Why let your bank keep your money? Calculating your charges claim

[BankFodder]

I'm not sure that there will be a cut-off date but I can imagie that if a repayment scheme is put in place - then there is likley to be some kind mechanism to encourage people to use the repayment scheme.

In that case you would have to look for a good reason to being a court action.
This could be that your figures are different to the bank's ones or that in some other way the bank is trying to limit your claim and you need the question resolved by the bank.
One way of encouraging people to go directly to the bank for refunds wuld be to offer very quick settlements.
So for instance, the banks might promise repayment within, say, 4 weeks.

this would be at least 2 or 3 months ealrier than using the court process.
However, the downsid might be that there is no provision for an equivalent of the 8% statutory interest, the bank might only offere the difference betwenn the charge and the OFT fair charge, the bank migh only offer repayments back to 2001 (6 yrs from test case) etc.

It is all very difficult to predict. Also, although the HoL is very likly to come down on the side of the OFT, they may frame their judgment in such a way which might limit the way in which repayments are made.

The Lords are no slouches and they could easily predict certain repercussions to a successful OFT judgment which the banks themselves have not yet appreciated. there is no doubt in my mind that if there is a simple decision in favour of the OFT then things are likely to become more dramatically serious for the banks than anyone could yet possibly imagine.
Say, n'more.

[Stubie]

Hmm, Interesting.

Going back a couple of posts, the interest implications are a double whammy on interest bearing current accounts.

Clearly, there would be a reduction, and eventual elimination of the detrimental interest changes. But, where interest is paid on the positive balance, this would have been underpaid once the effects of the charges are removed.

We would then need a second level of the calcs to repay positive balance interest on the account once charges and related OD interst is removed.

This spreadsheet is starting to look ever so complicated.

[BankFodder]

Positive balance interest suggests contractual interest.

I tried to get this idea going a couple of years ago but I don't believe that it is a runner at the moment.
I know that some of the site team disagree and think that there is now a basis for contractual interest - or equivalent.

For the moment I would suggest that people merely produce claims for actual charges and interest taken from them. This will be fine for the moment.
These claims will go on hold and they can always be amended when the HoL rules and the stays are lifted.

It will then become clear exactly what is claimable and what is not.

[HSBCrusher]

I dont agree with the idea of CI myself, to me it appears greedy.
But getting back what is mine, every little penny of it, now that I go with.

If the only objection was greed, I think that e would all get trampled in the rush - but I owuld certainly be the first in the queue.
I think that there are legal objections

[photoman]

.... I would just like to take this opportunity to say hello to all our "guests" on this thread.

Hello to the the respective legal representatives of all the various banks,
Hello to the lords and ladies of the HOL,
Hello to the members of the OFT
Hello to the employees of the "pay as you go" reclaim companies fishing for tips.

... and finally... Hello to the various visiting MP's maybe contemplating claiming back their bank charges... via their expenses claims !!

[HSBCrusher]

yeah, still 9 guests.

I hope its the banks.... read about all the extra interest you are going to have to pay out!

[ohoh4312]

Actually I don't agree that positive balance interest would have to be repaid - that is part of the agreement with the bank that they pay you interest on + balances, and deduct it on - balances.

All we are reclaiming here is the interest deducted on the charges themselves, as 1) the charges are unfair, and 2) they have directly contributed to/exacerbated the - balance.

Sorry if I am a bit slow off the mark here and this has already been explained.

[Stubie]

Originally Posted by ohoh4312

Actually I don't agree that positive balance interest would have to be repaid - that is part of the agreement with the bank that they pay you interest on + balances, and deduct it on - balances.

All we are reclaiming here is the interest deducted on the charges themselves, as 1) the charges are unfair, and 2) they have directly contributed to/exacerbated the - balance.

Sorry if I am a bit slow off the mark here and this has already been explained.

I think it all comes down to the manner in which the charges etc are reimbursed.

If the charges etc are allowed to stand then they are reclaimed at the point in time that the case is found. i.e. the balance is correct and an adjustment is made via the payment in refund.

If the charges are amended to a prescribed value/ removed, then this is done at the time the charge was applied. This affects the balance at that time.

Since the arguement is that the charge be removed at the time it was applied - it would need to be in order to reclaim the charged interest, since amendment after the fact would not impact on the charged interest. Then there is an arguement that to remove the charged interest at the time must result in an alteration of the balance at that time which must affect the paid interest.

I am curious why Bankfodder would think otherwise.

I'm also new to this discussion and could be talking utter tosh, of course.

[ohoh4312]

The interest paid by the bank is due to you on YOUR money and should not be taken into consideration, IMO. And in most cases the amount people have "gained" is negligible - some people have not been out of their overdraft for years - yours truly being an example - therefore "interest paid" does not exist on my statements!

We cannot effectively rewrite the statements as if the charges were never applied, because that would adjust all the balances and in effect if it brought you ought of the red then MORE interest would be due to you.

All we want is the portion of interest that directly relates to the corresponding charges, nothing more.

[yourbank]

With due respect, BF, what do you mean by this

"the bank might only offere the difference between the charge and the OFT fair charge"

June is about whether the terms can be assessed for fairness. The secondary part is whether certain terms are fair. Under UTCCR 1999 if the term is unfair then it doesn't exist and the totality of the charges are refundable under the specific term(and interest as well).
There is no OFT threshold amount that will be applied, period. There are other issues that we are touching the base of which are inter related but I think if you want that sort of discussion then it has to be on another thread. This THREAD is specifically to do with claiming interest and not speculation as to what could or would or will happen when the OFT test case ends. I am skating on that line even with this post because the thread should stick to current claims and the way interest is claimed.
OHOH, love the spready btw. Will that calculate the charges automatically?
Is there a way to amend the overdraft percentage/rate which may have be increased/decreased over a period in which charges can be reclaimed?

[ohoh4312]

Thanks yb - yes the calculations would be automatic, although it may involve copy & paste of formulas depending on the number of entries for each individual case.

I thought about the fact that overdraft limits change over time, but I worked on the principle of using the largest applicable amount. The reason being that it would involve a lot more formulas, and become over-complicated if you kept changing the amounts, especially if the figure decreased at some point from a higher rate.

It is very difficult to produce a spreadie like this in a "one size fits all" capacity, but hopefully by using the highest applicable rate it gets near to the mark, but other input/suggestions/advice are warmly welcomed.

[BankFodder]

Originally Posted by Stubie

I think it all comes down to the manner in which the charges etc are reimbursed.

If the charges etc are allowed to stand then they are reclaimed at the point in time that the case is found. i.e. the balance is correct and an adjustment is made via the payment in refund.

If the charges are amended to a prescribed value/ removed, then this is done at the time the charge was applied. This affects the balance at that time.

Since the arguement is that the charge be removed at the time it was applied - it would need to be in order to reclaim the charged interest, since amendment after the fact would not impact on the charged interest. Then there is an arguement that to remove the charged interest at the time must result in an alteration of the balance at that time which must affect the paid interest.

I am curious why Bankfodder would think otherwise.

I'm also new to this discussion and could be talking utter tosh, of course.

Sorry, don't understand this

[AA99]

Originally Posted by BankFodder

Sorry, don't understand this

LOL BF! I got lost half-way through too but was going to keep quiet and keep watching and re-calculating all the time......... I have a full 6 years charges with 8% added that I would dearly love to get off in the post tomorrow. Can I do that with a very severely qualifying hardship letter in the meantime and use a Clause/Sentence summing up an action that would be claimed after the 22nd

[Stubie]

Originally Posted by BankFodder

Sorry, don't understand this

Since the general opinion is that paid interest, as opposed to charged interest, cannot be claimed, then this is irrelevant.

What I was trying to say is that the effect on paid interest would differ depending upon how the charges were paid back. In theory, however, this could also affect charged interest.

The question is:

Would the refunded charges be credited to the account at the time of judgement or would they be credited to the account at the time of deduction. Would the charges be refunded or amended?

I've not had much to do with bank charges claims as I was late starting my claim and got stayed on one claim but have only given notice of intent on another claim. I may be talking rubbish, in which case, be kind to me .

[BankFodder]

Originally Posted by Stubie

Since the general opinion is that paid interest, as opposed to charged interest, cannot be claimed, then this is irrelevant.

What I was trying to say is that the effect on paid interest would differ depending upon how the charges were paid back. In theory, however, this could also affect charged interest.

The question is:

Would the refunded charges be credited to the account at the time of judgement or would they be credited to the account at the time of deduction. Would the charges be refunded or amended?

I've not had much to do with bank charges claims as I was late starting my claim and got stayed on one claim but have only given notice of intent on another claim. I may be talking rubbish, in which case, be kind to me .

I very sorry but I still don't understand. I do hope that it is not some important point which I've missed.
What is paid interest as opposed to charged interest?
As for crediting charges to the account, I think that this can only happen if the account is comprised of some legitimate enforceable debt. The refund could then be credited to the account by way of a set-off. Is this what you are referring to?
I don't understand what you mean by the time at which refunds would be made.
As far as amending charges - are you referring to the possiblity of merely refunding the difference between an OFT fair rate and the charge? If so, then I don't see any power under the UTCCR for this to happen.
Once the charge is invalid, it fails completely

[BankFodder]

The bottom line - is simply that if you have suffered unfair charges - then claim them back.
If you have also been charged interest on those charges - whether at the authorised rate or at the unauthorised rate - claim that backtoo.

There are very few caculations needed. the interest taken from you will be clearly identified on your statements - probably as overdraft interest.

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Stubie

Would the refunded charges be credited to the account at the time of judgement or would they be credited to the account at the time of deduction. Would the charges be refunded or amended?.

Assuming I understood your question correctly (always debatable as soon as maths are involved ), the answer is, wait for it: That depends.

For example, in my B/card claim, as my account had been fully paid up and closed by the time I sued them, I added the interest up to the time I had paid the account in full, as anything above that would be in my mind unjustified.

For account still live and with an o/draft still ongoing, then my calculations for the interest paid on charges would be updated daily up to the date of settlement.

I understand - I think - what you are saying about interest on positive balance: If you get enough charges that they would put you in an o/d situation, then if you hadn't had the charges, you wouldn't have been o/drawn and therefore with an account in credit, you should have been earning interest instead of paying it, is that what you mean? And yes, I can see the logic in that, but I think the calculations would be nigh on impossible to establish. Bear in mind that as it is, our calculations can never be that precise, as for example, someone like me would have paid off their o/d (inc charges + interest) in full many a time in the life of the account, then would have crept back in it, accumulated more charges and therefore more interest, then consolidated, etc, etc... the o/d limit would also have varied through the years, and of course the authrosied rates and unauthorised rates also varied, and the banks changed what they would pay/not pay/charge/not charge, add or remove buffer zones or vary the amounts, the permutations are endless and make it impossible for us to come up with anything much more than a back of the enveloppe calculation, and no doubt one that favours the bankers yet again.

My argument always has been when they argued the numbers (especially the interest): "Yes, I know it's unlikely to be the exact figure, but if you want to dispute it, then saying "that's not right" is not going to be enough to sway the judge, so either show your own figures and how you calculated them or shut up and pay up". They have always paid up. In the case of B/card, they caved in literally as we were walking into the court itself, they were still trying to haggle me down whilst waiting to be called in.

For those who don't realise how much the interest can add up, the rough figures for my b/card were £367 in charges, but the interest levied on those charges up to closure of the account were worked out at £188 on top, and when added the 8% stat interest (which ran to the date of settlement), the total came to £756. Think about it before you decide not to try because it's too difficult to work out. I did that in my early days and now realise that I let the sods get away with hundreds £££ of MY money.

[Notty]

I claimed charges back from Halifax and added the 8% interest. That was in 2006. I now have more charges on my account and have sent the first two letters and I am about to issue the N1. My question is did I add the correct amount of interest as I didnt really understand the contractual interest so only added the 8% from the spreadsheet and can I add this on to the new claim or is it too late for old claims?

[Stubie]

Originally Posted by BankFodder

The bottom line - is simply that if you have suffered unfair charges - then claim them back.
If you have also been charged interest on those charges - whether at the authorised rate or at the unauthorised rate - claim that backtoo.

There are very few caculations needed. the interest taken from you will be clearly identified on your statements - probably as overdraft interest.

Thanks for your patience on this, as I say, I might be completeley wrong.

My account has a £100 OD limit so I have see-sawed back and forth into and out of negative territory. I have both paid interest - interest they paid me - and charged interest - interest deducted.

A few assumptions for clarity only.

There is no stay on proceedings
The £12 limit on CC's has been applied to current accounts.

So, hypothetical example:

In April 2006 I exceeded my OD limit and was charged £35
In june 2009 I go to court to recover the excess charge

I win and am awarded the difference (£23).

Is the £23 credited as a payment to my account in June 2009 or is the original £35 amended to £12 in April 2006. The difference is what happened in 2006.

If I am refunded in 2009 then my balance in 2006 remains unchanged. If the charge in 2006 is amended (to £12) then my balance changed in 2006.

What you are suggesting is that the charge is amended in 2006 in order to allow for the cumulative affect of the benefit to take me out of unauthorised overdraft in the intervening period. Is this what happens when you win (I don't know, I haven't won yet).

I believe that the interest rates - authorised OD interest, unauthorised OD interest and paid interest - are all contractual. As I have a positive balance most of the time but dipped into OD from time to time. Any historic changes to my balance would net paid interest - paid to me - when the account is in credit.

I appreciate that the calcs would be a nightmare for paid interest but if the changes are not retrospective then you would not be able to claim OD interest either.

Does this help any.

On a lighter note, my Subject Access Request went off today, for the third time. Hopefully it will get the right response this time.

[HSBCrusher]

I personally think that the credit card £12 is a red herring.
Ignore it.
£12 is just the level that the OFT would take action, that level was not deemed fair. Only a court can decide this.
If a similar limit is set for bank charges then hey ho... we can still argue its too high, and reclaim the lot.
As for positive interest, someone who has had £thousands in charges would have been in the black... and interest would have been paid by the bank.

I personally think this is going to be very difficult to calculate. I think interest taken because of charges is much easier. Its much easier to stand up in front of a Judge and say "this is what I have lost" as opposed to "this is what I could have got".

Also, by the time interest and charges have been added, working through from the 6 years up it soon becomes the case that you would have not been in the red at all... and all the interest charged is reclaimable.