Credit Card Charges reclaim

Im going to check if my old credit card had any charges, I will write to them in due course.

Did you mismanage your credit card? i.e. fail to pay it within the required dates each month?

If yes, then you probably had charges. If no, then you would not have charges.

Credit cards are allowed to make a charge. The OFT set a figure of £12 in 2006 and card providers moved to that level.

Going by your dates, it was closed around 2013 and you had it 3-4 years (lets say 4) which makes it 2009. That is 3 years after the OFT level was set.

Can I claim for the duration the account was open or just the 1 year from the 6 year time bar until the account was closed?

Seeing as you had the account 3 years after the OFT ruling, what makes you think that you can complain about any charges?

brown1950 wrote: »

Yet again i have to remind you that Bank charges have nothing to do whatsover with Credit card charges. No prescedent has ever been set in relation to Credit card charges. I know of many people who have claimed ALL their charges back from the likes of Barclaycard.

For the OP see :-

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448783-HP-Mum-v-BC-reclaiming-penalties-and-Compound-Int-t-**WON**

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?110700-Orge-vs-BC-**WON**-chgs-repaid-with-compound-int-t-and-CRA-data-removed

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?423713-Barclaycard-penalty-charges-)-**WON**-with-restitutionary-interest

Yet again I have to remind you that UK law works on the basis of previous legal decisions. The supreme court case in 2009 has set the precedent that banks charging fees are NOT unfair and any future court case on credit card charges will almost certainly use that decision as a basis to not allow this.

You do not know MANY cases, you have linked 3, ALL of which concluded with the poster signing a confidentiality clause with no details of what they won, if they won anything, they may simply have had debts written off, they may have had a token payment, the CAG people have assumed a win. None of these cases are recent (the second one started in 2007 and took EIGHT YEARS to resolve), none are from cards opened after the 2006 fees ruling.

Please stop posting incorrect information

brown1950 wrote: »

It is you who is posting incorrect information linking credit card fee's and Bank charges .
You said a precedent was set regarding credit card fee's - Please provide which Court case set this precedent. (The Supreme Court ruling on bank charges certainly did not)
What 2006 credit card fee's ruling ????
It is well known that Barclaycard settle out of court and always impose a confidentiality clause into
any agreement.

To sum up - your comments on credit card fee's are factually wrong and i will continue to challenge
you when you continue to link the Supreme Court BANK charges with credit card default fee's.

Brown, as I have pointed out many times before, the UK legal system is based on precedent. When a high up court like the supreme court sets a rule or a case finishes with a judgement like bank charges are not unfair, it means similar cases (credit card charges are exactly the same thing) will refer to that. Note for example the recent Beavis vs Parking Eye ruling in parking charges, that established that a defence of excess charges did not apply, thus any attempt to refer to excess charges for parking results in a defence quoting this case. This is how the law works. There doesn't need to be a supreme court ruling specifically on credit card charges, we have already established that banking charges are fine. If you don't understand that, fine, but it doesn't change the facts. You may not understand gravity but if you drop an egg it will fall to the ground.


In 2006 the OFT looked at fees and ruled that the higher ones were unfair and that a charge of £12 was the maximum acceptable, all card providers reduced their charges following this ruling. The 2009 case followed and again established "unfair" charges could not be challenged. Why can you not provide evidence of a case for a card taken out after 2006 where it was proven the charges were "unfair" and could be refunded and that the person got all the charges back? Because such a case doesn't exist as the charges are fair, as ruled by the OFT!!!


You can challenge what you like but you are knowingly giving false information on this site. You claimed you have "loads" of cases where people got refunds of all the credit card charges, yet you cannot provide a single case that shows this. You linked 3 cases, NONE of them resulted in a confirmation that the poster had received back all the charges, the CAG muppets assumed a full refund of charges and interest without any evidence! Can you not see how misleading that is? You have suggested it's easy, yet one of those 3 you linked took EIGHT YEARS with no result known and you claim it's no risk yet when I challenge you to give the people you are advising the funds for the case you refuse which proves you know it's not as easy or guaranteed as you claim.

brown1950 wrote: »

...
What 2006 credit card fee's ruling ????
.

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

It's so old it's in the National Archives.:)

Which means, given the OP's timescales - account was closed approx 5 years ago (2013) - open 3 or 4 years previous (2009) - that any credit card charges levied would likely be of the £12 variety and perfectly fair.

Waste of time 'claiming' I'd say.