Credit Card Reclaiming Discussion

crabbity_witch

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The OFT did not say this - they are not the authority on what applies to the Limitations Act and what doesn't. Only a court can decide that.

And Banks and credit card companies changed their charges to £12 after the OFT ruling of June 2006 because the OFT said that in their opinion that anything over £12 was unfair.

Alpine_Star

crabbity_witch wrote: »

If it was so desperately unfair, why sign it in the first place then?

Last time I checked, nobody on this forum was forced at gunpoint to take out a credit card.

There's a 14 day cancellation period for a reason and surprise surprise, people don't bother to go home and read the terms and conditions and then decide "hey, that's unfair! I don't want this".

they just go home, use, fail to pay on time then cry and whinge and kick their little heels when they get a charge and make a fuss about how unfair it is.

I really don't get it - nobody forced you to take it out. If it was so unfair, why'd you do it?

People need to accept the consequences of their actions, rather than make a fuss about how it's SO unfair.

You are confusing 'fairness' as in a point of view and 'fairness' as in it's legal context under UTCCR. These are two entirely different concepts.

Alpine_Star

crabbity_witch wrote: »

And Banks and credit card companies changed their charges to £12 after the OFT ruling of June 2006 because the OFT said that in their opinion that anything over £12 was unfair.

To be clear there was no ruling that the charges were unfair, rather ''where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair'' http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2006/68-06

And this means that the OFT would seek injunctive relief in a court which would first have to decide whether the charges were unfair before it was granted.

''Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs'' http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft842.pdf

crabbity_witch

Alpine_Star wrote: »

You are confusing 'fairness' as in a point of view and 'fairness' as in it's legal context under UTCCR. These are two entirely different concepts.

and you seem to not understand that people signed these agreements which clearly stated that late payment, going over limits, and payments that bounce would incur a fee.


"fair" or not, people agreed to this.

you sound like you work for a CMC or a bunch of ambulance chasers.

heaven forbid people take a little responsibility for themselves, their actions and what they sign and do.

whether or not it's fair (in any sense of the word) the agreements that people signed - which i bet said "i have read and understand these terms and conditions" would have referred to these charges. fair or not, if people didn't like it, they shouldn't have signed it.

these cases will mean the end of free banking, just like the surge in ambulance chaser solicitors has meant that elf 'n' safety has curtailed and so-called risky activity in case someone gets sued.

you missed the payments, suck it up and deal with the consequences. maybe if folk contacted their lender, in writing in the first place, rather than allow default payment after default payment build up month after month, they wouldn't have to claim them back now.

Alpine_Star

crabbity_witch wrote: »

and you seem to not understand that people signed these agreements which clearly stated that late payment, going over limits, and payments that bounce would incur a fee.


"fair" or not, people agreed to this.

A term can only become unfair from the point that the consumer signs the contract. And as I said the consumer's agreement it not a declaration that the terms are fair. Although this is all academic anyway as the signing of a contract does not necessarily mean that you have read and therefore agreed to the terms.

Alpine_Star

crabbity_witch wrote: »

these cases will mean the end of free banking

This is just nonsense.

How can the reclaiming of credit card default charges have any impact on the free-if-in-credit banking model? It is a different industry.

crabbity_witch

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Although this is all academic anyway as the signing of a contract does not necessarily mean that you have read and therefore agreed to the terms.

Funny - because most credit card agreements I have seen have a declaration at the end that very clearly and in plain English states "i have read and understand the terms and conditions and agree to be bound by them".

Or words to that effect. So if people have lied it serves them right.

Also,what type of idiot signs anything without reading it first? Oh wait, the type of idiot that then goes and defaults on their payments thus incurring charges, that's the type!

Only idiots sign stuff without reading it first.

I can honest to G*d say I always read anything I am putting my name to first. And what do you know,I've never once, in my whole life, had a late payment fee for anything.

There is no excuse for this level of irresponsibility or stupidity. People need to grow up and take responsibility for their financial affairs.

Alpine_Star

crabbity_witch wrote: »

Funny - because most credit card agreements I have seen have a declaration at the end that very clearly and in plain English states "i have read and understand the terms and conditions and agree to be bound by them".

Declarations of this kind are presumed to be unfair under UTCCR by both the FSA and OFT and cannot be used as the basis for rejecting a complaint.

"A declaration requiring consumers to agree that they have read and understood a contract is, in our view, unfair. This is because the statement may not be true and may not reflect what has actually happened.''

"Consumers may not have either read or understood the contract and so are not in a position to declare that they have in fact done so. In this instance, the declaration is effectively meaningless and does not reflect the circumstances in which the particular consumer signs their contract,"

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/understood.pdf

Therefore if financial institutions can't use this argument in defence of an unfair term, you cannot, with any credibility, use it yourself.

jjww_2

Hi everyone,

I was after a bit of advice I wrote to mbna using the template letter requesting £251.39 including interest at 8%. I recieved the standard 4 weeks to look into letter after less than 2 weeks I recieved another letter offering £31.70 which is for 1 charge of £25 & interest. This letter states they will not settle any of the fees since july 2006 as they are consistent with the ofts guidelines it also says they will not enter into anymore correspondance. Attached to the letter was a cheque for someone else, i replied by returning the cheque along with the second template letter. after 10 days I have recieved the correct cheque for £31.70 in an envelope with no attached letter. How should I proceed?

any advice will be much appreciated.

Thanks

jjww

Premier_2

jjww wrote: »

... after 10 days I have recieved the correct cheque for £31.70 in an envelope with no attached letter. How should I proceed?

any advice will be much appreciated.

Thanks

jjww

Congratulations! :T

What exactly are you unsure of how to proceed? You got the right cheque now. Bank it and, once cleared, enjoy

Presumably you are happy with that as when you responded to the earlier letter and sent back the incorrect cheque, you didn't state you were not willing to accept the offer.

Edit: Actually you did very well to get the whole of the £25 plus interest refunded.
Normally they would only offer the difference between the original charge and £12 (plus interest)