Old Credit Card charges (10 years ago)

My understanding is that banks used to charge excessive charges, for overdrawn / late payment etc.. Is it worth me complaining ?

The OFT ruling on credit card charges was back in 2006. So, your period of 2009 is after the changes and not before. Hence the above post saying you wouldnt have excessive charges in 2009.

Nasqueron wrote: »

The banks won the case in 2006 where the ruling was effectively that £12 charge was ok. The ruling did say that £12 itself might be excessive but that it would need a proper court case to challenge it and given the relatively low fee, no-one has challenged it. By 2009 you would have long been given details of the charges and how to avoid them as well as how to deal with financial hardship, there is no chance of getting these back under the "unfair or excessive" charges line as you won't have been charged anything excessive.

The banks did NOT win a case in 2006 in relation to credit card fees ! I have pointed this out to you on no less than 3 occasions yet you continue to give false information to posters - why ?

brown1950 wrote: »

The banks did NOT win a case in 2006 in relation to credit card fees ! I have pointed this out to you on no less than 3 occasions yet you continue to give false information to posters - why ?

The OFT ruled in 2006 that only charges over £12 for late payment, default etc for credit cards were excessive. Banks and card firms lowered their charges at that point. OP was charged in 2009, they were not charged excessive fees and there is nothing to complain about.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131101193648/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2006/68-06


As I have pointed out to you many many times now, UK law is based on precedent, the 2009 supreme court win for the banks on fees set the ruling that "unfair" fees could not be challenged. This will apply to credit cards as well as banks based on the precedent set by the supreme court. That is how UK law works. Sorry you don't understand this.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Instead of berating other posters for giving "false" information, why not help the OP by posting what you believe is the correct information?

Are you saying that the OP can still complain about excessive credit card charges from 2009 and be successful?

Or are you simply suggesting the threat of legal action might be enough to make the Bank prefer to settle out-of-court?

Why do you not answer my original question which is :-

The banks did NOT win a case in 2006 in relation to credit card fees ! I have pointed this out to you on no less than 3 occasions yet you continue to give false information to posters - why ?

Over to you with an explanation as to why YOU and other's on this site THINK the Supreme Court ruling
on bank charges also apply to credit card fee's ?

brown1950 wrote: »

Why do you not answer my original question which is :-

The banks did NOT win a case in 2006 in relation to credit card fees ! I have pointed this out to you on no less than 3 occasions yet you continue to give false information to posters - why ?

Over to you with an explanation as to why YOU and other's on this site THINK the Supreme Court ruling
on bank charges also apply to credit card fee's ?

My post above (reply 7) explained this. If you choose to ignore this, I can't really help you.


As previously stated (and linked above), the OFT ruled in 2006 that charges over £12 FOR CREDIT CARDS were unfair, the card firms all lowered their charges to £12 at that point. Someone in 2009 being charged a credit card fee would have been charged £12, not over the voluntary cap, QED not unfair.


UK law is based on precedent set in similar court cases. If you had any knowledge of UK law you'd know this. Look at any technical supreme court case judgement, they are all based on previous rulings for similar things. Hell if you read the 2006 bank charges case, it's stuffed full of them, for example point 295 / 299 of the ruling

Before dealing with other issues about the application of the 1999 Regulations, it is convenient next to consider whether the Relevant Terms and Relevant Charges are penalties so as to be unenforceable at common law against the customer. In order for a provision for payment to be penal, it must provide for payment upon a breach of contract (see Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co, [1983] 1 WLR 399) that is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss from the breach but which is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the prospective loss (see Jeancharm Ltd v Barnet Football Club Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 58 at para 27).

299 The Banks emphasise that a Relevant Charge cannot be penal unless it is payable upon a breach by the customer, and illustrate this principle by referring to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Jervis v Harris [1996] Ch 195, which concerned a provision in a lease (clause 2(10)) obliging a tenant to carry out repairs and providing that if he did not do so, the landlord might do the repairs and recover from the tenant the costs and expenses of doing so. This provision was held not to be penal, and Millett LJ said this (at p.206E-G):

The 2006 case set the precedent old charges are not unfair, any case taken today would use that ruling as the precedent