Thread: First Plus - Claiming contractual/statutory interest.

Looking for some advice.....

First Plus admitted (in writing) the PPI was mis-sold and have refunded the PPI premium and all subsequent interest payments, but have refused my request (again, in writing) for contractual interest. As they have deprived me of this money, I believe they should pay this!

I am fully prepared to take them to court to recover this money, but I have the following questions...

Is this the right thing to do? Would a court consider this a valid claim?

Should I be claiming contractual interest or start with statutory?

Is this POC OK...

1. The Claimant had a two credit agreements, Accounts xxxx and xx with the Defendant, which the first was opened in xxxx .

2. At the time of opening the first account the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain.

3. The Defendant has admitted they are ‘not happy’ with the way the insurance was imposed upon the Claimant and have duly refunded the insurance premium and subsequent interest charges in full.

4. The Defendant has refused to pay the Claimants claim for compound interest at the contractual rate on the charges applied thereon to the Claimant’s, at the monthly rate of 9.2%. This was rate applied by the Defendant to the Claimant’s account for the use or borrowing of the Defendant’s monies, as provided for in the contract.

5. Accordingly the Claimant asks:

a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and should to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction.

6. The Claimant claims:

a) Compounded contractual interest of £xxxx.xx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate.

b) Court costs.

7. The Claimant’s case for claiming this rate is based in equity, and a legal requirement for fairness and balance.

8. The Claimant deems the Defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of insurance charges that were imposed upon the Claimant and were, by the Defendants own written admission in fact mis-sold.

9. In the alternative to 6 a), if the Court is unable to agree that the claimant is entitled to the contractual rates of interest, on the grounds stated, the Claimant avers that the defendant would be unjustly enriched if the Claimant’s entitlement was limited to the statutory rate of interest in that the defendant has had use of the sums and would have used these sums to re-lend at commercially compounded rates. On these grounds the Claimant seeks restitution of the compounded contractual interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate which was in place at the inception of the agreement of 9.2 % per annum.

10. In the alternative to 6 a) and 9, if the Court finds that the Claimant is not entitled to contractual interest, the Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984.


11. Schedule showing interest calculated at the rate quoted at 6 a) is attached to these particulars of claim, as follows:

· Schedule A - Compound Contractual Interest calculated at 9.2%.

Similar Threads:

• Why is no one claiming the contractual rate of interest???
• Has anyone WON claiming Contractual Interest ?
• Claiming statutory interest upfront
• Claiming 8% statutory interest on MCOL claim form
• Who's claiming contractual compound interest

bump

Bump....

This could be useful to anyone who gets their PPI back, but not the interest they are owed!!

Right, bit the bullet and submitted my claim on MCOL- the way I see it, I can't see I Judge deciding in First Plus's favor as they have already admitted the PPI was mis-sold! If it had gone to court before their admission, and I had won, First Plus would have had to pay interest!!

I supose now it's just a matter of how much!

I will keep you updated on my progress, hopefully FP will not defend and pay up! If not, I'm up for the fight out of principle

Do you have a letter clearly stateing the PPI was missold?

Originally Posted by adamski

Do you have a letter clearly stateing the PPI was missold?

Yes and I have had the refund of the premiums by way of a cheque

Well FP are defending and I have recieved a copy of their defence - what a joke! All the seem to say is that I never requested interest to be refunded (Yes I did and it's clearly in the letters I sent!) and that they don't understand the legal arguments I put forward!

Well I do, so it looks like it's gonna be fun in court!

They also say that the line in their letter that states 'We are not happy with the way the PPI was applied to your account' is not admission that the PPI was mis-sold! Well to me it is and the fact they refunded the premiums cleary suggests they know the were in the wrong!

I'm also looking for compound interest on a PPI policy mis-sold to me by Natwest so do, I think, understand where you're coming from.

Be that as it may, I'd like to hear the legal argument you will be using for claiming compound interest as I'd be interested to see how similar, or otherwise, it is to mine.

Also, while I don't claim to be any great expert on this, I know the feeling with bank claims was that if you accepted a payment and then proceeded to court solely in pursuit of compound interest your claim would be significantly weakened.

As I recall, the argument for CI hinged on the unlawfullness of the bank charges. In this instance, one presumes, it will hinge on one's ability to prove the PPI was mis-sold. Unfortunately, by already having taken what First Plus offered you that's no longer the main tenant of your court action and they will, in all likelihood, deny the policy was mis-sold - as you have already seen.

Might I recommend you invite someone such as steven4064 - who is, IMHO, the expert on all things involving CI - to take a look at this thread and share his thoughts.

Fred_Funk

I'm an idiot... I've just read your POC so I now know the legal argument you are using for asking for CI.

I'm just about to send off my allocation questionaire, but have a couple of questions......

1. Should I attach the schedule of charges as I was unable to do so when starting the claim on MCOL?

2. Should I attach a more detailed POC, again due to the limitations of MCOL? Perhaps including the following text:

'Please find attacted a more detailed POC than submitted on Money Claim Online, which provides the basis of of my claim'

Any thoughts??