UTCCR Burden of Proof

[jax007]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Does anyone think this argument could be used in challenging the CC companies on their hugely hiked up interest rates creating situations whereby you are very unlikely to ever be able to pay off the capital as most of the monthly payment is swallowed up in interest charges.

I have a few CCs which have in excess of 30% interest applied to them and have only really been hiked up through previous late/non-payments.

jaxx

[EXC]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Currently there are no restrictions on the level of interest rates a credit card provider can apply but I think the Government are looking at legislation to increase the minimum payment to cover some of the capital and also what interest is being paid in the minimum payment first - the lower normal and higher default rate.

[borgbaiter]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

gawd help me if they raise monthly payments :-S


there latest rules on mortgages are bad enough!!!!

seriously peeps they should leave people to work out what they can pay. ill end up homeless and with bad debts at this rate. ok i have no life but my credit ratings good so far lol.


Borgbaiter

[jax007]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Thanx Exc - so basically you are saying that none of these UTCCR rulings can be applied to level of interest charged in spite of NOT 'being individually negotiated'??

[Amethyst]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Q&A session online with Kevin Brennan might be of interest, and click the link and complete the questionnaire to get your views over to BIS. (rest of the Q&A's are in the announcements part of the forum)


Amethyst :
Are the government looking at the credit card companies hiking up interest rates where customers have fallen in to difficulty because they are perceived to be a higher risk, rather than helping the customer by coming to repayment arrangements ?

Kevin replies:
Yes Amethyst we are. We already got the indsutry to agree not to do this without giving people fair warning and the opportunity to pay off what they owe. However, we are proposing to go further in the consultation. We are suggesting that this practice might be banned and would be interested to hear people's views on that proposal.


Thanks very much everyone for all your questions and do take part in the online part of our consultation which can be found at www.bis.gov.uk/creditconsultation. __________________

[EXC]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Thanx Exc - so basically you are saying that none of these UTCCR rulings can be applied to level of interest charged in spite of NOT 'being individually negotiated'??

Correct. And the 'not individually negotiated' element in UTCCR is a bit of a red herring really as just about all consumer contracts are not individually negotiated.

[Amethyst]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

This Harrogate case was CitiCards wasn't it. Will nudge Kafka to this thread.

[EXC]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

I'm certain it was as the defendant in the case that Tom represented in Harrogate put forward exactly the same £13.47 default cost figure as CitiCards put forward in Kafka's case.

[Amethyst]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Its a shame we didnt click that earlier, mind you I didnt know about Kafkas case till very late on. He could have done with this argument as Citi convinced the Judge to accept their arbitary £13 figure as gospel without any further breakdown (they did say the method of calculation but didnt provide figures to back that up)

[Smasher]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

The bottom line, however, is that all the credit card companies must prove their charges are fair in any contested proceedings. In light of the OFT report and their behaviour in reducing their fees, this will be an impossible task for them. If they put in a defence and the case is allocated for trial, then there is a strong argument that they are acting unreasonaby and a claimant will be entitled to their reasonable costs (and not limited to the usual small claims amount). This would normally only apply where a solicitor or barrister has been involved, although the claimant will be able to recover their costs for travel and missing work, etc, for the hearing.''

And with that being so, anyone who currently has a CCA battle going that has been a victim of these charges could do the whole lot in one claim.
Even if they managed to find the agreement and have it enforced, I'm guessing you could argue that it would only be part of your claim and therefore resonable to challenge it as part of the claim for charges?

[EXC]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Ame - I gave all Tom's info to Kafka about a week before his hearing.

[Amethyst]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Ahhh nice one. Just the judge being a pleb then.

[Kafka]

Re: UTCCR Burden of Proof

Ahhh nice one. Just the judge being a pleb then.

LOL

I know this sounds like sour grapes.....but I just couldn't help but think that Citi knew how to play this one down the line.

My case was based around non-disclosure and they countered this by sending a bundle based on very limited disclosure, on the very last date to comply with the 14 days (as I did LOL). So I had no knowledge that they had shifted the game until the bundles were in.

The calculation system was not quite up to the CYNTHESIS system and looked more like it was done on the back of a fag packet in the BBA Members Lounge.

The key here was that the barrister clearly knew the DJ and was aware of his limited knowledge and the ease with which he could be swayed and would deal with LIPs. Also the fact that he would not pay any attention to the fact that he had not seen their bundle. I was amazed that I had to show him the UTCCR as he didn't know what I meant by Reg 8.

I still don't think it would have been possible for them to win the £12 argument if I had been fully prepared with what we know now from my case.