Why is no one claiming the contractual rate of interest???

[natwesttookmymoney]

RSK99

 

"The banks haven't broken any agreement only that the terms are unlawful."

 

From the NatWest Terms & Conditions (other banks will have something similar): "English Law applies to the contract between you and us". The Bank is in breach of contract by acting unlawfully.

 

"The bank at it's (incorrect punctuation!) discretion promises to lend money(unauthorised overdraft) to the client whose consideration is to pay higher interest rates on it."

 

The Bank does not promise 'at its discretion' to lend money. It says it MAY, at its discretion, lend money. It does not say anything in the T&Cs about higher rates. Even if it did, the clause would fall as an unfair term and under the Sale of Goods and Services act. The bank cannot get a customer to sign away their rights under those acts, nor any others, nor to agree to unfair terms. If it's providing a service, then the charge for that service has to be fair under SGSA. If the penalty is for breach of contract, then the compensation for the offended party can only extend to the loss suffered and the cost of recovery. There is plenty of case law, rpecedent and practice on this.

 

As Milly said, there are others sources - go and read them if you're unsure. Also, read the Court Bundle.

 

Best wishes

 

Westy

[rks99]

Unjust enrichment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Restitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[millymollymoo]

I OWE AN APOLOGY TO MILKTRAYMAN. I AM SORRY FOR READING YOUR POST WRONG. PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR BEING SILLY AND DELETING MY POST.

MILLY XXX

[rks99]

Originally Posted by natwesttookmymoney

"The bank at it's (incorrect punctuation!) discretion promises to lend money(unauthorised overdraft) to the client whose consideration is to pay higher interest rates on it."

 

just a typo mate

[TideTurner]

Unjust enrichment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Restitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Unjust enrichment is a legal term in English law and in several other jurisdictions, denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing.

 

When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his gains to the claimant Therefore, to give up his gains, this must include any interest paid, and where you have paid unlawful charges in the past, your money has been invested by them and therefore represents a gain.

[newbody]

Unjust enrichment is a legal term in English law and in several other jurisdictions, denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing.

When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his gains to the claimant Therefore, to give up his gains, this must include any interest paid, and where you have paid unlawful charges in the past, your money has been invested by them and therefore represents a gain.

 

Agreed but i think we need some cases or relevant acts in which to argue the rate we are entitled to as it is not proveable where our money was invested or re-lent so on these grounds i would think the courts would deem sec69 8% as just unless we followed on from this with disgorgement of the gains

 

Disgorgement is the forced giving up of profits obtained by illegal or unethical acts. A court may order wrongdoers to pay back illegal profits, with interest, to prevent unjust enrichment. Disgorgement is a remedy and not a punishment. However, disgorgement payments are not only demanded of those who violate securities regulations. Anyone profiting from illegal or unethical activities may be civilly required to disgorge their profits.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Newbody

"Agreed but i think we need some cases or relevant acts in which to argue the rate we are entitled to as it is not proveable where our money was invested or re-lent so on these grounds i would think the courts would deem sec69 8% as just unless we followed on from this with disgorgement of the gains"

 

I don't know about you, Newbody but my bank charges me 17.65% interest while my overdraft is within its agreed limit and 29.65% when it isn't. In that case, any court that deems 8% as 'just' must have a very different definition of equity, fair dealing and the other elements that go towards making up the justice we seek.

 

Why is it that there is such energetic back-pedalling from contractual interest, all of a sudden? I'm seeing retreat from this area as if claimants have been suffering a series of defeats on the matter. Please point me in the direction of anyone who has made a sensible claim based on contractual interest and has lost.

 

I have seen people talking about contractual interest and unauthorised interest in addition and I firmly believe they will get beaten, very soundly. But contractual alone? Authorised plus 8%? Please tell me - who has lost?

 

The courts will, if they find in favour of the claimant (us) seek to restore the situation as it was before the unlawful event. The unlawful even means charges; if the defendant has levied interest on those charges, that interest should be returned as well, on two grounds: to restore the status quo ante (the situation as it was before the unlawful event) and to prevent unjust enrichment. The claimant can claim denial of benefit as well. The court should, if interest has been charged, restore to the claimant that interest. And, to prevent unjust enrichment and to compensate for denial of benefit, something on top. At that point, yes, the 8% comes in. Alternatively, argue unauthorised on the lot.

 

I can see no reason for creeping along, begging for the charges plus 8% and tugging our forelocks in grateful thanks when the bank tosses that particular scrap our way. They owe us back our money - all of it - and some recognition of denial of benefit.

 

JMHO

[JonCris]

Obviously we must recover the increased unauthorised borrowing rate if' it's already been applied to the account..........To apply for only the 8% will leave us seriously out of pocket

[newbody]

I agree natwesttookmymoney that we should not be grateful for the peanuts that fall from the banks tables and that they should be made to pay back as much as we can get from them As in my case with abbey they have took 28.7% off me when i went outside the O/d every month when the charges hit and think it was 16.7% while i was within the O/D (lived in it each month)

That is why i am trying to claim back Bank Charges and Compounded interest at the unauthorised rate on the said charges (my belief of their unjust enrichment/ Profits they should disgorge)

what i was trying to get at unsuccessfully in my previous post is that some form of case law relevent to our situation where we cannot prove what the banks have done with our money would be of benifit

 

Did they take my charges and invest on stock market and loose

Did they invest on stockmarket and win big

did they relend to someone else who had gone overdrawn unauthorised

did they lend as a morgagte

did they lend as a loan

was it used to cover their overheads wages etc

 

We cannot prove and nor could the bank prove Specificly where one persons money particulary went to state to what extent they were enriched by their act to the individual

 

Yes we can show they took our money unjustly thus commiting a wrong/tort/unlawful act/breach of contract and as such they are not entitled to be enriched by these acts (imho)

 

But i believe standing before a judge saying they done it to me so it only fair that i do it to them would not substantiate a good enough platform or argument to be awarded the higher than sec69

 

Which is why i was saying some relevant acts or case law would be helpful to point the judge in the direction of though we cannot prove that our money was used in this or that manner then the fairest rate to apply to the banks to truly reverse their unjust enrichment would be to apply it at the said banks rate of XXX as this is most likely the way in which the plantiff(claimants money was used)

 

The compund interest side of things i think is covered here

Traditionally Compound interest has been awarded where the wrong has been carried out by a fiduciary (president of India Vs La Pintada Compania Navigacion SA (1985) ac 106, 116 Lord Brandon))

Compound interest is paid on the amount of money owed to the Claimant and on the interest of that money owed as well

the supreme courts act 1981 does not specifically exclude the award of compound interest at common law claims Rather it recognises that the court can award simple interest and the courts have the right to award compound interest to appropriate claims It would be down to the defendant to prove if they had borrowed the same sum of money from another financial institution they would have only paid simple interest then it is only fair that the defendant pays simple interest not compound. However the interest awarded in commercial transactions would normally be compounded Sempra Metals Ltd Vs Irc2005 ewca civ 389, 2005 3 wlr 521 539 para 44 (Chadwick L.J)

from the thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/63596-contractual-interest-judge-doesent.html

 

my main concern is now justifiying that we are entitled to the rate we apply and after typing this out i believe i have just undermined my own belief that i am (really) entitled to the Unauthorised rate though it has confirmed my belief that the argument for authorised rate is just

 

to say all my money was used to help offset others unauthorised borrowing at 28.7% would be deemed impractible (imo) but to say most of my monies were used in the form of loans to others within the authorised overrdraft thus earning the banks 16.8% compounded interest would sound more plausable

 

But hey it why i like this forum for it is the exchange of ideas and points of views that allow us to decide on the best way to progress with our claims and try to find the pitfalls before we get to court still gonna pursue the 28.7%(unauthorised) with the authorised rate as back contingence

[Glenn UK]

Westy

 

For clarification when talking about claiming 'contractual interest' i mean charging the bank the rate they applied to my account in response to their unlawful removal of my money (they unlawfully removed the charges and charged me the a rate of interest on those charges, which was in accordance with the T&C ie unauthorised borrowing rate).

 

This would be charged on top of the charges and interest i had actually paid out and is where the concept of M&R comes from.

 

I believe this is what most people who talk about claiming contractual interest when they refer to this term i.e. applying the excess overdraft rate to the money they had actually paid out.

 

The 8% a court would apply is applied in the same way ie to the charges plus interest you actually paid out.

 

I have seen no one charging two lots of interest in any form (OK there have been some who have not understood and mistakenly claimed sec 69 and contractual but it isn't widespread as far as i know and they have normally been put right).

 

You are right that the banks owe us our money back and no one needs to go cap in hand. This thread i believe was started with a view to claimants charging the same rates to the bank as they charged us for unauthorised borrowing, the term mutuality and reciprocity were used although no one seems to be able to provide any legal definition of this. in concept at least it seems a reasonable argument based on the UTCCR as they stand now.

 

Are you saying you think this is wrong?

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[JonCris]

We already know...........because they have said so & we have it on record........that the unlawful penalty fees go to providing free banking to the rest of their customers

[natwesttookmymoney]

Westy

 

For clarification when talking about claiming 'contractual interest' i mean charging the bank the rate they applied to my account in response to their unlawful removal of my money (they unlawfully removed the charges and charged me the a rate of interest on those charges, which was in accordance with the T&C ie unauthorised borrowing rate).

 

Thanks for the clarification - we are in agreement.

 

This would be charged on top of the charges and interest i had actually paid out and is where the concept of M&R comes from. Now, this is where we disagree, assuming I understand you correctly - see below.

 

I believe this is what most people who talk about claiming contractual interest when they refer to this term i.e. applying the excess overdraft rate to the money they had actually paid out.

 

The 8% a court would apply is applied in the same way ie to the charges plus interest you actually paid out.

 

Agreed - that's what I am claiming.

I have seen no one charging two lots of interest in any form (OK there have been some who have not understood and mistakenly claimed sec 69 and contractual but it isn't widespread as far as i know and they have normally been put right).

 

I should probably get out more but I have seen people seeking unauthorised on top of contractual. There's someone taking Capital One on in this way: CapOne has already repaid the charges, plus interest levied, plus 8% and she's going for the full monty - 29%. I have said I think she has already won and is unlikely in the extreme to get anything more - she may, even, be in danger of finding herself liable for the other side's costs. She is not the only one but I'll post a link to the thread if you want it. There are a couple of others, too, but it would be a hunt to find them.

 

Isn't this what you're arguing in your second para above?

You are right that the banks owe us our money back and no one needs to go cap in hand. This thread i believe was started with a view to claimants charging the same rates to the bank as they charged us for unauthorised borrowing, the term mutuality and reciprocity were used although no one seems to be able to provide any legal definition of this. in concept at least it seems a reasonable argument based on the UTCCR as they stand now.

 

Are you saying you think this is wrong?

 

Absolutely not and I'm not clear how you got that impression. My point is: restoration of status quo ante; prevention of unjust enrichment; recognition of denial of benefit. On all three points, authorised rate (where the claimant has been charged interest) plus recognition of denial of benefit are very reasonable. Charges+interest+S69 are pretty easy to argue, I suggest: a case can also be made for charges plus unauthorised interest (as the charges themselves are levied when the arrangement is exceeded and therefore unauthorised will be levied, for at least some of the time), but not statutory in addition.

 

The civil courts are not going to award punitive damages - that's an American system and is not what our civil courts are here for. We go to court to seek redress, to have our losses returned to us and to be restored to the situation we would have been in if the unlawful activity had not occured. I do not expect a court to award unauthorised interest IN ADDITION TO authorised.

HTH

 

Glenn

 

But all the stuff in red is just my humble opinion!

 

Westy

[JonCris]

Some members have included 8% in the alternative which I beleive to be wrong........If the court is refuses to award the contractual rate they will award the 8% of their own accord

[Glenn UK]

Westy

 

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

Westy

 

For clarification when talking about claiming 'contractual interest' i mean charging the bank the rate they applied to my account in response to their unlawful removal of my money (they unlawfully removed the charges and charged me the a rate of interest on those charges, which was in accordance with the T&C ie unauthorised borrowing rate).

 

Thanks for the clarification - we are in agreement.

 

This would be charged on top of the charges and interest i had actually paid out and is where the concept of M&R comes from. Now, this is where we disagree, assuming I understand you correctly - see below.

 

I believe this is what most people who talk about claiming contractual interest when they refer to this term i.e. applying the excess overdraft rate to the money they had actually paid out.

 

The 8% a court would apply is applied in the same way ie to the charges plus interest you actually paid out.

 

Agreed - that's what I am claiming.

I have seen no one charging two lots of interest in any form (OK there have been some who have not understood and mistakenly claimed sec 69 and contractual but it isn't widespread as far as i know and they have normally been put right).

 

I should probably get out more but I have seen people seeking unauthorised on top of contractual. There's someone taking Capital One on in this way: CapOne has already repaid the charges, plus interest levied, plus 8% and she's going for the full monty - 29%. I have said I think she has already won and is unlikely in the extreme to get anything more - she may, even, be in danger of finding herself liable for the other side's costs. She is not the only one but I'll post a link to the thread if you want it. There are a couple of others, too, but it would be a hunt to find them.

I agree if she has already been paid and accepted that then a court is unlikely to award further interest.

 

Isn't this what you're arguing in your second para above?

I am arguing that you claim what you have paid out (charges plus the interest you have been charged) then you apply the contractual rate to the lot and claim that. This is what i believe was the original intent of the thread 'why is no one claiming contractual interest based on the implied term using the UTCCR.

You are right that the banks owe us our money back and no one needs to go cap in hand. This thread i believe was started with a view to claimants charging the same rates to the bank as they charged us for unauthorised borrowing, the term mutuality and reciprocity were used although no one seems to be able to provide any legal definition of this. in concept at least it seems a reasonable argument based on the UTCCR as they stand now.

 

Are you saying you think this is wrong?

 

Absolutely not and I'm not clear how you got that impression. My point is: restoration of status quo ante; prevention of unjust enrichment; recognition of denial of benefit. On all three points, authorised rate (where the claimant has been charged interest) plus recognition of denial of benefit are very reasonable. Charges+interest+S69 are pretty easy to argue, I suggest: a case can also be made for charges plus unauthorised interest (as the charges themselves are levied when the arrangement is exceeded and therefore unauthorised will be levied, for at least some of the time), but not statutory in addition.

I think, and always have thought, that if you claimed using what we might call 'my way' that if it got to court that they wouldn't award the full unauthorised rate, even if they agreed with the approach and the implied terms, it is such a huge enrichment of the claimant that they would shy away from it. However, the principle of charging the bank for the unlawful removal of out money seems entirely just based on the UTCCR.

When it comes to unjust enrichment and disgorgement then the arguments are entirely different and could be argued in the alternative to the payment of interest. interestingly the judge at my allocation hearing agreed that the removal of the benefits from the bank was a reasonable idea and common sense, what i didn't have at that time were any legal arguments to back the idea up and he wouldn't go further than that, ie say it was logical.

 

The civil courts are not going to award punitive damages - that's an American system and is not what our civil courts are here for. We go to court to seek redress, to have our losses returned to us and to be restored to the situation we would have been in if the unlawful activity had not occurred. I do not expect a court to award unauthorised interest IN ADDITION TO authorised. neither do i, however, if the UTCCR and argument is of any value, it implies that the bank cannot impose a term which allows it a significant advantage without allowing the customer the same right in reverse. In that sense then the terms are at least unfair or they should be allowed to be applied in reverse.

Think of it this way, if the contract said the bank or the customer can charge for unauthorised borrowing at a rate then there would be no argument over the rights or wrongs of the rate. The only issue would be whether the charges had been unlawfully imposed.

this is basically the argument that was proposed that the contractual term should work both ways.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

But all the stuff in red is just my humble opinion!

 

Westy

All in all some interesting points, personally i think that the arguments for unjust enrichment and disgorgement have some mileage in them as well.

 

Glenn

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Glenn

 

"however, if the UTCCR and argument is of any value, it implies that the bank cannot impose a term which allows it a significant advantage without allowing the customer the same right in reverse. In that sense then the terms are at least unfair or they should be allowed to be applied in reverse.

 

Think of it this way, if the contract said the bank or the customer can charge for unauthorised borrowing at a rate then there would be no argument over the rights or wrongs of the rate. The only issue would be whether the charges had been unlawfully imposed. "

 

I see your point but, as I understand it, the way the courts operate in this country is that they restore the situation as it should have been without the unlawful act.

 

Therefore:

1) you should get your charges back, if they fall foul of case and statutory law (which we know they do)

2) you should get back any consequent losses thereon, which are the interest charged on them.

3) you should receive recognition for loss of benefit.

 

The mutuality and reciprocity and/or disgorgement arguments may have some mileage in them but, until it has been established in the High Court, there's no case law or precedent to establish it (unless someone can point me in an appropriate direction...). Therefore, while the argument for charges+interest charged+unauthorised rate may have some moral weight, I don't expect to see a court award that sort of level, as it would look like punishment - and that's not what civil courts do in the UK.

 

Anyway, I have to do some paying work or the bank will be entirely justified in giving me a sound spanking for not having any money!!

 

W

[Glenn UK]

LOL

 

W the argument about the UTCCR though is compelling though since it then begs the question of whether the term allowing the bank to charge a punitive rate without alllowing the consmer to return the favour is itself unlawful.

 

indeed I have long been of the view that not only are the charges themselves unlawful but the imposition of the punitive rates of interest are too.

 

It cannot be that a term for a breach can charge more than the liqiduated losses and since the impoostion of the higher rate of interest is imposed upon our breach of contract then it follows this too must be unlawful if the charges are.

 

JMHo

 

Glenn

 

PS it doesnt help arguing that whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander though.

[rks99]

I'll be claiming

a) charges

b) amount of interest the bank levied on a)

c) 8% on a)+b)

 

I have yet to be convinced of any argument which would let me claim any more and which I would be happy to stand up in court to defend.

Some people have successfully managed to claim 29+% interest on the whole lot of money the bank has taken(in charges + interest on charges) and the bank has paid up, but I think it's more in desperation than desire.

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi again Milly!

I OWE AN APOLOGY TO MILKTRAYMAN. I AM SORRY FOR READING YOUR POST WRONG. PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR BEING SILLY AND DELETING MY POST.

 

MILLY XXX

???...Ain't that just typical!...lol

U finally think that someone else agrees with your way of thinking and appears to have understood the concept of CONTRACT LAW and how it relates to the issues of CAG

...and they then go and delete their Post??!!!

 

Just a few Q.'s...

 

Who said that U had read my Post wrong?

Why did U delete your post so readily?

Who asked U to apologise?

 

It is sometimes re-assuring to other readers of Threads/Posts, that when doing their own research (...which I often recommend them to do!), they seek the same info from as many sources as possible and the answers being given are virtually the same.

They shouldn't always except the 1st thing what they are told as being Gospel, unless they totally trust/believe the advice that they are being given.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, especially when debating 'grey' topics.

No-one should be lamblasted for having a contradictary view just cos it may go against the mainstream.

Likewise, no-one should fear ridicule for publicly stating their view, especially if they put forward external references to support their argument.

If we all were 'sorry' for thinking something different, we would still be living in a World which we thought was Flat and Bank Charges were lawful.

That's not to say that on occasions we all can't agree to disagree though!

 

FWIW...I haven't seen an argument against the rationale that was used by me in the link (#1299).

 

I can appreciate that other previous Posters in that Thread may have unsubscribed from that Thread and therefore are unaware of my subsequent advice and have not had the chance of their right to reply yet.

 

It must also be remembered that the link is to a Post I did some 2 months ago and may have dropped of the Radar.

However, I still think it is relevent even now, despite the recent splintering of factions which seems to going on.

 

I am fully aware of the negatives to the CAG community as a whole and of a potential flamewar that would undoubtedly ensue if I were to reply to a certain Post (...which I won't link to) on the Lloyds TSB Forum.

I stand by every Post that I have ever made and which I believed was correct at the time of Posting.

I say this regardless of whatever others may think, or chose to re-edit!!!

 

I will say this though...

 

To those that say...ONLY Claim s69 Statutory Interest @ 8% if U are not confident with Contractual Interest (...which in itself is good advice!) and TOTALLY disregard even thinking about researching Contractual Interest for yourself (...which happened to be contrary to the advice I gave!).

...and then proudly boast that they, themselves, have successfully Claimed Claim upon Claim which has included Contractual Interest suggests a slight dilema for others methinks???!!!

 

To comment and pass damming judgement on a Post/Thread/Link without having 1st read completely through the aforementioned (...their own admittance!) smacks of a condescendment that belies a certain ignorance.

To then go on to repeat their initial mistake by Posting likewise in another Thread is insulting and I await a most sincere public apology.

 

Would it not be better to try to help others understand the complexities of Contractual Interest, rather than to dismiss those who may struggle with its concept and 'in-not-so-many-words', say to them that U are taking the individualistic view that it is totally beyond their capabilities???

 

Nobody is saying what, or what not to Re-claim.

However, it is NOT for any single one of us to decide what others do, or don't do with their own Claims by denying them that certain access to your knowledge (...whatever little it is!), so as they, themselves, can formulate their own judgement on how best to proceed by basing it on ALL the evidence before them!

 

By impeaching those who try to be fair to one and all, regardless of a Re-claimants educational development, is perhaps to take away the one thing that this site purports to do...

The EMPOWERMENT of those whose lives have been blighted by unlawful debt!

 

Methinks "ANIMAL FARM", is a book that should be read by some?!

 

Sorry for the above rant MMM...

Please ignore the above paragraphs in purple & red.

They were in no way directed at U or for anything that U have done.

 

Instead of asking me to accept your mis-founded apology or forgive U, perhaps U could re-edit the Posts that U deleted??

Obviously it would be best (...for the continuity of this thread) if U could re-type EXACTLY what U Posted originally.

Failing that, if U can remember the gist of the substantive (...incl. the Refs U gave), that would help others follow just as much, I'm sure.

 

I liked the way U quoted actual transcripts out of reputable books.

It added, not detracted from my Post which I linked to.

 

I sometimes have a tendency to 'separate-the-chaff-from-the-wheat' and put things into Laymans English for the benefit of the masses.

I often forget that unless one quotes 'ad verbatim' legaleese, the more learned amonst our ranks don't understand nor values and takes seriously what has been Posted.

 

 

 

All the Best, in All of YOUR Claims!...

[MilkTrayMan]

I started typing #1319 @ 08:30hrs and it's contents doesn't reflect on other Posts made today.

I have enough enemies already!...lol...

[Boba Fett]

mutuality and reciprocity

 

I thought this was ammended to "Fairness & Balance" as per Bank Fodder?

[Glenn UK]

 

FWIW...I haven't seen an argument against the rationale that was used by me in the link (#1299).

 

 

areyou talking about this post?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/54212-do-i-have-accept.html?highlight=sm4423#post448726

 

Glenn

[rks99]

Originally quoted by TideTurner

"When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his gains to the claimant Therefore, to give up his gains, this must include any interest paid, and where you have paid unlawful charges in the past, your money has been invested by them and therefore represents a gain."

 

I agree this is the crux of the debate but how do you work out the gains made by the bank on the money they've taken? At least we have 8% interest which is a decent(?) return on our money me thinks.

[Glenn UK]

I agree this is the crux of the debate but how do you work out the gains made by the bank on the money they've taken? At least we have 8% interest which is a decent(?) return on our money me thinks.

 

8% is a simple interest rate as awarded by the courts. So depending on the age of your claim it may be more or less than the compound interest you may have been able to earn on the high street.

 

I don't think you can work out how much the bank has made on your money and the interest they have charged you, i wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't either.

 

If you claim unjust enrichment/restitution and disgorgement then i would expect the court to either order the banks to divulge what it has made or to award the claimant a token amount.

 

Token in the sense at least that it is arbitrary.

 

The defendant would then appeal if it felt the award was too high of course, but i cant see any way round it other than not to make an award, even though the court may feel you have prove your claim, which would of course leave the bank unjustly enriched.

 

Be interested to know if anyone else has a view on this issue.

 

Glenn

[MilkTrayMan]

Hello Glenn UK!

areyou talking about this post?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/54212-do-i-have-accept.html?highlight=sm4423#post448726

 

Glenn

Yes I was referring to that Thread (...up to my last Post in it!)

 

I was referring to my interpetation and understanding of the necessities that constitute a CONTRACT. (#18)

 

I was referring to the rationale behind why someone should Claim C.I. @ the FULL Unauthorised O/D % Rate. (#19)

 

I was also referring to the fact that a Claim could be Re-started (#16) before the Filing @ Court stage (...contary to previous Posters' advice) and then the issue of Claiming C.I. may be more advantageous to the Claimant.

 

...and even stated that jonni2bad had suggested that a Claim was retrievable by ammending a Claim AFTER it had been Filed @ Court and put a link to that particular Thread. (#18)

 

It is my understanding that Offers between Parties are made "Without Prejudice" within the Small Claims Track.

 

However...

 

CPR - Parts and Practice Directions

 

Mindful of...

CPR 27.3

CPR 27.14(5)

 

Subject to...

CPR 36.1(2)

CPR 36.19(3)

CPR 36.21(2)

CPR 36.21(3)

CPR 36.21(6)

CPR 36.22

[fairyprincess]

hi

 

this is all new to me. we have just got our 6 years of statements and charges are £2,200. how do i add interest and how much do i charge?

 

according to the bank statements they charged us 29% can i charge the same??????