Late payment charges

eskbanker

chattychappy wrote: »

Noted the point about cross-subsidy. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but cross-subsidy was found to be OK when the courts ruled on bank charges, which came after 2006. From memory, they did distinguish the situation from CCs.)

To be honest I'm not aware of OFT taking a view on cross-subsidy as a principle but was just highlighting that they were fairly precise about legitimate inclusions for these CC-related costs.

chattychappy wrote: »

It is true £12 would be more nowadays. On the other hand, I remember in the past you used to get a separate letter in the post as soon as a payment was late and sometimes phoned you up. So I think their cost structures are lower now.

If the OP's CC has done little more than put a note on a statement and charged £12, month after month, then I believe there is a case to say the fees are disproportionate to what the breach has cost them. As I say, interest is there to cover the cost of the extended lending.

OP did say they'd "discovered all my letters showing I still owe £12" rather than referring to statements, so it may well be that such letters are still issued by this lender (which isn't to say that it costs them £12 a pop to do so of course!).