Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob C
I've highlighted the two important bits of that.
firstly the reasonable fee - yes it has to be reasonable, something that ntl can demonstrate represents is the cost they suffer for having to deal with an unpaid account. Given they can charge interest as well, this "fee" is the manpower / administration cost ntl suffer. As many post have highlighted, it's the cost, not a profit making scheme. That's where many banks have come unstuck.
|
Aside from the fact that any Late Payment fee or Penalty fee which does not represent the actual liquidated loss is illegal a defendant who was tasked with proving the "reasonableness" of a fee that went from £0.00 to £10.00 would, I'd imagine, provide a good afternoon's entertainment in court.
Add to that the fact that the OFT opinion in April resulted in a marked decrease in bank fees I wouldn't want to be the NTL counsel facing questions regarding the introduction of a previously non existant penalty fee in June.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob C
The Direct Debit extra charge I'd suspect is less clear cut in what can b3e applied. NTL have been clever using that word discount (not sure if they have repeated that word or expressed it differently in the schedule of charges). If it is truly a discount then they might well get round the legislation, but if it is a charge for paying by not DD methods, then they ruls as above, demonstrating it's a real cost, would apply. Now given that DD systems can largely be automated, but other payment methods might require manual input, the true scale of that £4.00 charge might be harder to dispute.
|
In reality it's not that hard to dispute. A claimant would only have to ask them to prove / show which element of their non DD payment processes increased by 100%. Did, for example, any NTL employee wages rise 100% at June 1st? No. So their administrative costs from a manpower resource perspective certainly don't warrant it.
The devil is in the detail.