Found this quite interesting. No idea if they’re guilty or not but seems like a very hefty potential payout if they lose on appeal.
5 Likes
[…] the maximum payout will be about £300 for anyone who can prove they were in the UK in the 16 years between 1992 and 2008. […]
I meet the criteria so how do I prove it 
.
2 Likes
Where is my monies?
Mastercard paying out 1.3 billion? And probably Visa next… That’s a huge amount of payout… I suspect it won’t happen though.
The thing is it’s still going on… a local pub just the other day was complaining his transaction fees are 80p+5% hence the minimum spend otherwise he’d make a loss. That’s silly… no way it’s costing the bank that kind of money to process transactions.
1 Like
You sure they weren’t just lying to justify their unreasonable conditions?
Those fees may have been correct five or ten years ago but these days anyone can get a payment terminal for about £29 with a linked merchant account that only charges pennies per transaction.
I think iZettle, SumUp and Square all charge around 1.6% fee to the merchant and that’s it.
2 Likes
I think the problem is that just like things like Mobile Phone contracts and stuff, merchants let their agreements with Credit Card processors “rollover” and are still paying the same rates they signed up for donkeys years ago.
1 Like
I doubt he’s lying, just out of touch
We didn’t have cash for the £10 minimum and left, so it wouldn’t be a good business decision to make it up. He’s probably forced to take the deal given by his brewery, landlords don’t really have much say.
1 Like
For adults who qualify for the (reported) maximum claim, that’s a recognition of being overcharged £18.75 per year between the stated years. Must be an average figure.
Runs off to check all receipts from 1992-2008
2 Likes
They probably aren’t lying, many people are ditching VISA/Mastercard due to high fees.
Is this the case? Who are they ditching them for? They’re basically the only two payment networks in the West. (There’s Amex but generally not for debit)
2 Likes
It’s still trundling on
3 Likes
This is into those areas of law I really don’t understand. So… the court of appeal has told the competition authority to reconsider their decision about whether it can go to court?
Why can’t it just go to court? Also what if the competition authority reconsiders and comes to the same opinion?
Edit: Actually second thoughts someone just tell me when I get £300
2 Likes
I saw this too
Another update today, looks like it’s finally going off to court this time, claim is for a bit less too.
2 Likes
So a reduction from £15bn to £10bn for 46m customers. If my maths is correct, me & MrsW should expect £434.78 between us at some point?
2 Likes
I know you posted this a while ago but in case you are still interested:
Basically, a decision must first be made on whether or not there is “a case to answer”. The idea of this is to ensure that spurious (“vexatious”) lawsuits don’t get their day in court and end up wasting everybody’s time, as it will cost a significant sum up front to defend even a stupid lawsuit. The procedure protects companies from this.
So something has to be genuinely contentious before a case can be heard. Then, if the case proceeds, the actual detailed arguments are heard and considered. Only then do you get the outcome of the case.
2 Likes
Minus legal fees, etc!
2 Likes
Ah yes, of course. A couple of quid or a voucher then. Can’t wait 
4 Likes