Thank you all!! I'll post again tomorrow with some more info, but I really appreciate your support. Gary; thanks very much for your advice and reassurance when I started to stress, it was much needed and appreciated. TTFN, WM xxx

My brain feels a bit addled, so I won't go into too much detail just now, but I won! No chance to speak to the barrister beforehand, so into court. Explained that I was claiming back the interest the bank had taken off me as well as the CI. Somehow it took ages to clear up which was which with that. The barrister, poor chap, hadn't been given very much info, and the judge seemed to be a little tired of these cases! I think, though, that the judge was relieved not to be looking at the matters surrounding the charges themselves, but just at my entitlement to interest. The banks' line was that they had chosen to repay my charges as a commercial interest (not admission of any wrongdoing) and were therefore entitled to keep the interest I had paid. The judge was of the opinion that the repayment of charges suggested that the money was taken "erroneously", and that the interest should be repayed. However, he did not feel I should receive 8% interest on that, as that would be interest on interest. Also, had I had that money in a savings a/c, for instance, I would not have been able to receive that rate of interest. Basically, that I should be returned to the position I would have been in had the charges not been taken, but that I should not make any profit. So, I'm slightly down on what I expected (I must admit I didn't expect that much trouble just getting back the interest I'd paid!), but only by about £30. I didn't submit my costs order as I was feeling quite overwhelmed that point, but I intend to do that later this week (I understand I can do that?) But the point, which occurred to me when I was nearly home, is that I won!! The judge found in my favour that Lloyds should repay the interest, when they actually sent someone to court to defend it. So I'm happy. I now have spending money for my holiday (first holiday since 1996!) xxx (will make a donation when I receive the rest of my money)

Yes, that's what I meant, thanks. Good to know I can still claim costs! As I said before, I don't expect to be awarded CI, but I think it's worth a try plus, tbh, I'd quite like to see what the judge thinks of my arguments for it. I'll post to tell you all how it went...

Bump! (sorry! )

Well I posted a letter today, accepting the money in part-payment, which they should get tomorrow as I go into court. Am I right in thinking that as they've now said they're defending the CI, that they won't be arguing over the main body of the claim in court? i.e: the interest they still owe me? Any thoughts on this would be great, I'd like to be as prepared as possible tomorrow! Also, probably a stupid question, but presumably if they go into court to defend a portion of the claim, I can no longer claim costs, even though they've changed their defence at the last minute? Thanks, WM x

Having said that, p.11, section 3.4 of the OFT report says that: "Default charges are not 'core terms' 3.4 'Core terms' relate to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract or to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the services supplied in exchange. They are subject to the UTCCRs, but are outside the scope of the test of fairness by virtue of Regulation 6(2). We do not consider that terms providing for default charges are core terms. (In this context the breaches of contract which may lead to a default charge typically arise where a customer exceeds a credit limit, fails to pay or fails to honour a payment.) Consumers do not generally enter into such contracts expecting to incur these charges. We consider that the charges are not the substance of the bargain but are simply an incidental charge that is applied if some of the main obligations are not complied with." Could this logic be applied to the unauthorised o/d interest rate? If so, would it mean that you could claim CI at the unauthorised rate, but not at the authorised rate as you expect to be charged interest on your o/d? Just thinking out loud...

Trying to look into the legal basis for contractual interest and am a bit unsure of what I've found so far... 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.” So far, so good. However, from Consumer Direct - Unfair terms in contracts... "Terms in consumer contracts that set the price or define the product or service being supplied are 'core terms' of the contract and are exempt from the test of fairness as long as they meet the plain language requirement." Presumably the overdraft interest rates you'll be charged "set the price" and are thus a "core term", and therefore exempt? What does anyone else think about this? Also, has anyone successfully argued the basis for CI in court, where the bank have actually turned up to defend it? What evidence was used? WM x

If it's all explained then I can't see the problem. I would have thought it's just when you say "OK, that was 40 hours time, pay me" it's not so good. This is, of course, based on my vast legal experience(!) Anyhoo, got home today to find 2 pieces of mail from [problem]!! The first is an offer (Strictly Without Prejudice, Confidential and Privileged). Our client has agreed to refund part of your claim as follows: 1. Charges applied to current a/c 2. Statutory interest 3. Charges applied to credit card 4. Statutory interest 5. Stat interest at daily rate since claim started 6. Court fees less £85 credited previously No mention of the interest they took on the charges, and obviously the statutory interest is then wrong because of that. They go on to say that if they don't hear from me (to accept this) they are instructed to proceed with the hearing and defend the remaining part of the claim, which is the contractual interest (and the interest they owe me anyway!) They finish with the following paragraph: "In regards to the contractual interest, the Bank cannot accept that the court will award this rate of interest. The reason the Bank can charge this level of interest is because you, the Claimant specifically agreed as part of the contract between yourself and the Bank that this rate could be charged. The Bank therefore has a contractual right to charge interest at that rate. You do not have such a right and therfore we believe that the Court should only award interest at its standard rate of 8% and will request the Court to make an order only to award the Claimant the statutory interest at 8% and subsequently, ask that the Court mark the claim as satisfied." Why do they think I would come this far only to let them keep part of my money?! So, onto the next item, a witness statement from Joanne Storey (received 9 days after the deadline, I might add) Sections 1-4. Standard paragraphs 5. "The Claimant has provided a schedule of charges applied..." details the seperate amount, including 'overdraft interest' and 'credit card interest' - they added the commas, not me. The figures are correct. 6. "The Defendant has identified that the Claimant is charging interest at the Bank's contractual rate of...The Defendant disputes that the Claimant is entitled to claim this "unarranged overdraft rate" amount. The reason the Bank can charge this level of interest is because the Claimant specifically agreed as part of a contract between herself and the Bank that this rate could be charged. The Bank therefore has a contractual right to charge interest at that rate, whereas Miss WM does not have a contract that would allow her this right." Does this help my mutuality of contract argument for CI, as it specifically states that part of the contract covers these interest rates? "The Defendant has included a chedule of charges that were applied to Miss WM's account, which is attached as exhibit JS1..." They then detail the charges they've taken along with the 8% interest. (But not the interest they took off me) "...In addition, the Defendant has provided copies of statements labelled 'JS2 that show that the Claimant has utilised an overdraft facility for various amounts at different times" What's their point here? 7. The total amount, therefore, that the Defendant disputes is the interest in the sum of £xxx.xx that was discussed in the previous section. So they're disputing the CI, as expected, but the amount in the last paragraph actually includes the interest they've taken. They apparently think they've paid everything except the CI, and that that's all they're going to court to defend. Or they hope that neither I nor the judge will notice, and they get a mini-victory. Whereas I know it's not the case. Presumably at court the solicitor will speak to me beforehand and try to get me to settle. If I refuse, will the judge realise that there are two different lots of interest to be dealt with, or accept Lloyds assertion that it's all CI? Basically, if I do settle for 8% interest the the amount they've offered is only 75% of what they should pay, but I don't want to risk losing the remaining 25% by saying I want to go into court. Am I explaining myself properly here? I think I need to take a break from typing...

I've done a spreadsheet for costs, itemising time spent on each part etc. Obviously we shouldn't go mad here, but I've worked it out as being 19 hours (not including research time), and that's being conservative. Would a judge think that was too high and I was just trying to get as much as I possibly can? Also, would it be worth contacting [problem] to ask how they arrived at this figure, and explaining that I'll still go to court unless they settle in full; would they like to increase their offer...sort of thing? Probably not I suppose...

Well, it's more than a day or two before, but I've just discovered £443.98 in my a/c; more than £155 short even just at 8% interest, let alone what I'm actually claiming for. I haven't heard anything from them (surprise surprise!) What's my best course of action now? Accepting a settlement at 8% rather than contractual interest is one thing, but I'm not prepared to let them get away with just randomly paying part of it. But I also don't want to look unreasonable to a judge. What would you recommend Gary?

Hi Gary, Thanks for your reply. My claim is for £337 of charges plus £110 interest taken. With CI it comes to £1035 (29.8%). I've claimed at 18.7% in the alternative, or s.69 8% in the alternative, so if I'm refused CI I have still requested simple 8% interest. Of the charges, 13 are on my credit card and 3 are my current a/c; 2 of those are for returned items, which I'm hoping should strengthen my argument against the "service charge" defence (you didn't pay it - where's the service?!). I have the T&C's of my card, which clearly states a requirement to stay within my credit limit and pay on time, so if I don't, it is an actual breach of contract, not just implied. Having now found a copy online of the 2004 current a/c T&C's, I intend to submit these at the hearing if I'm allowed, as they clearly state that charges are "to recoup our costs". It was interesting reading Pen's thread - thanks for that. I do agree with you re going to court solely for CI; if I receive an offer for charges + costs + 8% I'll accept (hope no Lloyds spies have identified me!), but otherwise I will try and argue my case for it in court. Thanks again for replying - I was starting to feel rather stressed by it all, and it's nice to not feel too alone! x

You won't see this til afterwards now Pen, but Good Luck!!! Gary directed me to your thread as my date is in 7 days and I'm also claiming CI, so very interested to know how it goes. I'm sure you'll be fine, and return home this afternoon with a huge grin on your face! xxx

OK, I'm in court in 8 days and starting to get nervous (I admit it!) I've read a few mentions over the last few days of it just being claims with contractual interest that are being defended. Any thoughts? Has anyone had a CI claim settled in the past week? x

Sorry to be a pain; I realise there are more important issues being discussed here, but any ideas as to submitting further information to be attached to my court bundle would be REALLY appreciated! (Please!!) x

I submitted my court bundle last week, in which I acknowledged that Lloyds had repayed the fees on my current a/c. The rest is Visa charges. I have a letter from Lloyds confirming that the payment is in respect of the current a/c so what I will be claiming in court is visa charges and interest (although there will also be interest on the bank charges due to their late payment). However, I'll break these down in case the judge refuses the interest relating to the current a/c charges. Am I making sense so far? I notice that Judge Cooke mentions that he is ruling on a current a/c, but that the situation (may?) be different with credit cards since there are express terms and condition regarding credit limits and on-time payment. I've now got the T&C's from the Lloyds site, and the charges information, which refers to them as "default charges". I would like to include this information in my court bundle as an additional submission, but the deadline is tomorrow! Any ideas whether I can still submit it? I can take the copy to the court myself, but obviously the copy to [problem] won't get there til Thursday. Any thoughts gratefully received! Thanks, WM x

Congratulations! Even more for actually getting the money straight away! Gives me hope - my court date's the 30th. Just out of interest (no pun intended!), did you go for contractual interest? Well done again x

Hi, I'm claiming CI and still received the standard 9-point defence. Someone mentioned in another post (can't remember which - I've read so many!) that they don't mention it, but they are fighting back harder with CI claims. However, no-one seems to be aware of any being defended in court. Guess that could explain why they're dragging their feet so much with it. I just hope mine on the 30th of May isn't the first! That said, I've asked for 29.8% CI, or 18.6% in the alternative, or s.69 8% in the alternative, so were it to get that far, I hopefully wouldn't lose it all. I think if they were to defend it (just my opinion) it would be the interest rather than justifying the charges altogether. (Could they appear just to argue that side of it without defending the actual charges?) Well anyway, I've started re-reading up all the info/arguments for both the charges and CI, just in case! Are you claiming CI?

Absolutely. Though, tbh, it doesn't concern me quite so much that they might call in the loan altogether because, as I understand it, you can argue that this was in retaliation to your claim, and therefore unreasonable and not allowed (I think? Any opinions...?). I would be very upset though if they paid my money then straight away snapped it up for the loan, saying "thanks very much, all up-to-date now, just keep making monthly payments...blah blah blah." Even if they did that and I was able to fight to get it back, I can see it being yet another long, drawn out process. I think I'm going to say I want payment by cheque, so I can pay it into my other a/c, then I decide how much they see of it. How long were you on a payment plan for, if you don't mind me asking? It's just that they haven't said anything to me about re-financing the loan. WM x

I'm getting a bit worried about the same thing. Slightly different as I had to go on a payment plan for a while due to suddenly being on a very low income. At the time I was given the impression that this just meant my agreement would continue for longer. However, a while ago I went back to paying the full original payment amount, but now find they're saying that the account is in arrears due to the lowered repayments for a while. The arrears are basically what they owe me in charges. I'd already intended to use half the money to pay some off my credit card (though will prob use it for the loan no) but the thing is, I really can't afford to lose all that money (and it will be lost to all intents and purposes). Hmmm

Well posted court bundles to SC&M and court this morning 7 hours!! I'm really hoping that once they (SC&M) receive it they'll realise I'm serious and settle. Not that I'm scared of going to court, it's just dragging on... Having said that, they've dragged their feet at every stage - why stop now?! Started preparing my application for costs though. Nicely detailed spreadsheet breaking everything down etc. One thing I'm wondering, though, is I noticed someone else (sorry, your name escapes me!) had their application refused by the judge as they didn't turn up at court to present it. This was in spite of informing the court that Lloyds had already settled, and not claiming for costs relating to attending court. Should I expect to attend court anyway to submit my application for costs in person? Any thoughts or experience anyone? WM x

OK, small new development (quite amused me, actually!) Lloyds paid a small amount into my a/c on the same day I filed the court claim (15th Feb). I realised when I got home and wrote to them that day to refuse their offer and asked them to remove the money. I didn't hear anything back and they didn't take the money. Then, on Friday, I got a letter from them, dated 10th April, saying "..sorry you're not happy...maximum we are able to award...see you've issued court claim...if successful this figure will be deducted...not make any attempt to reclaim this money." 2 months late. Nice to see they're on the ball! x

15 minutes? Mine says one hour!

Hi, Very interesting! Do you just claim for time and letters since you filed your court claim, or from the time you sent your prelim letter to the bank? I'm guessing the latter, although the other would be nice! Thanks x

OK, been a while, but anyway... Received notice of issue on the 23rd Feb, followed by bank's defence on 20th March. No mention of the £85, just standard 9 point defence, so obviously just subtract it from the settlement. Handed in my AQ at the court on the 3rd April. I followed the "New Strategy..." and included a request for disclosure and draft order for directions. I haven't received a copy of their AQ: do they normally send this to people? Yesterday (17th) I received Notice of Allocation and a court date for the 30th. No mention was made of my request for disclosure etc: is this normal where they've decided not to go along with it? I'm in Sheffield, in case that makes any difference. I haven't heard anything from SC&M in this time, but reading through the successes forum, I notice that a lot of people who handed in their AQ's after me have already had settlements. I'm confident that all my paperwork & figures are in order (less so as I typed that sentence, I admit!), so is it just luck of the draw who is settled sooner? Also, I had a letter from the mediation dept today, asking if I'm willing to enter into mediation. For a start, I sincerely doubt that SC&M will be, but should I respond to this at all? Thanks x BTW, how do I change the title of this thread?

Hi Remus, I had the same problem as your daughter year b4 last. I was trying to set up a payment plan with them, but they wouldn't do that til both my JSA and HB were completely sorted - which where I live takes several months (2 for JSA and 5 for HB!!!) They may or may not return payments in that time, but she needs to go to the bank and see an advisor about a payment plan - at least then they've got info about her income etc. Then just keep writing letters demanding money back. I never got all of it returned, but at least a bit was better than nothing. Also, this was before I 'd figured that phone calls are useless: I'd be told one time I'd get all my money back, then later told by someone else that I wouldn't, and that no-one would possibly have told me I would. Anyway, I digress. The important thing for her to do is to contact the jobcentre or tell them when she signs that if her money goes straight into her a/c it will just get swallowed up so she needs to be sent a giro or paid into a different a/c (if she has one). Just in case they try to tell her it can't be done, it can. It's policy that they don't pay into an a/c where the bank, not you, will get the money. I hope this helps! x