Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
then I decided to claim the interest using the 'complex spreadsheet', that means a new letter demanding payment, no probs there
now I'm dithering on claiming contractual interest, either authorised or unauthorised, it adds a lot of money and I do understand the crux of the principle and I do feel it's owed
what's making me dither is how much extra hassle it'll be, will it involve a lot more paperwork and a more protracted and stiff opposition to the claim? Will I have to cobble together more legalese arguments? I'm very much liking the templates and the cut and paste style stuff so far and I don't want to do any extra work quite frankly, I just don't have the time
is it basically a matter of following the correct procedure all the way to the court date and calling their bluff, even with contractual interest, my claim will always be less than £2,500. Or is adding contractual interest more likely to get me into an actual court?
thanks
ps. how in the name of the baby do some of you people get claims into the £5k+? I thought I was sloppy and careless!
offer today relating to my initial claim, presumably crossing with my revised claim by a few days
it's for £1080, 80% of my initial claim for charges only, not too bad considering it was post lba but pre anything else
anyhow, the standard letter of rejection I suppose with a bit stuck on referring them to my second revised claim sent earlier
nice to be seeing four figure offers, I'd probably have grabbed that a few weeks ago before reading all the good stuff on here, knowledge is power fo sure
doing that now and upgrading my filing from a pile of paper to a real grown up lever arch file
Good offer I must say, good on you for going for the lot.
Ive never received an offer, i would have loved to say shove it !!! (in a nice way of course).
So good luck
caz
five days before getting this I posted off a reworked claim using the same charges but with compound contractual interest at the unauthorised rate, which does rather up the ante in no uncertain terms
mcol/N1 was due over a week ago but the end of the football season and general lack of cash and dithering means I'm only ready to start now
I've something I filed away a while ago that I'm going to use on an N1, as below, everyone happy with it? It's yet to be filled in with numbers and interest rates and dates and so on, any good bits to chuck in gratefully received, and howls of 'for god's sake don't use that' gratefully received
this'll be going to Barclays and Natwest at more or less the same time, my other claims are still festering at the SAR stage
thanks all
.....................
1. The Claimant has a bank account, number ******** (“the Account”), maintained at the Defendant’s Dunstable Branch (sort code )
2. The Account is governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking terms and conditions (“the contract”)
3. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged overdraft interest on the charges once applied.
4. 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.
5. A schedule of the charges is attached to these particulars of claim (Appendix 1).
6. The Claimant will rely on the Competition Commission’s report entitled “Northern Irish Personal Banking,” published on 20th October, 2006, as evidence that the Defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges is calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to Account defaults. The defendant is fully aware of this report as Ulster Bank is a subsidiary to RBS (defendant).
7. The Claimant will further rely on the Office of Fair Trading’s (“the OFT”) statement of 5th April 2006 concerning default charges in credit card contracts, as the OFT’s recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements.
8. The Claimant thus contends that:
a) The charges debited to the Account:
i) are punitive in nature;
ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;
iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract
on the part of the Claimant;
iv) 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.
b) Further to 8.a), the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable.
c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.
d) In the alternative to 8.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
9. Contractual Interest
a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the amounts claimed under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, using the rate and method specified in the said contract, and as is applied by the Defendant to monies it is owed.
b) The Claimant’s grounds for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is 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 commercial compounded rates.
c) The Claimant contends that the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account is unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant. Therefore, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, in the first instance the Claimant has calculated compound interest originally charged by the defendant, being 29.50%.
d) In the alternative to 9.c), should the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account not be deemed to be unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant, then, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s authorised borrowing rate, being 16.99%.
e) In the alternative to 9.c) and d), if the Court decides that the Claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, then the Claimant has calculated interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year
f) Details of interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim (Appendix 1) as follows:
Column1 – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of 29.50%
Column 2 – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of 16.99%
Column 3 – Simple interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate
of 8.00%
10. Accordingly, the Claimant claims:
a) The return of the amounts debited between 12/12/200 and 13/10/06 in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxx.
b) All applicable Court fees
c) Contractual interest at an annual 29.50 % compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 21st January 2007 of £xxxx, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx
d) In the alternative to 10.c), Contractual interest at an annual rate of 16.99% compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 21st January 2007 of £xxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx
e) In the alternative to 10.c) and d), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to 21st January 2007, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx
7, refers to RBS who run Natwest, don't they? so presumably that wants a bit of tweaking for Barclays
I know some of the claims regarding CI about mutuality and the like are a bit contentious but I think it's good to throw it all in, kind of an argument in variance, if it actually goes to court it's more stuff to groan on about and if it doesn't, as it hopefully won't, it shows you're keen
If it's N1 with all those words then I'll have to take them in by hand at the weekend I presume
Hi mate,
yeh seems fine,
however the CI rate of 29.5% looks a little high, but hey, I havent looked into CI for quite a while now so you may wel be right,.
Hi I am currently preparing my N1 for serving on 31st of May and your N1 seemed quite deep to other examples I have seen and where going to use and cannibalize.
But I don't want to make it confusing So please advise.
Master Sun SAID:
Ultimate Excellence Lies Not in Winning Every Battle
But In Defeating the Enemy Without Ever Fighting.8-)
hey fella, I nicked it verbatim from someone else a while ago, that's because I'm claiming CI and want to make my claim a bit more punchy to hopefully keep them on the back foot
I think the simpler template version is absolutely fine if you're claiming charges plus the 8% interest
If you are claiming CI then you might want to use that in part or in whole, your call
some slight tweaks and prods but now it's final as of today and will go out in the next couple of days, feels good, made an effort to bolster the CI angle
any feedback gratefully recieved
hippo out
..................
1. The Claimant has a bank account, number xxx (“the Account”), maintained at the Defendant’s xxx Branch (xxx)
2. The Account is governed by the Defendant’s Personal Banking terms and conditions (“the contract”)
3. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant has debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged overdraft interest on the charges once applied.
4. 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.
5. A schedule of the charges is attached to these particulars of claim (Appendix 1).
6. The Claimant will rely on the Competition Commission’s report entitled “Northern Irish Personal Banking,” published on 20th October, 2006, as evidence that the Defendant is aware that the income derived from its default charges is calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to Account defaults.
7. The Claimant will further rely on the Office of Fair Trading’s (“the OFT”) statement of 5th April 2006 concerning default charges in credit card contracts, as the OFT’s recommendations regarding standard default terms in credit card contracts have wider implications, as regards bank current Account agreements.
8. The Claimant thus contends that:
a) The charges debited to the Account:
i) are punitive in nature;
ii) are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant;
iii) exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract
on the part of the Claimant;
iv) 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.
b) Further to 8.a), the charges debited to the Account are penalties rather than liquidated damages. A charge is held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable.
c) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.
d) In the alternative to 8.a), b) and c), if the Court finds that the charges are not a penalty, then the Claimant contends that they are unreasonable within the meaning of s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
e) The Defendant has concealed, and continues to conceal that the charges debited are unlawful. If this is not the case, and the Defendant truly believes that these charges are lawful, then the Claimant contends that the Defendant is mistaken. As the Claimant only became aware during August 2006 that the charges debited were unlawful, then section 32(1)(b), or section 32(1)(c), of the limitation act 1980 should apply, and the charges debited are therefore within the primary limitation period.
9. Contractual Interest
a) The Claimant claims compound interest on the amounts claimed under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, using the rate and method specified in the said contract, and as is applied by the Defendant to monies it is owed.
b) The Claimant’s grounds for seeking restitution of the compounded contractual rate of interest is 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 commercial compounded rates.
c) The Claimant contends that the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account is unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant. Therefore, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, in the first instance the Claimant has calculated compound interest originally charged by the defendant, being 27.5%.
d) In the alternative to 9.c), should the taking of unlawful penalties from the Claimant’s Account not be deemed to be unauthorised borrowing by the Defendant, then, under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant has calculated compound interest at the Defendant’s authorised borrowing rate, being 15.9%.
e) In the alternative to 9.c) and d), if the Court decides that the Claimant is not entitled to the contractual rate of interest under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, then the Claimant has calculated interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year
f) Details of interest calculated & rates used are attached to these Particulars of Claim (Appendix 1) as follows:
Column1 – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of 27.5%
Column 2 – Compound interest calculated daily at an annual rate of 15.9%
Column 3 – Simple interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at an annual rate of 8.00%
10. Accordingly, the Claimant claims:
a) The return of the amounts debited between 22/12/00 and 30/05/07 in respect of charges and the interest charged as a result of those charges in the sum of £1,000ish
b) All applicable Court fees
c) Contractual interest at an annual 27.50 % compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 30/05/07 of £2,000ish, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £1.04
d) In the alternative to 10.c), Contractual interest at an annual rate of 15.9% compounded daily from the date of each transaction to 30/05/07 of £1,000ish and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.63
e) In the alternative to 10.c) and d), interest under section 69 County Courts Act (1984) at the rate of 8% a year, from the date of each transaction to 30/05/07 of £300ish, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.34
A couple of tweaks, a dapper legalese covering letter from the wife, double triplicate SOCs (two accounts each with three separate sheets for the three rates of interest) a two page POC plus the N1 form itself, plus cheque
oof, eight signatures (N1, POC, covering letter, cheque) addressed, sealed and reg post tomorrow, along with one for Natwest, I resisted the temptation to stick them both in the same envelope
oof, onwards with the Smile/Co-op cases plus three for my sister
oh, and a letter arrived today, quite a plump one, for a moment I thought it might be something
yet another 'sorry to hear ... 28 days to get back to you ...' and a 'how to complain leaflet
I'm two weeks past when I should have sent off the N1 ffs and they want another 28 days, I think they've utterly lost track of the time scales on my claim after my earlier revised claim, ah well, the clock's well and truly ticking now, finally
Hippo v Barclays
, charges only totalling about £1,400
Reply With Quote
