ITV - 'Tonight' programme - Friday 23 Feb 8.00 pm

[Bookworm]

No, Thailand, my post referred to the last bit about the OFT's expected "cap", and that pple would only be able to reclaim the difference between the charges and the "cap", which is nonsense.

 

But you are of course absolutely right about the 8% being demanded at prelim level is not a good thing.

 

The 8% is a statutory APR set by the County Court Act, and is NOT ot be claimed at prelim level, but only when issuing a court claim. People who are good enough at working things out, can and should, however, reclaim the unauthorised overdraft interest and include it as part of their claim from the start.

 

While I am at it, I would also strongly advise people agaisnt accepting lower offers to conclude their claims faster, anyone who's been on this site for any length of time knows that we all get 100% of our charges back if we don't give in.

 

I feel that the advice given by Martin makes it all look a bit duck'n'dive, cut a deal and get out fast instead of the assertion of our legal rights it should be at all times. It also encourages the banks to push back harder to try and minimise their loss by puttign more pressure to settle for less, which could prove a great disservice to the majority in the long run.

 

The above is my personal opinion, btw, I am not conveying any kind of "party line" here. ;-)

[xfox]

Hi there, I missed the programme tonight. SKY+ failed to record. Could anyone upload it? or send it to me on a DVD, would pay you for it via Paypal.

 

Thanks in advance.

[kippy2]

No, Thailand, my post referred to the last bit about the OFT's expected "cap", and that pple would only be able to reclaim the difference between the charges and the "cap", which is nonsense.

 

But you are of course absolutely right about the 8% being demanded at prelim level is not a good thing.

 

The 8% is a statutory APR set by the County Court Act, and is NOT ot be claimed at prelim level, but only when issuing a court claim. People who are good enough at working things out, can and should, however, reclaim the unauthorised overdraft interest and include it as part of their claim from the start.

 

While I am at it, I would also strongly advise people agaisnt accepting lower offers to conclude their claims faster, anyone who's been on this site for any length of time knows that we all get 100% of our charges back if we don't give in.

 

I feel that the advice given by Martin makes it all look a bit duck'n'dive, cut a deal and get out fast instead of the assertion of our legal rights it should be at all times. It also encourages the banks to push back harder to try and minimise their loss by puttign more pressure to settle for less, which could prove a great disservice to the majority in the long run.

 

The above is my personal opinion, btw, I am not conveying any kind of "party line" here. ;-)

 

bumping this up for newbies as what bookworm says is true. read this site lots all will become clearer.

 

READ READ READ READ LOTS ON THIS SITE. you will win no doubt about it. PROVIDED YOU STICK TO THE TRIED AND TRUSTED METHOD. the site wouldnt be here otherwise. it WORKS!!!!!

[matt_smith2000]

What WOULD people prefer though if they had to choose between the best of a bad lot - Monthly Fees (but for what?) or continuance of charges, but at a realistic transparent level.

 

I personally, if I had to choose, would go for the lower charges, if they were capped at £2.50 as has been suggested for a maintenance charge, £4.50 for cheques bouncing.

 

Obviously, I'd prefer it to be £0. Maybe, since onlinebanking seems to be the norm these days, do it all by E-Mail, then it would be next to nothing.

[reidnet]

Hi Xfox ... I have it on DVD, If you want to PM your Addy etc I can send you a copy.

 

Ian

[Stornoway]

OFT already said they would take action against anyone charging more than £12 for credit card penalty charges and that hasnt stopped us making successful FULL claims.

[Beaginis]

I too was disturbed by what the programme said about the OFT : The OFT is expected to report shortly (March/April ?) and to state that £12 is a fair amount. I was therefore relieved to read Bookworm's post .

 

I would still worry that this "news" would encourage banks to slow down on resettlements, to delay, where they can, till this report is out and then to refuse to refund the £12 charges citing the OFT report.

[Guest NATTIE]

The OFT is not the legal system of this country. The cap if introduced will merely stop exhorbitant charges but a cap is the upper limit in which the OFT can duck its responsibilities as it appears from the outside and take action. Charges are unlawful because they do not reflect actual cost for the breach of the contract. £12 is a wishy washy OFT figure which is not legally binding on you when you claim

[Spiceskull]

No, Thailand, my post...I feel that the advice given by Martin makes...instead of the assertion of our legal rights it should be at all times...The above is my personal opinion, btw...

I am in complete agreement with what Bookie says here, so listen up...

[DollyDayDream]

There is a lot about this in The Independent again today, including a report that Nationwide "is to begin refusing to investigate any complaint made about unauthorised borrowing charges until regulators have ruked on the controversy. From this weekend, Britain's biggest building society will write to all customers who demand refund of such fees, warning thier cases will nit now bw considered until the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) publishes its judgement on whether the disputed charges are illegal."

DDD.

[demon_x_slash]

I was sitting on the sofa watching this, and my OH finally threw a cushion at me for nit-picking: "No, that's not right...he's making it sound like a picnic in the park...£12 was not a cap! AAAAAAeeeee!" and so on

[Spiceskull]

From this weekend, Britain's biggest building society will write to all customers who demand refund of such fees, warning thier cases will nit now bw considered until the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) publishes its judgement on whether the disputed charges are illegal."

Nationwide can do what they like - if you raise a prelim and LBA, followed by a claim 28 days later, their "not consider" will go right out of the window...a court will not take lightly the excuse that "we are waiting for the OFT decision before considering..."

[CrispDust]

Nationwide seem to be taking this high handed atitude - well it'll fool some o Joe Public but not us CAGers eh?

While I applaud Martin for his generel consumer fight, he does seem to have quite a few facts wrong on the bank penalties. Possible a case of jumping on the bandwagon for fame and glory?

Even the Independent is getting its facts wrong saying charges are illegal. here's me thinking that journalists were thorough and competant at their jobs...

[sea-sidelady]

They made out it only takes 3-4 weeks.......

I have had people pm me and others asking why theirs is taking longer.

The prelim and lba alone take 4 weeks.

Very misleading......

[MrFancypants]

BW of course it's nonsense & designed to put consumers off from claiming.

 

Anyway the OFT finding will not be binding in law unless they take court action to force the banks to justify their charges which they won't & the banks can't

 

Customers of that bank should cut & paste that statement & once they have compiled their claim send it with their LBA whilst saying that as the bank have clearly stated that they will not consider claims then they have 7 days instead of 14 to respond before the issue of proceedings

 

Make them eat their words

[Beaginis]

As there are many more people who have seen the ITV programme than who read this Board, would it not be appropriate for the CAG to make a complaint the the Tonight programme and ask them to issue a clarification?

[Bookworm]

Incidentally, I also think that it is unlikely the OFT will set their threshold of intervention to £12.00. Credit card charges used to be £20 to £25, and the threshold got made at £12.00, so if you think that the banks charge £30 to £39 now, I think it highly likely the OFT intervention threshold will be put at round the £20 mark.

[Stornoway]

Incidentally, I also think that it is unlikely the OFT will set their threshold of intervention to £12.00. Credit card charges used to be £20 to £25, and the threshold got made at £12.00, so if you think that the banks charge £30 to £39 now, I think it highly likely the OFT intervention threshold will be put at round the £20 mark.

I havent read the full text of the original OFT £12 statement and I probably should before posting here but surely there is no difference in the cost bases of a credit card company and a bank and hence the charge should still be no higher than £12 ? I suppose I can see an argument for higher charges where the bank has physically done "something" i.e. bounced a cheque or a DD but in many cases the item gets paid and you are charged merely for going over limit. Personally I'm reclaiming a lot of historic charges and going forward I would be prepared to accept a £12 fee as I think this is just about reasonable. BW any idea where I can get the text from the £12 OFT decision - I'm now intrigued !

[Bookworm]

Current credit card default charges unfair

 

Also has links for the full reports on that page.

 

There are actually differences in the way the 2 operate. For starters a c/c lends you money upfront, a bank in theory is holding your money for you and had the additional facilities to lend as well. A bank will have costs such as branches, cashpoints, vaults, etc, whereas a c/c can be centralised and kept to one point only, so less overheads. More different specialisation of staff in banks, not so in c/c companies, etc, etc... Otherwise, why should there be such a gap between c/c charges and bank charges? There must be an element of proportionality the way they worked out what to impose on customers.

 

There is also the uneasy feeling that the banks have been pressurising the powers-that-be to bear pressure on the OFT. I don't know if you were following things when the c/c announcement came out last year, the howl of dismay (from the banking industry) when the £12 threshold was announced was incredible... There is a trend of consciousness that the banks may not have been quite so ready to get caught unawares this time... All of which is nowt but speculation at this stage,.... Either way, I would be VERY surprised indeed if the threshold was set at £12 or even £15.

Bookmark this thread, and we'll compare notes after the OFT announcement.

[Beaginis]

With regard to accepting £12.00 as a reasonable amount for a financial institution to pay for credit card late payment:

 

Did not the 'Tonight' programme interview an expert witness who estimaated that the banks incurred a generous £4.50 administration charge for credit card late payment notification?

[Bookworm]

No, that was the Money Programme a couple of months back.

 

And their "estimate" was flawed: they took into account general running costs, overheads, etc... which are costs that will occur regardless of your specific breach of contract, and should therefore not be incorporated when working out liquidated damages.

[Enron]

What WOULD people prefer though if they had to choose between the best of a bad lot - Monthly Fees (but for what?) or continuance of charges, but at a realistic transparent level.

 

I think that if the banks introduce monthly current account fees for ALL customers there might be a big back lash and it will become a bigger issue than penalty charge reclaiming.

[dave]

Has anyone got a link to a mpeg or similar of this programme?

[callingcard]

Hi All

 

I have only just joined this web site. It is a very refreshing to hear so much good advice.

 

I attended a series of lectures on law as part of a Business Administartion course when I did my engineering degree 30 years ago. At that time I learnt that new Laws can only be made by parliament (goes back to the Magna Carta) or a precedent set by a Judge in a High court case. I understand that what the banks are scared of is a Judge asking for a disclosure of a bank's internal cost structure in order that he/she can set a fair precedent in a money claim case.

 

The OFT can state it's recommendations or internal working levels ie £12 but this IS NOT THE LAW!! As I was in a Lawyer's office doing some computer support work while he made it quite clear to a travel agent on the phone that it was unacceptable to delay the return flight by one day for the holiday that he had previously booked. The travel agent picked the wrong man to mess about as the Lawyer specialised in contract Law and knew exactly how to claim maximum damages, which would probably have been more than the cost of a private jet to fly the Lawyer back to the UK in time for an important meeting the following day!

 

It has been very instructive to read all the fob offs that banks try.

 

My last word is about Martin Lewis who does get rather excited/passionate and I think tends to be less measured and thoughtful than the Lawyer on the phone to the travel agent. He ought to have a disclaimer - in fact I think he does!

 

G

[dubliner10]

Bookworm you are a well needed source of calm and knowledge in what can be a stressful process. I've filed my MCOL and am awaiting the inevitable defence.

Thank you for the information and logical flow you have posted.

 

Dub