a long shot, but if you formalised a complaint then perhaps a deal could be done.

Good advice: (3) is likely to work, although in the OP's position I would also ask about the first over-limit fee;

(1) would be the next thing to try: the text quoted in post 4 of this thread does make it clear that Aqua should have calculated a minimum payment to include the interest charge;

OTOH (2) is a non-starter. Back in the days when credit card providers were charging 25 pounds for this kind of thing it was all looked at, and I think they concluded that the maximum amount that would not be a penalty was 19 pounds. The Aqua charge is below this figure...

mcpitman

m4rc wrote: »

Yea, that's helpful, kick someone when they are down eh....

Glad you like my post.

1. It is helpful due to stating the obvious facts.
2. I don't kick anyone when they're down
3. Where was your help and advice?

Troll off.....

chattychappy

Voyager2002 wrote: »

OTOH (2) is a non-starter. Back in the days when credit card providers were charging 25 pounds for this kind of thing it was all looked at, and I think they concluded that the maximum amount that would not be a penalty was 19 pounds. The Aqua charge is below this figure...

I believe it was a bright law student who spotted that the £25 (or more) charges might be illegal under the (then) new EU Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT (the then regulator) took up the complaint and concluded that whether a particular fee was enforceable would depend on circumstances (because the cost of the breach would vary) but they would make the rebuttable presumption that anything about £12 would be unfair and that is the level at which they would intervene. They were clear that fees below this level might also be unenforceable, and that fees above £12 could be OK. Nevertheless, £12 became a defacto standard.

In those days it was quite common for CCs to send a letter if your payment was late or you went above the limit. I suspect in the OP's case they did nothing except put a note on the statement. If the CC can't show that the breach cost them £12x2, then they cannot enforce the charge. Perhaps they can demonstrate the charge is a fair reflection of their costs - but my guess is they would quickly do a deal in response to a well worded complaint rather than haggle over £24.

m4rc

mcpitman wrote: »

Glad you like my post.

1. It is helpful due to stating the obvious facts.
2. I don't kick anyone when they're down
3. Where was your help and advice?

Troll off.....

Oh I'm not 'trolling', I was pointing out to you that you were not being friendly or supportive, no need to be aggressive to people. There is nothing wrong with a little sympathy, sure you were stating facts but so has everyone who posted before you, they just did it in a nicer way.

And I don't need to give any advice as its all been suggested before your post.

saver861

Telly74 wrote: »

I am going to call up and pay a big chunk off this month as was always my plan, but wanted some advice on this situation before contacting them and if I should dispute the charges at all?

Any comments/help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

As others have said, I'm not sure you would get far by 'disputing' the charges. It's likely that it is all covered in the small print.

The best approach is to hold your hands up and ask plead for leniency! I think you would have a reasonable chance of getting one of the over the limit charges refunded it not the other.

You could argue the point that the complexity of it is hidden and not clear where over the limit charges are part of the credit limit etc. however, it's unlikely to get far.

Post it down to experience ... you are unlikely to make the same mistake again!!

mcpitman

m4rc wrote: »

Oh I'm not 'trolling', I was pointing out to you that you were not being friendly or supportive, no need to be aggressive to people. There is nothing wrong with a little sympathy, sure you were stating facts but so has everyone who posted before you, they just did it in a nicer way.

And I don't need to give any advice as its all been suggested before your post.

You are trolling/antagonising by insinuating I am "kicking someone when they were down" and interjecting to a post with no constructive advice.

I don't recall the OP asking for sympathy. And in no way was I "aggressive" to the OP.

Binary, black and white, yes or no answers only apply, no grey areas, rephrase as you wish, but not aggressive.

m4rc

mcpitman wrote: »

You are trolling/antagonising by insinuating I am "kicking someone when they were down" and interjecting to a post with no constructive advice.

I don't recall the OP asking for sympathy. And in no way was I "aggressive" to the OP.

Binary, black and white, yes or no answers only apply, no grey areas, rephrase as you wish, but not aggressive.

Wrote loads, deleted it as I realised I'm arguing on a screen with some text, a made up name and an avatar. I am totally wrong, and yes you are right of course, I'm sure the OP is very grateful to you for pointing out their mistake.

jonesMUFCforever

Meanwhile after all this arguing have you noticed there has been no response by the original poster.

saver861

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Meanwhile after all this arguing have you noticed there has been no response by the original poster.

Indeed! Which is often the case - though the length of the original post suggests they went to an effort!

msallen

saver861 wrote: »

Indeed! Which is often the case - though the length of the original post suggests they went to an effort!

.... but didn't get the answer they wanted.