Ok sorry I misunderstood your post. I would certainly write about the difference in rates!

For a start he has 2500 helpful posts instead of one that had to be edited and one that is insulting to valued member

No you cant use any rate for interest other than 8% statutory interest, or contractual at the rate(s) stated in the contract. For Lloyds this is 29.85% and 18.2%.

I would guess the credit would appear in whatever system or account the banks use to deposit charges to. When they are debited from your account they must logically be deposited into the bank's coffers somewhere. The money can't just 'disappear' from your account and end up nowhere.

I would guess the credit would appear in whatever system or account the banks use to deposit charges to. When they are debited from your account they must logically be deposited into the bank's coffers somewhere. The money can't just 'disappear' from your account and end up nowhere.

I believe they can enter a default when the amount is in dispute. The banking code s13.6 says they cant (if they subscribe to it), but it is not law, it is merely there to make the banks look good and they will flout it whenever they feel the need.

Indeed, you need to send off a SAR which will give them no choice but to furnish you with the statements. in the mean time I would only accept any payment on a provisional basis, ie that if you find you are owed more you will claim for it. Even then i would be wary of accepting it as you may be doing yourself out of a fair bit of interest depending on the amounts and dates in question. If it were me I would refuse everything until I had my statements, but that's your call.

This is an interesting post that may clear up the issue to some extent: Clickety-click

I would strongly suggest you refuse their settlement offer in writing. You have already filed the claim now and to ammend it will cost you money which is non-recoverable. They still have to contact the courts. One word of advice - you will likely find they pay this money into your account regardless of what you say. Don't spend it!

Excellent, thanks

Is there a specific rule that prohibits this? I'd be interested to read up on it.

I have claimed on charges that have been debited from my account (and remain 'unpaid'). The court date is Feb 7th so we will see if they pay up before or not, but to be honest I expect them to. To get the chance to argue about the interest they would have to go to court. It isnt something I'm qualified to advise upon though. My own feeling is that you are entitled to claim it, but its essentially down to you to decide unless someone can come up with an absolute and definitive answer.

There is absolutely no reason not to claim for a specific period and then later claim for a different period. Splitting claims and persuing them concurrently might be frowned upon, but there is no reason at all not to persue them consecutively.

Well they cant say you've accepted it without proof, and that proof would be a signed document. I would guess they are just hoping that people will give up more readily if they actually have some cash there and then. Like I say though I would be interested to see what they would say if you just took all the money and proceeded as normal! Some of the people they have paid in this way havent even had a letter explaining it, let alone signed anything.

Well that may look like you have accepted the offer, but then you haven't signed anything to that effect. If it was me (and this is just what I would do personally) I would be inclined to continue with the claim as normal. If the bank complain that they have repaid the money I would ask them to produce the document I signed agreeing to that. I would be interested to see what they did next. Effectively they have paid money into your account with no terms agreed...

I agree it's certainly not a straightforward issue. In my mind we are justified and entitled to claim it, and as with many aspects of our claims, in order to defend the issue the bank would have to go to court.

Yes that would be my reasoning, but they are not withdrawing charges, they are repaying them. I guess they may at some point try claiming that the charges are being withdrawn, but I can't see how they would get away with this. In my mind the balance of your current account is effectively your money as at some point you will have to pay it.

If the charge has been debited from your account then you HAVE paid it. Just because the money isn't in the account to cover the charge is irrelevant. The amount has been debited from you account and has therefore effectively been paid by you as you will have to settle the account at some point. The bank have chosen to lend you the money to pay their charges, they have not paid it out of their own money as such.

Yes dont give in and dont write to them showing you are nervous. Stick it out and they will settle. Even in the very unlikely case they go to court, they will still lose. Dont panic, this is exactly what their tactics are supposed to do. Dont be bullied by them!

No, just write to Lloyds refusing their part settlement. There is a template letter for doing this in the library. It's irrelevant that they have already paid it, you never agreed to it so it's their problem if they want to pay it anyway. Just remember not to spend it

This isnt necesary. The Court don't retrospectively use the various statutory rates of interest for each claim, the whole lot is calculated based on the current rate. The bank may well argue that you need to apply each rate, however by that time they have already lost and would simply have to provide their own figures. Even then I'm not sure a judge agree with them. Dont forget you can always split your claim into smaller chunks to keep it under the £5k limit and avoid getting into a situation where you may be liable for costs.

This is 100% correct. You cannot just inven your own interest rate. It has to be in the contract. For Lloyds, this means 29.85% compounded. 'Compounded' is particularly important to note - the way compounded interest works means you cannot just multiply statutory interest which is simple (ie, not compounded). If you grab the spreadsheet in my sig this will work out everything for you so dont be put off by the maths, but beware of making up various rates. I've seen people on this forum argue that a bank is not likely to argue against a lower rate but that is no the point. You have absolutely no basis for claiming a rate other than one that is specified in the contract. There is no more likelyhood of a case ending up in court because someone is claiming a larger amount. Contractual interest may greatly inflate the claim, but the bank will be in no hurry to defend this in court. If anything is more likely to cause a case to end up in court it's making up your own interest rate as the banks could very easily defend this.

The spreadsheet will probably be taking into account the initial £42 that put you overdrawn in the first place. As this was not a charge, you are not entitled to claim the interest incurred on this amount. When did you pay in the £450?

However it is fairly accurate and if the bank wants to argue about it they would have to provide more accurate figures. It's not really a question of "the bank wont necessarily pay it", you are entitled to it and they will pay it, they will just try to get out of it first.

Judging by the way the banks flout the rules over and over again I would guess they are there to make the banks look good rather than actually regulating them.