In April 2006 the Office of Fair Trading finally published their report into CREDIT CARD DEFAULT FEES . The OFT stated in internal communications that the fees were considered highly unfair and probably unenforceable on consumers. ( OFT confirms Credit Card Default Fees were HIGHLY UNFAIR under the UTCCR - Legal Beagles
In April 2009 - have things changed ?
The credit card companies may have reduced their headline default fees to around £12 (apart from Egg who get £16 because their customers are lower risk?), is this going far enough ? Are these fees proportional to their costs ?
In 2007 in a court in Northern Ireland credit card provider CitiCards confidentially 'proved' to a Judge their costs to be £8.
Individuals continue to reclaim their historial and current default fees.
What effect has the report had ? In the year before the report their were only 7000 complaints to card providers about overcharging, in 2006 this rose to 28000, however in 2007 this leapt massively to 160,000 complaints, as consumers realised they had been ripped off for years and got their claims into the card providers. ( FSA figures- Credit Card complaints - Legal Beagles )
What proportion of consumers are reclaiming the FULL amount due to them, if, as the OFT stated, the term applying the fees was unenforceable ?
What proportion are happily being fobbed off with the difference between the old £25 odd charges and the OFT's £12 figure ?
Why, if the charges are fair at £12, are the card providers still repaying customers the full amounts, plus the interest charged on the charges, and in some cases adding a contractual rate of interest on top ?
Why are they STILL refusing to take any of the claimants into the court room to have the matter decided ?
Do the OFT need to take the matter to the High Court for a formal declaration of the enforceability of the unfair terms ?
How is the limitations period affected ?
In April 2009 - have things changed ?
The credit card companies may have reduced their headline default fees to around £12 (apart from Egg who get £16 because their customers are lower risk?), is this going far enough ? Are these fees proportional to their costs ?
In 2007 in a court in Northern Ireland credit card provider CitiCards confidentially 'proved' to a Judge their costs to be £8.
Individuals continue to reclaim their historial and current default fees.
What effect has the report had ? In the year before the report their were only 7000 complaints to card providers about overcharging, in 2006 this rose to 28000, however in 2007 this leapt massively to 160,000 complaints, as consumers realised they had been ripped off for years and got their claims into the card providers. ( FSA figures- Credit Card complaints - Legal Beagles )
What proportion of consumers are reclaiming the FULL amount due to them, if, as the OFT stated, the term applying the fees was unenforceable ?
What proportion are happily being fobbed off with the difference between the old £25 odd charges and the OFT's £12 figure ?
Why, if the charges are fair at £12, are the card providers still repaying customers the full amounts, plus the interest charged on the charges, and in some cases adding a contractual rate of interest on top ?
Why are they STILL refusing to take any of the claimants into the court room to have the matter decided ?
Do the OFT need to take the matter to the High Court for a formal declaration of the enforceability of the unfair terms ?
How is the limitations period affected ?
Comment