Barclaycard have actually STOLEN my money!

nickmack

Death_To_Barclaycard wrote: »

I suppose my first action should be to try and persuade Barclays Bank to refund my money, but I have no doubt that they will claim that the removal of my money was in order. However, it will not be enough simply to have my money returned to me. I want to hit those money-grubbing Barclaycard bast**ds where it hurts and have them pay punitive damages, and I want it to happen in court.

As others have said, ignoring payment requests and debt collectors is not a good idea. However, you can put in a claim to Barclaycard for the charges (including the £12 ones), but I would think very carefully before pursuing punitive damages. It's very difficult to prove and would most likely require expensive legal assistance.

By the way, institutions now write a clause in the contract that allows them to take funds from other accounts within the group.

moonrakerz

Sol00 wrote: »

So they said that the credit card cos are allowed to charge upto £12. Is that not what I said?

What the credit card companies are allowed to charge is what the Courts decide is reasonable. No one has taken them to Court (AFAIK) over the £12 figure.

Sol00

moonrakerz wrote: »

What the credit card companies are allowed to charge is what the Courts decide is reasonable. No one has taken them to Court (AFAIK) over the £12 figure.

So was the £12 figure agreed on between the CC companies and the OFT? I always thought this was the figure they were allowed to charge after an investigation by the OFT. If I'd known different I would have tried to get the rest off my old CC :rolleyes:

Edinburghlass_2

The £12 was a recommendation by OFT not an agreed figure and that is why Egg continue to charge £16.

Sol00

I see. Thanks

inmypocketnottheirs

Even the £12 figure is arguable.

It is essential to understand why these fines are being applied. This charge is levied by the banks/credit card companies when a breach of the terms and conditions occurs. So for example, it is in the terms and conditions that payment must be made by x date, or the credit limit is £y, and a late payment is made or the limit exceeded, then a fine of £12 (or any other amount) is applied.

A fine becomes punitive (and therefore uncollectable in a court of law) if it exceeds the liquidated loss (i.e. the actual amount the breach). Therefore it is quite possible to argue that it does not actually cost £12 to send out a standard letter. In fact in many cases no letter is even sent, especially in the case of credit cards. Normally all that happens is that the card is blocked until the account is back in order, and the first mention of the charge is on the next monthly statement. So how does this cost £12? Clearly this is not the actual cost (i.e.liquidated loss).

The OFT has merely stated that they will not intervene in cases where the charges are £12 or less. For the £12 to stand in law, then it would need to go to court and be proven that it does cost £12 for a late payment or any other breach of contract. Clearly it does not, and therefore this charge is just as unlawful as ever.

All of this falls under The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act as the conditions imposed by the banks/credit cards are indeed unfair. This is the outcome of the recent high court case.

moonrakerz

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

It is essential to understand why these fines are being applied.

A fine becomes punitive (and therefore uncollectable in a court of law) if it exceeds the liquidated loss (i.e. the actual amount the breach).

I don't wish to be pedantic here - but;

as we are discussing points of Law perhaps the correct terminology should be used.
There seems to be a growing trend to use the word "fine" in relation to charges levied by banks on their customers.
Two examples are quoted above - the second statement is, I am afraid, complete rubbish - a fine IS a punishment. This so-called fine may be a charge, or even damages - but it is certainly not a fine.

"A fine is money paid usually to superior authority, usually governmental authority, and in respect of a crime, but also in some other contexts".

Although most of the general context of the post I have quoted from is correct, the repeated use of the word "fine" makes the whole post legally suspect. If this argument were to be used in Court the bank would secure an easy victory by stating that it is not empowered to impose "fines" and any claim that it was so doing was totally incorrect.

Banks are not able to impose fines - what they may be doing is attempting to impose unlawful punitive charges.

dzug1

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

All of this falls under The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act as the conditions imposed by the banks/credit cards are indeed unfair. This is the outcome of the recent high court case.

That's NOT the outcome of the High Court case which ruled that the charges are NOT penalties.

It did not say they are unfair, either - that has yet to be decided. It did say that they were subject to the fairness rules - (which will not be the same - they are contractual fees now, not penalties for breach of contract).

inmypocketnottheirs

dzug1 wrote: »

That's NOT the outcome of the High Court case which ruled that the charges are NOT penalties.

It did not say they are unfair, either - that has yet to be decided. It did say that they were subject to the fairness rules - (which will not be the same - they are contractual fees now, not penalties for breach of contract).

Quote from the home page of this very site:

On Thurs 24 April 2008, a High Court judge confirmed what campaigners had been arguing for two years: that consumer contract regulations do apply to bank charges, so can be 'unfair'. Now it’s for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to assess whether it believes they are actually unfair, but as it's the one who took the banks to court, that seems likely.

Which is what I was saying. That the charges do fall under the Unfair Terms in Contracts Act.

dzug1

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Quote from the home page of this very site:



Which is what I was saying. That the charges do fall under the Unfair Terms in Contracts Act.

Yes - but that doesn't mean they are unfair. It means that they can be considered under the Act to determine whether they are unfair or not. That hasn't happened yet. As the other part of your quote says.