Credit Card Reclaiming Success Stories

Bermonia

Yeah course!

Nasqueron

brown1950 wrote: »

The Banks won against bank charges and not against credit card charges !

Which is irrelevant for 2 reasons


1) 3 years before the bank case, the OFT had already ruled in April 2006 that charges were set "at a significantly higher level than is legally fair" and that any charge over £12 would be presumed to be unfair unless there were "exceptional business factors" so if the charges were before 2006, that ruling was not in force, so any charges were ok; if after 2006 then so long as they were £12 or less, they were fair and cannot be claimed
2) As I have told you 5, maybe 10 times, UK law is based on precedent. The 2009 case cited several old cases in the judgement which had established precedent on charges. A court challenge on credit card charges would use the 2009 case as the precedent established that charges were legitimate.

brown1950

And again you refuse to accept the following ;-

Bank charges following the Supreme Court decision are NOT refundable.

Credit card charges HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED in a UK court.

WHY ?

Your OPINION is irrelevant unless you can show me and all the posters over the last 3 years why you
think credit card charges IN ENGLISH LAW are not recoverable.
Finally i have mentioned to you many times i do not know of one credit card company who has defended
an action against them for refund of credit card charges.

Finally to link credit card charges to the bank charges Supreme Court decision is WRONG as shown
by credit card charges being refunded without the credit card companies defending in a UK Court.

Nasqueron

brown1950 wrote: »

And again you refuse to accept the following ;-

Bank charges following the Supreme Court decision are NOT refundable.

Credit card charges HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED in a UK court.

WHY ?

Your OPINION is irrelevant unless you can show me and all the posters over the last 3 years why you
think credit card charges IN ENGLISH LAW are not recoverable.
Finally i have mentioned to you many times i do not know of one credit card company who has defended
an action against them for refund of credit card charges.

Finally to link credit card charges to the bank charges Supreme Court decision is WRONG as shown
by credit card charges being refunded without the credit card companies defending in a UK Court.

Brown you don't understand what I am writing, that's why you think I haven't already explained this over and over, I have, you just don't get it

UK law is based on precedent. That is a fact. Look at any major court case (the 2009 bank charges case would be fine). Note in the judgement how they continually refer to previous cases and how they were ruled in order to make the judgement. If a court case came up where the banks decided to defend, their lawyers would cite the supreme court case of 2009 as the precedence that unfair charges were not applicable. There are no 2 views, that is a fact.

The OFT case on card charges ruled that the fee of £12 was the limit for card charges in most cases, after the case, all the card companies lowered their charges, so on what basis would any charge be unfair? None.

You have very limited knowledge of the courts process, you don't know of card companies defending cases so you assume they don't exist. You cannot provide a single example of a PROVEN refund of credit card charges, your links are always to cases where a NDA is signed and you assumed they won all charges but you don't know that precisely because of the NDA!

The supreme court case is 100% relevant because it established the precedent on unfair charges that a court case would use as the defence. All it takes is one case and suddenly the poor people you are telling to sue the banks have thousands of pounds of costs and I think it's fair to say you won't be putting your hand in your pocket to pay will you?