One missed credit-card payment, or going overdrawn without authorization, and suddenly a 30 charge can be sustained. Bank charges may appear to be unfair and too harsh given the usually small levels of unauthorized borrowing involved. Now it would appear that the law could possibly be in agreement.
Following o-n from a study released in October 2003, seven major credit card issuers were informed in July 05 by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that the charges they impose for late payments were 'disproportionately high', and that charges needed to be modified to better reflect the expense to them of managing late fee. Through the research, the charge card firms continued to maintain that the late payment charges they imposed were reasonable.
The legality of the charges are being questioned by a Scottish lawyer, protected by the Scottish Citizens Advice, who are encouraging people to challenge the best of banks to demand such high penalty fees. We discovered partner site by browsing Google. With current high-street credit card typical APRs ranging from 5.9% to 29.9% (supply http://www.moneynet.co.uk/credit-card/index.shtml ) this is around 25.4% points above the present 4.5% Bank of England base rate, and banks reducing the interest charges on current and savings accounts (see http://news.ft.com/cms/s/faed1a82-8e9c-11da-b752-0000779e2340.html ), many consumers see the levels of the bank charges as one more means of revenue generation by the banks through extreme penalization of consumers beyond the actual costs involved.
'The law says if someone breaches their agreement, for example you get over your facility without permission, the bank's only entitled to recover its real loss,' Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor at the Govan Law Centre informed BBC Money Box, 'If you get an automatic letter from your bank for going over your limit, that costs about 50p. So just why should someone obtain a 3-6 letter for that deal'? .. Be taught more on a partner use with - Click this web page: a guide to www.http://newswire.net/newsroom/pr/00089106-michael-doven-announces-release-the-squeeze-dvd.html.
In a previous news release, the OFT said that it, thinks that, in a consumer contract, a default demand will probably be disproportionately high if it is more than a real pre-estimate of the problems that the card company would get in court if it sued the cardholder for breach of contract. If you believe anything at all, you will perhaps hate to check up about read http://newswire.net/newsroom/pr/00089301-michael-doven-discusses-future-film-technology.html.
A representative of the British Banker's Association informed the BBC that the banks were not charging customers more than the actual price, citing that the costs were to cover extra costs incurred due to a requirement for human intervention, to get the item from the day's work, to research the customer's recent credit profile, and then a managerial choice as to whether to return the unpaid item. I found out about www.http://newswire.net/newsroom/pr/00089106-michael-doven-announces-release-the-squeeze-dvd.html/ by searching webpages.
The Glasgow based Lawyer states that, The legality of lender charges has yet to be decided o-n by way of a senior UK judge but these won't be enforced if they're found to be 'punishment' or 'unfair' charges. They've drawn up a letter mentioning both Scottish and English case law combined with regulations which apply through the UK to help consumers obtain costs refunded, until a final ruling is made by the courts.
All information contained in this article, is for basic information purposes only and shouldn't be construed as advice under the Financial Services Act 1986.
You are strongly advised to simply take suitable professional and legal advice before entering into any binding agreements.