Thread: Maranatha -v- Alliance & Leicester

Another question anybody.

Regarding interest. Some people say don't ask for the 8% statutory interest before you enter court proceedings.

Others say "Look, you're gonna get it anyway - so ask for it".

I'm beginning to take the view that I might ask for 23-28% which was the amount of commercial interest that they charged me when I went overdrawn.

Does anyone have a view on this? Has anyone else been successful in getting commercial interest and at what rate?

Regards
maranatha

My 40 days are up for the Subject access request even this it's Christmas.

I'm giving them 24 hours grace. The letter before action goes tomorrow.
I expect to get the statements at the last minute but just in case I need to go for the N1 for an Odeer and the DPA 1998 and for Damages,
anyone have ideas on getting the court fee to £30 rather than £150 !!

Regards
maranatha

P.s. Someone speak to me please - I feel rather alone on this thread

Well done on taking up the fight. I'm pretty much at the same stage with A+L.

The 8% is basically your interest which they pay on the amount of money they have deprived you of. The 28% is the interest they have charged you, which (as I understand things should be reclaimable anyway).

The 8% is a court agreed rate for most claims, so it is generally a good idea to stick with this, rather than overcomplicate matters and give yourself an opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot at a later date. Though to me as a lay person, it would only seem fair that they pay the same level of interest as they charge, as I'm sure they would tell you it's a fair figure if you owed them it.

The way I looked at it is the 8% interest on the money they've deprived me of would have been a pretty negliable amount to my claim, so I haven't bothered for now (that and it gives me something else to throw at them later).

No sign of the list of charges or statements required
under Data Protection Act.

Sent the 7 day lba today and have already
typed up my N1 seeking an order under the DPA.

Let's see what happens


-maranatha-

Well today I got my large pack of statements from A+L.

However they only go back to 2000. (Six Years)

Strange, that I didn't ask for six years. (Perhaps they know whats coming}

I want all my statements from the beginning of the account. Am I allowed to ask for them?? I know that I can only claim six years (unless I get involved in some special pleading).

However, I asked for all for statements. Is the Data Protection Act restrictive to six years as well?

Anyone know?

Thanks

Maranatha

OK so having read through the forum, I'm going back to the A+L and asking for the missing statements:

This is what I am sending:

Account Number XX XXX XXXX

I refer to my Subject access request dated 16th November 2006 and my subsequent letter before action dated 28th December 2006.

I can now confirm that I have received a package from your Bootle Branch containing statements number 268 to 434 which arrived on 30th December 2006.

Sadly, the package was deficient in a number of ways:

1.Statement Number 280 was missing. This may well have been a printing or packing error.

2.There is no sign at all of statements number 1 to 267.



You are therefore in a state of non-compliance with regard to my Subject access request.

As a token of goodwill, I am prepared to allow an additional 10 days for you to supply the missing information.

You should be aware, that if the statements number 1 to 267 are only available on microfiche, then the Information Commissioner has decided that a “microfiche system is a relevant filing system” and fall under the Subject Access Request.

If however statements number 1 to 267 have now been destroyed, please inform me:

The Date of Destruction

The Manner of Destruction

A copy of the certificate of secure destruction.


I have to advise you that should you not comply within the next 10 days I shall seek a Court Order obliging you to do so together with damages at the discretion of the Court and without further notice.

Yours faithfully

endquote



How does that Sound??

Maranatha

bump

Can someone look at the letter above

cheers

Maranatha

Well I never did get any joy with regards to missing statements before 6 years. They claim to be destroyed.

Anyway, I've sent a lettter asking for what I can, around £1500 but this includes interest at 15.0% and also claiming back the monthly OD fees
which I was a little unsure about.

We'll see what they come back with.

Maranatha

ps - does anyone want to talk to me in this forum. I seem to be talking to myself.

my claim includes the unauth overdraft fee but not contractual interest i just stuck to the 8%, i issued MCOL on 18/1/07 and am just waiting for my money now i hope!!! my claim is for over only 6 years and 3 times your amount!!

good luck with our claims eh!

ok - Well the A+L responded pretty sharply to my request for repayment.
Sadly though, instead of sending me a fat cheque, they sent me the standard p.. off letter. (Our terms are fair etc etc etc blah blah)

So, I'm not waiting for 14 days. They responded, so they are now getting the letter before action.


Any advice?

maranatha

Just keep it up! No other advice needed by the sound of it you have it under control.

A+L responded pretty sharply to my lba with a standard letter
telling me to ..d off

I'll wait for the 14 days and then get to the local court.

I need to revise the amount due as some of the items (monthly od charge) appear lawful ? - Do I need to start all over again?

I'm inclined to go for it

Anyone?

Maranatha

Hi,

I just wanted to ask you about the monthly OD charge appearing lawful, I have recieved my statements back from A&L and am about to send off prelim letter. I have included the monthly OD charge after reading delboy's thread, as it was advised that this was reclaimable.

This charge was applied to my account as soon as I went overdrawn as I did not have an authorised overdraught. I am hoping that this will bump your thread up and hopefully someone can clarify this for you.

Good luck with your claim

Having read around the threads, It would probably be useful to have a read of the thread by

XXneilXX

(sorry cant give you a link as I'm not sure how to do it)

there is a good discussion regarding "monthly OD charge".

Hope this is useful for you

Well I didn't get any joy from the lba except another 'get lost' letter.

So Today, I took my paperwork to my local county court.

Firstly, they don't take credit cards so I had to go to an ATM to get £120 out.

Then, the lady behind the desk says, "You can't claim 17% interest. You can only claim S69.

She really didn't want to issue it until I pointed out that it was for the court to decide. She finally took it, (I don't think she had seen one with Compound, but she said she would have to pass it by the judge tomorrow to see whether he would 'allow' it to be issued !!!!!

Hmm

Here's my POC

Particulars of Claim

1. The Claimant opened an Girobank current Bank Account No. XX XXX XXXX on xx march 1995 (Girobank now wholly owned by Alliance and Leicester plc)

2. During the period in which the account had been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these Particulars of Claim as Appendix 1

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) The charges debited to the account, as outlined in the attached schedule (Appendix 1) are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and are not intended to represent or relate to any alleged actual loss but, instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 15. The Defendant has declined to justify the charges.

b) The contractual provision which permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 section 4 and the common law.

5. Accordingly, the Claimant claims:

5.1 ) The return of the amounts debited in the respect of charges in the sum of £632.50

5.2 ) Court Costs

5.3 ) Interest

5.3.1) The claimant claims compound interest on the charges applied thereon to the claimant’s account (“the principal claim”), at the annual rate of 17.08 %. This is the rate currently applied by the defendant to customer’s unauthorised use or borrowing of the defendant’s monies, as provided for in contract.

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

The claimant deems the defendant’s principal indebtedness to the claimant to be unauthorised, since it is comprised of charges that are unconscionable, remain unsubstantiated, and amount to unenforceable penalties at law. If the defendant avers that its charges are fair, reasonable and therefore enforceable, its remedy will be to defend the claim by providing evidence of its actual losses or pre-estimate of costs in relation to the claimant’s account breaches. Since the defendant has been invited to do so prior to the issue of court proceedings, and has refused, and since the claimant is aware that the defendant has failed to defend any other similar claim, choosing to settle before the trial dates, the claimant deems the defendant’s charges to the claimant’s account to be indefensible, unenforceable at law, and unauthorised, since it was clearly not in the claimant’s contemplation when entering into the contract, that the claimant would authorise the defendant to apply unlawful penalty charges and interest thereon to the claimant’s account, or to profit in an unlawful manner from the claimant’s account breaches.

For the contract to confer advantageous terms (i.e. entitlement to compensation) on one party (the defendant) where there is no comparable term in favour of the other party (the claimant) is to create an imbalance in the parties’ rights and is contrary to the requirements of Regulation 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”).

Regulation 5 (1) of the UTCCR states as follows:

Unfair Terms
5. – (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.”

Therefore, to satisfy the requirement of fairness, within the definition given by the UTCCR, the contract would have to provide a mutual or reciprocal term permitting the customer to apply the same rate of interest on any unauthorised withdrawals from the customer’s account by the bank (the defendant). The interest claimed is therefore deemed to provide an equitable remedy.

5.3.2 ) In the alternative to 5.3.1 should the court deem that the claim does not merit the application of the defendant’s unauthorised lending rate, the claimant claims compound interest at the defendant’s authorised borrowing rate of 15% per annum, based in the premise that the court finds that the defendant’s withdrawals from the claimant’s account were authorised.

5.3.3 ) In the alternative to 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 above, if the court is unable to agree that the claimant is entitled to either of the two 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 of 15 % per annum.

5.3.4 ) In the alternative 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 above, 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.

5.3.5) Schedules showing interest calculated at the rates quoted 5.3.1, 5.3.2&5.3.3 together, and 5.3.4 are attached to these particulars of claim, as Appendices 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

6 ) Further contractual interest at 17.08 % compounded daily from 21st February 2007 up to the date of judgement or earlier payment. As the interest is compounding and the claimant is unable to predict when the claim will be heard or settled, the claimant is unable to specify a static daily interest figure, but will provide an updated settlement figure in respect of the interest at any hearing, or if and when the defendant requests an earlier settlement. An approximate amount, for guidance purposes only, is currently £0.92 per day, however as noted herein, this figure is liable to increase over time.


End of Particulars of Claim



Can they do this? Can they refuse to accept a claim?

Oh well - we wait now

I'll keep you posetd

Maranatha

Keep us apprised of what "the judge" says.

Originally Posted by pamandal

Having read around the threads, It would probably be useful to have a read of the thread by

XXneilXX

(sorry cant give you a link as I'm not sure how to do it)

there is a good discussion regarding "monthly OD charge".

Hope this is useful for you

Having read the thread you mentioned, I find it confuses the issue!

Best to keep things simple.

You cannot claim their monthly o/d charge - this is a legitimate fee, for use of an AGREED o/d facility.

You can claim other o/d account fees which they usually charge at a rate of £25 or £34 a go; for example - paid item (if they honour a payment even tho you don't have sufficient funds to cover); failed transaction due to insufficient funds (bounced cheques/direct debits, etc.); unauthorised o/d for one day (used to be called 'going into the red'); unauthorised o/d if this then stretches to 5 days in the charging period (interesting to note here that the 5 days do not need to be consecutive!).

The reason the latter are claimable is that they, (in this case the banks even tho they are in denial and claim it only refers to credit card companies), cannot by law use these to make profits - they should only be charging what it costs them to tell you that you are being naughty by spending money that you haven't got available. Seeing as these trip-ups are responded to automatically it should not be costing anywhere near £25 a shot, which is why the OFT got involved.