Hi, Maxine I put the interest charged on my charges at 16.9 (actually, it was 17.65)%, across the board. That was because of my own particular situation: I was in o/d for most of the past six years and had a loan, which covered an o/d - largely generated by charges - for about 4 of the six years. so they were charging interest throughout. That was my demonstrable loss. I charged 8% on top. There is a school of thought which is pursuing interest debited plus contractual interest on top (now termed as additional CI, not double-decker). The arguments have been gone into in deep and exhaustive, not to say exhausting detail, on two other threads: 'Why is no-one claiming contractual interest" and "Contractual Interest discussion" (formerly 'Contractual Confusion Compounded Daily'). If anyone wants to see the arguments thrashed out ad infinitum, those are the places to go! Some smaller claims have been won with additional CI, only one for more than £2000 (as far as I'm aware) and that took nearly a year. FWIW, I agree with you but any thread that opens the debate up gets swamped with it! Suggest the argument is kept to the two that already have them!

"Ah, but did you get your monkey back. THAT is the real issue." "21 Feb 2007 - cheque arrived for charges+DEBIT interest +Statutory Interest! " If it needs to be spelled out: yes, I did get my money. All of it. In three-and-a-half months, from start (preliminary letter) to finish (cheque). And I did it without being rude or snidey, too.

Read my signature, Seahorse.

Hi, Bob These are my suggestions: " so do I: 1) Take the 350 and run 2) Go for the existing claim, less previous refunds, of 550 and demand a full refund probably not 3) Do this but also apply contractual interest = about 1700 in total or, Getting better 3) Go for all 8 years worth, less previous refunds, about 850 in charges + contractual interest = over 2500? Now that's the way to do it!

Why is it people compare me with cheese? Always cheese? Why not wine? Even fuller flavoured, much more expensive and won't smell of old socks unless it's clearly gone off!!! Adios

Hi, Nick I'm not in the least surprised that you're confused. This debate has been going on since July last year: friendships have been broken, tactical alliances made and severed, and strategic plans revised several times along the way!! I have claimed the charges, the interest the bank charged me on them, AND statutory interest (8%) - and have WON, and my claim wasn't small! In fact, it was fast-track. (Maxine - you can claim both.) My argument was that I was seeking back my demonstrable losses (charges plus debited interest) and recompense fo denial of benefit (the 8% statutory). I personally believe that claiming charges plus UNAUTHORISED rate, but NOT 8% in addition, is a perfectly legitimate alternative to the route I went: it then comes down to a discussion about whether statutory interest or the full unauthorised rate is the more reasonable/acceptable/arguable alternative for denial of benefit recompense. There are people who believe that the charges, plus interest debited, plus unauthorised interest rate on top, is winnable. I won't seek to make their arguments - they're perfectly capable of doing so themselves and have done, on other threads. I disagree and am not aware, yet, of any significant cases having been won on that basis. But I'm not prepared to rehearse the arguments here, on this thread, and I hope no-one else is, either! If you want to see how I got on, including POCs, letters, requests for Court orders etc, read my thread. Some of it's quite entertaining! "And if some claims are successful, I thought this would be case law?" Not if it hadn't gone to a higher court. The banks are resisting that. Best wishes

Hi, Rogue I don't really understand what you're doing so I can't help with wording, sorry. Castlebest "every time you mention contractual interest you get legal semantics". If you're engaged in a legal process, legalities are unavoidable, I'm afraid. If you 'leave it to the judge' to sort things out, s/he may sort them out in a manner you'd prefer they didn't. Best to get everything clear beforehand.

HI, Muggins, you stripling! I was leading student demos the year you were born - so I may very well be THE person your parents sounded off about! All that fresh air and exercise - an excellent investment in future good health, IMHO.

I shouldn't be a problem. I had something similar, with £600 refunded last year against charges of over £1200. All I did was add up all the charges I'd ever had and then deducted the £600 (and any other refunds already under my belt). Hope that helps.

I think you can expect imminent contact, dwarren, with a proper offer. Good luck! W

Glen " Edit : why do you think unjust enrichement is not relevant any more?" Were you asking me? FYI, I don't disagree with you. W

Good morning, golfscape Whatever you do, go along on Monday armed with a draft order for disclosure. Ask the judge to order Lloyds to disclose their costs, in each and every instance of your claim. Either use the template in the 'New strategy for allocation questionnaires' thread, or try the one in mine (click on link below - it's towards the end). And be prepared to ask the judge for strike down of defence under CPR part 16 (I think) and part 27, which cover (in the first case) failure to submit a defence and (in the second) likelihood of failure when it comes to court. Ask the judge to ask Lloyds how many cases have been submitted against them, how many have proceeded to court, and how many they have won with whatever defence they have submitted. Ask the judge if their behaviour is not, indeed, an abuse of process as the defendant has no intention of ultimately defending the claim, as they haven't defended any hitherto (get yourself the list from the site). It's quite possible you'll be met on the steps with a settlement. But also be prepared to argue. Best of luck!

Hell, aye. And don't forget both the interest they've charged you and the statutory interest. That will bump it up to something quite 'andsome. And after you've won, go for removal of the default. JMHO

Well done, Cooxie!! Westy

Hi, Photoworks 'Referral charges' are definitely reclaimable. They charge those when they pay something that takes you over your o/d limit. "Maintenance charges" are also reclaimable, I suspect - I think they're the same as NatWest's 'account management fee', which is charged per month any time you've exceeded your o/d limit. I'm sure another RBS customer will be able to confirm whether I'm right or not. If you have a premium account, something you pay a regular monthly fee for, then you can't claim that charge back. It will be somewhere between £8 and £12. It MAY be included in a 'maintenance fee' charge. Look for an amount that doesn't fit with the normal 'bouncing' charge.

Spandavia Have you been in touch with your local press, plus radio & TV? It's worth a shot. The telly people are unlikely to spend all day outside your house waiting for a bailiff but you never know. Call the local paper first thing in the morning - they may send a reporter round. Good luck with this. I'm appalled, BTW. Westy

Hi, Mandy With the non-supply of the bundle you can ask the judge to strike the claim out under S16 of CPR, which covers non-filing of a defence. The judge may be so cheesed off they haven't complied he'll boot it into touch anyway, but give him/her every encouragement and opportunity. Could also ask under CPR Part 28 (I think - could be 27) - that the defence has no realistic chance of success at trial. If they do get allowed under the wire, and things don't look healthy, ask for an adjournment or on the grounds that you haven't had time to study their defence and prepare. Another possibility is to go to the court, and ask for an order compelling them to provide full details of costs involved, the activities they undertake and to justify their charges in each and every instance. But I expect they will come up with an offer. Maybe even on the court steps. Good luck with it

Have a good time on your trip. Let me know if your route takes you anywhere near Shaftesbury. W

I'm reminded of a story about that renowned atheist WC Fields who, on his deathbed, was found to be reading the Bible - and very earnestly and devotedly, too. "Mr Fields, what are you doing?" "Looking for loopholes." :D:D

It does get better. Initially, it gets different and, as they always say, a change is as good as a rest. What it always is, is worth it. Believe me on that one. W

Same enquiry from me, D Westy

Lucid We agree! Unequivocally! Caz, I'm not an MCOL expert but I believe that, when the defence ('failed to properly particularise the claim') arrives, you can reply with fuller POCs. But I agree with Lucid - if you can't get to court yourself, print off a PDF of the N1 and post it. Westy

Hi, Lucid "Also I'm not trying to go into great discussion over this here but wasn't it decided that "added CI" would refer to contractual (when you are adding contractual in place of statutory), and "debit interest" would refer to interest that you have paid on penalties?" Both are contractual. Ref: post 40 by Bankfodder in the original "Why isn't anyone..." thread. Let's not go there!

Hi, Cala Glen - I hope you're up for this one!! First, in accordance with yesterday's Camp David Accord we don't call it 'contractual interest' any more. We have the 'debited interest' term and 'additional CI' but we haven't agreed a term for what you're claiming, which is the charges plus unauthorised rate. For the avoidance of any doubt, I think this is a perfectly legitimate basis on which to make a claim, as it covers both the interest you have already been charged and recompense for loss of benefit, without going stratopheric. Your POCs look fine as far as they go but what I would suggest is that you consider using he N1 and filing at your local court. It gives you more room to expand your POCs, itemise and present deeper reasons - along with references to law - as to why you're claiming. Which gets round the 'claimant has not properly particularised their claim' defence before it even rears its ugly little head. But that's JMHO

Er...no, sorry. Technically, it goes back six years from the DATE OF CLAIM (that's the law, not me being awkward). However, Section 32 of the Limitations Act gives two opportunities for for set-aside, or relief, or whatever the right term is. One is mistake - that you did something believing it was right, and then found out it was wrong. So long as you claim within six years of that point - and last year's OFT report is a handy date to hang that cap on - then you should be able to go all the way back. The other is that the reality was deliberately concealed. That's a bit more contentious and argumentative, perhaps, as you'd have to show that the Bank deliberately concealed the fact that it was acting unlawfully. Probably best to stick with the error argument. But anyway - you don't need to worry unless they raise it!