Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
I'm sorry but I genuinely cannot fathom any logic from what you are asking. You need to revisit the OFT statement of April this year (see the quote / excerpt below). John Fingleton put it on the line to the banks last night when he advised them, and their mealy mouthed Trade Association spokeswoman, "We are prepared to litigate on this matter".
I'm sorry but you are mistaken.
Penalty charges in consumer contracts are illegal - full stop. Liquidated losses (or pre-estimates of the costs involved in addressing a breach of contract) such as those to which you refer are legal as long as they only represent the actual costs incurred. There is a very distinct difference.
Given that not one bank in the UK is prepared to either have their cost structure analyzed or justified in a court of law then it is entirely safe to conclude, as evidenced on the TV last night, that they are penalty charges levied in respect of a contract breach.
That is why the BBC go to the bother of making documentaries, why the banks have never defended a single claim in court and why the OFT couched it's words when saying "....and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.”
It helps the consumers case, somewhat, when companies shoot themselves in the foot by declaring something to be a "late payment fee". Quite how they might hope to assert that this represents anything other than a penalty charge is beyond me - and the best financial legal minds in the British isles.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People need to stop believing the mantra of "banks and companies wouldn't do things like this if they weren't legal". Last night's programme showed, quite succinctly, that they do and will continue to do so unless enough people assert their rights.
The banks cannot, reasonably, expect people to believe that they, armed with teams of lawyers, are shying away from court confrontations and refunding monies out of the goodness of their hearts. Kieron from Matrix Chambers hit the nail on the head when he said he does not believe that they can defend their cost structures in court as reasonable administrative charges. They have been caught stealing money from people and there are those who are minded to ensure that justice is done as we would expect in any such similar criminal case of theft.
They've been stealing money and people are getting / claiming it back. Fact.
|
Then you are disagreeing with the bbc and the consumer action group site, not saying you are wrong just saying that they are saying that penalty charges are not allowed to xceed the cost of admisitrating the charge, which means in affect you can do a penalty fee but it has to be in line with costs.
Considering they reduced credit card fees to £12 this backs that up.
If fees are illegal full stop then why were the credit card fees reduced instead of removed.
Why did the bbc goto the trouble to do an experiment on how much it costs to bounce a cheque when its not even relevant?