Barclaycard have actually STOLEN my money!

inmypocketnottheirs

dzug1 wrote: »

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.

Not exactly. It is only the OFT deciding, that proves nothing in reality, they are kind of toothless tigers - i.e. Egg have ignored the £12 'ruling'.

Tozer

nickmack wrote: »

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.

I'd go a step further. You CANNOT claim punitive damages under English law unless massively unusual situations.

Tozer

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

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.

My opinion. £12 would be construed as fair and not a penalty. You have to remember that it is not just the actual cost of sending a letter but also the fact that someone has defaulted on their agreement would entitle the credit card company to nominal damages. Further, the credit card company is facing, theoretically, a greater risk of default so will have to more closely monitor account activity.

I've been involved in some pretty heavy international arbitrations where liquidated damages have been considered. They are required to be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered in the event of a breach. However, they don't have to be the precise figure and there is a pretty broad band which the "acceptability" falls into.

Death_To_Barclaycard

Hello again,

Thanks to all of you who have taken an interest in my post. Some replies have been less helpful than others... (lives under a
bridge, indeed... I'll have you know, it's a flyover.)

There once was a time when I probably would have just paid the £20 fine. After all, I was dumb enough to keep my Barclaycard
during those few years in the mid-90s when they were charging £10 or £12 a year for the dubious privilege of being deemed a fit
and proper enough person to be allowed the prestige of using one.

The reason that credit card companies impose their fines is because they know that most people will simply meekly pay up and leave
it at that. If they impose annual charges, it's because they know that most people will consider it too much trouble to ditch and
switch, and that most people will just assume that if their credit card company is doing it, all the rest will be doing it too.
So, for the credit card companies, it's trebles all round!

In my case, Barclaycard have plundered my Barclays bank account to the tune of £172.16 in an unauthorised transaction. Being the
chancers they are, they're obviously banking on my not doing anything about it. But things have changed now. With the advent of
Martin's website, I now know I can fight back, and everything I've read on the site gives me every reason to believe that I will
get my money back.

To comment on some of your points: I don't agree that I buried my head in the sand. I phoned Barclaycard as soon as I realised
what had happened, and later on I wrote them a detailed letter which pointed out that my entire remaining balance consisted of
their charges. They (well, Mercers) acknowledged the letter, but completely ignored the content. (It was essentially: thanks for
the letter, you owe us x amount of money, pay up.) It was evident to me that to get in touch with them again would be futile, not
to mention a waste of my money on phone calls and postage costs.

I was unaware of any terms which "allow" Barclaycard to take money out of my Barclays bank account. If I had been, I would have
switched banks long ago. Many years ago, I went to my branch of Barclays bank, under the impression that there was a link between
them and Barclaycard (you would think so, if you didn't know otherwise), to try and set something up which would have made things
more convenient for me (I forget what it was). I was told that it couldn't be done, because Barclays bank and Barclaycard were
effectively separate organisations without any operational links. Funny how they are linked when it suits them.

I haven't checked my credit reference agency data, but I think it's reasonable to assume that it has been affected, because for
the last year or so, I haven't had any of the usual junk mail trying to get me to sign up for credit cards! So, there has been
one positive aspect to this saga. Another clue was that, a few months ago, I did receive a couple of junk mails that offered me
credit cards with an APR of about 33%.

Regarding that court case last month, I believe it only applies to bank charges, not credit card charges, so it won't make any
difference in my case.

I don't know about the legal definition of the word, "fine", but to quote from the Credit Card Charges page of this website:
"They’re not supposed to fine you; yet over the years that’s exactly what they’ve done whenever people have missed credit card
repayment dates or bust through their credit limit."

My case does raise a couple of questions. Firstly, why did Barclaycard stop adding extra charges at a certain point? If they
believe they are entitled to add extra charges month on month, then why not carry on ad infinitum, so as to grasp even more money?
Secondly, if they believe they have the right to settle debts by raiding bank accounts, then why wait two years to do it? Why
not just do it at the outset and avoid using the likes of Mercers and Robinson Way?

As regards my next move, I'll start off by having a word with someone at my branch of Barclays bank, futile gesture though it will
no doubt prove to be, and then I'll start sending the letters, as per the templates on this site. I guess any notions of getting
punitive damages off Barclaycard are wishful thinking, but I can at least ask for the 8% interest, even if it does only amount to
a few pence at the moment. Does anybody know if I can claim for the costs of postage and phone calls? I sent my previous letter
to Barclaycard by recorded delivery because I wanted to make sure they received it, and that cost me £1.06.

Cheers,

Death_To_Barclaycard

Tozer

Couple of things. I think Barclaycard are now separate from Barclays. Could be wrong but you may find that Barclays branches cannot help.

You should try and resolve things amicably with Barclays. However, at this point, i cannot see any legal basis for a claim aganst them. And no, you will not have a chance of claiming postage and stuff unless it is very substantial. Sorry but £1.06 doesn't really cut it. Its part of life so I guess you will need to deal with it.

noh

Death_To_Barclaycard wrote: »

........................................................................
In my case, Barclaycard have plundered my Barclays bank account to the tune of £172.16 in an unauthorised transaction..........
...............................

I was unaware of any terms which "allow" Barclaycard to take money out of my Barclays bank account. If I had been, I would have
switched banks long ago.

If you had taken the trouble to read the terms and conditions that you agreed to when you opened your accounts you would have seen that you authorised them to debit your bank account to repay any amount owing on other accounts you hold with them.

Section 7.6
http://www.personal.barclays.co.uk/PFS/A/Content/Files/9904463_jun07.pdf


Nigel

inmypocketnottheirs

noh wrote: »

If you had taken the trouble to read the terms and conditions that you agreed to when you opened your accounts you would have seen that you authorised them to debit your bank account to repay any amount owing on other accounts you hold with them.

Section 7.6
http://www.personal.barclays.co.uk/PFS/A/Content/Files/9904463_jun07.pdf


Nigel

What? You mean this isn't someone else's fault?

neverdespairgirl

Tozer wrote: »

I'd go a step further. You CANNOT claim punitive damages under English law unless massively unusual situations.

The circumstances under which you can claim exemplorary damages are very, very limited, and apply to extreme bad faith, mostly.

mushypeaman

The same thing happened today with my daughter's Nationwide account (her money was sequestrated), except, in her case, the charges had remained unpaid because she couldn't afford to pay them.

I came here looking for answers, I found them. The info about the 'hardship' clause was particularly useful.

Many thanks to all who contributed.