Me too, my own personal account this time back to 1994 so keep in touch. I think your right because the Judge seemed quite impressed at the Nationwide having already paid all the charges, S69 interest and the court fee plus another £35 with the copies of their court bundle.

Attended my local court last week in place of my wfe, who was unwell, (so I could not speak) only to have the Judge throw out the balance of our claim for the 24.9% compound contractual interest. All our arguments re implied mutuality and reciprocity, unjust enrichment and the OFT's fairness and balance argument fell on deaf ears as no contract existed originally. However, the Judge did record that the Dunlop case seemed to prove a compelling case for the penalty charges to be disproportionate and therefore unfair. The Judge also mentioned the number of cases he was aware of that had been settled just before a hearing could take place, and I got the impression that these district Judges feel constrained by the lack of legal precedent set by a higher court and accordingly don't want to be responsible for setting a legal precedent themselves. Interestingly the young female barrister acting for the Nationwide confessed to me on the way out that she also was pursuing her bank! Ah well, perhaps our claim was a percentage too far!

Just yesterday received a court date of 10th April following the court giving Nationwide three opportunities to submit their Allocation Questionaire. It has however stayed in the small claims track. Court bundle here I come.

Yes. But do allow the 14 days you gave Nationwide in your LBA to elapse for registering the N1 so you can show your acting fairly.

H.M.C.S Her Majesty's Courts Service - Home

If your going for contractural with S69 'in the alternative' you may find the detail will not fit on the MCOL's particulars of claim section and so you will need to go N.1 which you can fill in and download from H.M.C.S website (3 Copies)

Hi Sue, welcome back & Happy New Year. Lets hope the Judge has had enough of their delaying tatics and strikes out their defence. Preparing my AQ as it has to be in by 19th Jan.

You should still start to prepare your claim. If your claiming contractural interest with S69 'in the alternative' you may have to consider obtaining N1 claim forms (3 copies) from your local County Court as I understand you may not be able to fit your total claim particulars on the MCOL copy.

You need to decide now b/4 your pelim letter. 24.9% is their contractual unauthorised rate, 7.75% their authorised rate. The S69 8% can only be used at the court stage if you do not use any of the above.

Believe I'm right in saying you can only claim for any charges for exceeding your overdraft. Not your normal interest charges. Looks a nice round figure anyway. Go get em.

Being an amicable kinda gal - and in light of the Money Programmes findings, perhaps you could suggest they keep £4.50 for every returned cheque plus £2.50 for everything else so long as they pay you the difference. Hmm that adds up to ££££, now is that with or without compound contractual interest - O lets not go there! Sue, thinking about it, and as we are both in the same boat, why don't we do another spreadsheet deducting the above from the original charges (there all £2.50 in my case), still adding the 24.9% and see what the difference is for if we do negotiate. Perhaps more importantly it might also produce some brownie points with the court if negotiations fail. What do you think, should we be prepared to lose the difference - or is it because it is the season of goodwill, or just me weakening? Seasons greetings Ben

Believe their going to suggest a maximum of £4.50 for a returned cheque plus £2.50 for everything else.

Sue Having filed their usual part payment defence, just about to confirm to the court that their repayment has not been in full and final settlement as they are still £820 short of what I claimed.

Just don't expect a cheque by return!!!

I think they both have their merits. But thanks anyway. Ben

Welcome back Sue - your silence was almost deafening! On another thread Bong also quoted this principle advocated by the OFT - in its published guide to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - that "fairness and balance require that both parties to a contract are equally bound by it, and equally liable to pay compensation for failure to abide by it". Perhaps this could be added to further support the mutuality and reciprocity clause - if Bong doesn't mind.

Probably inundated with requests for statements.

According to my older statements Nationwide's unauthorised overdraft interest rate in the nineties was at 28.3%. I'm sure it will not have been a lot less than the present 24.9% in the interim.

In my case I did not have an approved overdraft and so I got both a unauthorised overdraft fee and interest charge. It was that interest charge I meant but because you had an approved overdraft you may not have been subject to the same charge. I think you make a fine job of being our 'trail (or is trial) blazer'

No your not, I'm with you all the way. My own thoughts are, having, as per my previous post, by 'implication' admitted their charges are unlawful, we must not divorce the interest from the total claim and we are simply seeking the balance of that claim. Did your N1 total (therefore your claim) include the 24.9%? Would it help to itemise, in the case of your AQ, and mine if it appears, the date, amount and rate of all their interest charges debited to our accounts reinforcing our claim under the implied mutuality and reciprocity clause? Just my thoughts! Interesting the solicitors acting for RBS didn't dispute Justwon's claim for contractual interest - only distress and inconvenience and/or personal injury. Her, and Glenn's arguments for the weakness or otherwise of their defence should also provide you with some ammunition.

Certainly would appear to be a growing momentum, with some notable successes, for contractual interest - implied or not.

Yes but surely thats for a judge to decide. As I see it our case is based purely on the unlawfulness of their charges, and accordingly the unauthorised use of our money, to justify our 24.9%. Therefore its the implication of their partial payment, plus the thousands of others on this forum, that we hope the judge will see through and decide appropriately if it gets that far.

Sue Although this does not set the 'legal precedent' for the legality of their charges surely it sets the 'principle' for their unlawfulness and its in that we can justify our claim for 24.9% under the 'implied' mutuality and reciprocity of their terms and conditions.

Hallelujah..........the more the merrier!