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

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi fairyprincess!

 

"Oil on troubled waters" @ this precise moment, type of question...lol...

 

Watch this space over the next few days!...lol...

[fairyprincess]

hi milktrayman

 

i'm watching,

[fairyprincess]

Hi BF, and all interested (like... everyone?).

 

The original simple spreadsheet was not set up to easily change the rate of interest. With the complex spreadsheet at the moment, all you can do is change the 8% for a contractual rate, and this one rate will apply for the whole of the period. This is mentioned in the notes of the spreadsheet.

 

There is an arguement that as the rates have changed over time, the contractual rate claimed should reflect this. I am currently looking into this. If it would be correct to alter the rate over time, then I can create a template that would do this quite easily.

 

I am working on spreadsheets today, and will be able to spend quite sometime doing so over the next couple of weeks, so hopefully we can clear up a lot of these points very shortly.

 

I will put a suggestive element into every update of the spreadsheets for the contractual rate from now on, and hopefully more people will take this arguement up, as it is possible many people are unaware.

 

Look out folks for updates and good luck with your claims.

Vamp. x

 

 

why cant i open these spreadsheets???

 

what is contractual interest????

 

will i have to go to court if i add interest???

 

did i work out my interest correctly??? i found the calculator on here and typed in how much i want back in charges £2,200 then i told me i should claim over £1,000 interest is that right or i am having a blonde moment and done it wrong????

[bill-k]

Just an announcement from Batty Bill here. Vampiress has announced that her Google Chambers will be closed for a while, as they are undergoing a "Re-Vamp."

 

A range of Simple Interest spreadsheets are available here (NB. these are not recommended for contractual interest claims):

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-49061.html

Just an announcement from Batty Bill here. Vampiress has announced that her Google Chambers will be closed for a while, as they are undergoing a "Re-Vamp."

 

A range of Simple Interest spreadsheets are available here (NB. these are not recommended for contractual interest claims):

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-49061.html

For those needing compound interest spreadies,

Mindzai's spreadsheet should be available here:

version v1.9

Spready guide:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-50088.html

[DollyDayDream]

I am totally confused and bewildered. Having read this thread and also Redsue's, and Mindzai and Lucid's, I have claimed Contractual Interest, with alternatives as Redsue did with hers, 9 my claim went in to the court on Feb 13th). Now the whole thread has changed and I don't know what to think. I am just a 'bear of very little brain' and I simply do not understand a lot of the arguments.

I do wish someone would clear up the confusion because this is thoroughly unhelpful. I also find some of the personal comments unworthy. Bill-k does not deserve to be treated like this and it upsets me.

DDD.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Jude

 

Pursue your claim as you have filed it. the basis is reasonable. No need to worry about anything until you start getting offers - I'm sure folks on here will be prepared to say whether they think the offer is reasonable or not.

 

And, in order that you are no longer confused and your mind is not troubled.....stop reading this thread!!!! It gets very esoteric, at times!!

 

Best

 

Westy

[DollyDayDream]

Westy

What sensible advice! I shan't peep again.

DDD.

[Pen]

Just subscribing.

Intresting thread

pen

[natwesttookmymoney]

Are you completely bonkers, Pen??

 

Westy

[bill-k]

Are you completely bonkers, Pen??

 

Westy

Excuse my friend,Pen - he's currently celebrating his win.

 

Now come on, Westy, let's go home. Do you want to visit the loo first ?

 

And, no, Westy - I'm not trying to start a fight !!!

 

And look at the mess you've made on your shoes, now !!

 

Home time...

[natwesttookmymoney]

now got com'letely non-alkolic bo-tul of JAcky Daniels

 

hey - s'emty!

 

hoo drank my Jacky? where my mate Jacky gone?

 

(slump)

[bill-k]

Er - sorry, landlord. I dunno who he is, honest. For all I know he could be a bank-robber.

[cankster]

Dont know if its any good to anyone but NatWest settled today in a case im doing for a friend for the tune of ----

 

2078 CHARGES & COSTS

 

2296 CONTRACTUAL INTERST AT 29.8%

 

 

In court thursday - contractrual

 

Marvellous

[bill-k]

Well done Canks !! Join Westy in the Winners' Lounge.

 

He's slumped over in that corner, I think !!

[TANZARELLI]

Well done canks, nice one.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Cankster,

 

Well done.

[GaryH]

Hi again Milly!

???...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!...

 

This is clearly a (very!) thinly veiled and highly misleading attack on me, so I'll respond.

 

Lets be clear. This stems from the fact that you highjacked a thread, and advised a claimant to withdraw, sorry "Halt", their claim at well past the AQ stage and start over again with CCI. Here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/51535-darling-2-takes-tsb-5.html#post549638

 

This particular claimant had been quite nervous about the whole process, mainly due to the fact that the claim was so large at £11000, and was already in the fast track.

 

The charges ranged back the full 6 years so to add CCI at the U/A rate could have seen the total go up to £30k or beyond - easily in the multi-track.

 

My reply was a few posts down, here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/51535-darling-2-takes-tsb-5.html#post552348. Clearly something's upset you about this reply but I genuinely don't know what. I wasn't saying 'don't ever claim CI', I was saying that people should be more cautious - I even included in the post that I meant no offence.

 

I would have let this go by now, but as you seem intent on bringing it up and attacking me in parts of the site that you know I don't frequent, I'll say it again - the advice you gave in that thread was at best misguided and at worst reckless.

 

I accept your point that people should make there own decisions, but to advise a claimant to withdraw a claim post-allocation and multiply it on the basis of an untested principle, knowing it'll end up in the multi-track with full costs exposure, is undeniably wrong.

 

You also imply that I am hypocrytical by advising some others not to claim CI whilst previously claiming it myself. I refered to this in my post (linked above) solely to demonstrate that I was not opposed to the principle of claiming CI 'per-se'. I was not "boasting", and I'm very sorry that you interperited it that way.

 

My CI claims were concluded months ago, and quite alot has happened in those months. My view has changed in that time and I've openly admitted that it has - I've even openly admitted I may have been wrong to advocate the claiming of CI quite so strongly - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/45815-contractual-interest-another-settlement.html#post573932

 

Can you please though, at least attempt to contemplate the reason's why my opinion has shifted?

 

3 CI claims have been before judges in recent weeks, one judge at an allocation hearing expressed doubts over the validity of CI and explicitly warned that there were possible costs implications of its unseccessful pursual (Stan1 v Lloyds). Another gave the claimant 28 days to put a better case together or withdraw, stating that at the present time his only option was to find for the Defendent (puddock v Halifax), another also expressed doubts about its validity (Golfscape).

 

Add to that the ERC disaster, where a claimant lost and was hit for 4k in costs. I know that ERC an CI are seperate issues, but the fact remains that CI is untested and contentious, and unless you can not just plead or even know your arguements - but also confidently and succinctly put them before a judge - then the result could very, very easily be the same.

 

Also, as I said in the post linked above, posts like yours do not help matters - although I have never questioned that it was well intended - in that many, many claimants now just plead CI on their claim form without any knowledge whatsoever of the issues.

 

FWIW I do still believe there are very strong and compelling arguements for CI, and yes, I would probably still claim it again myself - but that's MY claim, at MY risk.

 

Yes - many, many claimants will win contractual and thats great - there's nothing I like seeing more that the banks (especially Lloyds!) get taken to the cleaners. But for me personally I've made the decision that in the majority of cases the protection of a claimant from any potential costs liability is the most important factor - particularly in the fast or multi-track. Even then, I would'nt say 'definately don't claim CI', I'd say weigh up the pro's and cons in full view of the facts and potential implications.

 

Its a shame you've resorted to personal attacks, but thats your prerogative - I really could'nt care less whether you think I have 'little knowledge' or 'no understanding of contract law'. I know my limitations and never professed to be a lawyer (see sig).

 

Which reminds me, what was it you do again?

[Boba Fett]

[TideTurner]

Time please Gentlemen, we're all on the same side.

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Gary

 

"3 CI claims have been before judges in recent weeks, one judge at an allocation hearing expressed doubts over the validity of CI and explicitly warned that there were possible costs implications of its unseccessful pursual (Stan1 v Lloyds). Another gave the claimant 28 days to put a better case together or withdraw, stating that at the present time his only option was to find for the Defendent (puddock v Halifax), another also expressed doubts about its validity (Golfscape)."

 

I think it is indeed salutary to look at those three cases. There was a bit of 'winging it' going on, in Puddock's case, in particular. S/He di not seem to be adequately prepared, the rate claimed bore no relation to either authorised or unauthorised rate and s/he wasn't at all well-prepared to argue the case. (Sorry if you're reading this and offended Puddock, but that's the conclusion I draw).

 

I feel it's important to know and understand why and how the case can be made for contractual. The first, and most straightforward, is where the claimant has been in overdraft: in that circumstance, the contractual interest is a demonstrable part of the claimant's loss. Demonstrable loss plus statutory interest is, I would have thought, very reasonable.

 

If they have been in overdraft and have incurred charges, then they have been hit with unauthorised interest levels for at least part of the time - otherwise, they wouldn't have incurred charges, which are for exceeding limits. Charges plus unauthorised interest (but definitely NOT statutory) is arguable from the point of (a) getting back the demonstrable loss; (b) compensation for loss of benefit and © preventing unjust enrichment.

 

I really believe, fundamentally and powerfully, that contractual interest, presented and argued correctly, is likely to win. I know that the ERC failure was a shock and devastating, especially for the person involved, but I repeat what I have said elsewhere - it has no bearing on the bank charges. No more than bailiff actions do, nor reclaiming money spent on inadequate and faulty car servicing. They are quite separate issues. Successes in the ERC arena were never put forward in the bank charges forum as reasons or precedents to continue - why are failures now thrown up as cautionary tales? You might as well cite the Supreme Court's decision to reverse the judgement against Philip Morris against the High Court's decision that the daughter of a man who worked in the Naval dockyards had a claim against the MoD for asbestos-related disease.

 

ERC and bank charges are not connected in any way, shape or form. The only similarity they have is that they're both to do with money. That is it: no common ground, otherwise.

 

So let's focus on bank charges in the bank threads, and ERC, bailiffs, unfair savings account policies, endowment policy underpayments, pension mis-selling and all the other things in their appropriate forums. There is no crossover.

 

Westy

[newbody]

Ok can we try to get these threads back on course for what they were meant

 

I am trying for bank charges + CI at unauthorised rate and feel i have a reasonable case though flawed at the minute argument

 

when i first joined this site i was appreciative of the difference of views and opinions expressed none were saying do this or do that all were relating what they had done or were looking at doing

 

or in the case of CI (banks rates of interest being charged back on them ) on the entire claim arguments/views that might support this and then people reinforcing or disagreeing on the same points were helpful as it allowed you to see all possible arguments on a point and not just the ones you wanted to see allowing you to amend or your argument(use of this word instead of stance/viewpoint) to suit your own individual needs better it also allowed for a flow of new information to arrive weather helpful or not but opened up other possible avenues for pursuing this.

 

But over the last week i think it is alot of the posts i have seen have not so much been a reversal but sound advice erring on the side of caution which can be nice to recieve as it is easy to get caught up with the big figures compound contratural interest can generate so it is nice to be bought back to earth to reassess the reality of the claim.

Now some seem to see this as reversal of advice and policy on the site As i see it it is not a reversal of site policy . As i see site policy it is we are all here to help empower each other and assisst with what we have read learnt through other people experiences on here and make what we feel is the best decision for us

The annoying :mad: bit with the posts on CI over the last week or so now has become no-one dare venture an opinion on anything to a negative effect as it may appear to be saying dont do this or that or you gonna lose or fear that the poster / or posters on that thread take offence to it and feel that they are being attacked

 

Sorry just my rant after seeing alot of bickering starting over most of the forum over a subject that needs discussing and debating(was gonna put arguing in but thought better of it ) until the best and most secure/water tight case can be put together to make the claiming of CCI as routine as claiming the standard charges and default interest is at the minute

 

This post is not directed at anyone person or group of people

It is my view and summation from reading posts over the last week

If it has caused you offence then all I can say is Guilty Consciences and sorry if it has

But i would like to see this all put behind and get back on track with what we are here for and that is to make the BANKS pay

[tim2718281]

Moving on:

 

IANAL, but I think there are three different situations.

 

In all three scenarios below, assume the bank took £100 in penalties a year ago, and charges 15% PA on authorised overdrafts, 30% PA on unauthorised overddrafts.

 

And suppose there are no other transactions on the account.

 

The question is, what can you reasonably claim (excluding compensation for the hassle of having to deal with the bank and straighten things out.)

 

A) You had £100 in your account, and no agreed overdraft.

 

The penalty takes your account to zero; there are no interest or other charges. Clearly you can claim the £100. Anything else?

 

B) You had zero in your account, and an agreed overdraft of £150.

 

The penalty takes your account £100 overdrawn; and over the year, interest charges total £15, taking the balance to £115 overdrawn. It seems to me you can claim the £115. Anything else?

 

C) You had zero in your account, and no agreed overdraft.

 

The penalty takes your account £100 overdrawn; and over the year, interest charges total £30, taking the balance to £130 overdrawn. It seems to me you can claim the £130. Anything else?

 

In case A, you have been deprived of the use of *your* £100 for a year. Simply recovering the £100 means you have received no compensation for the loss of use of your money. I think this means you have suffered "loss of amenity", and you are entiled to claim compensation for it. Assessing the right amount of compensation is hard. One reasonable approach is to set the compensation at the amount you would have had to pay to borrow £100 for a year. Alternatively, you can claim the S69 8% interest.

 

In case B, you have been deprived of the use of £100 of your £150 overdraft. Again, you have suffered a "loss of amenity". However, in this case, had you exercised your right to draw the money, you would have had to pay the bank 15% interest. And as the bank is willing to lend you money at 15%, then the "reasonable approach" of scenario A will not benefit you.

 

I don't really think you could even reasonably claim the S69 8% interest, because the bank has not actually taken any of your money ... it has simply said you can have less of its. (Yes, it has charged you interst on the penalties, but you are reclaiming that.)

 

In case C, you have not actually been deprived of anything. You could not have made use of the bank account anyway, as the balance was zero and there was no overdraft agreement. So for the bank to restore the balance to zero seems to me to be adequate redress.

 

As I said, I am not a lawyer.

 

If your account balance was more than zero, or would have been had it not been for the charges, then the bank has deprived you of the use of your money, and you must surely be entitled to compensation - but you need to be able to make it quite clear to the judge why.

 

And if your account balance was less than zero, but you are in the Small Claims track, you are relatively protected against liability for the bank's legal costs.

 

However, if your account balance was less than zero, and you are not int he Small Claims track, then you are risking money by trying to obtain interest on money you never had ... especially if the bank has made a partial offer which covers the penalties and the interest the bank has charged on them.

 

Tim

[innocent]

Ok having got a good understanding of contractual claims (I think?) and getting prepared to start a claim against Monument (about £900 incl contractual interest) I have got this info regarding its interest rates:

 

MONUMENTS INTEREST RATES:

 

NOV 2002:

 

MERCHANDISE INTEREST: 1.313% A MONTH

CASH INTEREST: 1.833% A MONTH

 

JUNE 2005:

 

MERCHANDISE INTEREST: 1.396% A MONTH

CASH INTEREST: 1.999% A MONTH

 

JAN 2006:

 

MERCHANDISE INTEREST: 1.527% A MONTH (19.9% APR)

CASH INTEREST: 2.141% A MONTH (28.9% APR)

 

OCT 2006:

 

MERCHANDISE INTEREST: 1.527% A MONTH (19.9% APR)

CASH INTEREST: 2.207% A MONTH (29.9% APR)

 

 

So what would you claim at???

 

Regards

 

innocent

[bill-k]

So what would you claim at???

Regards

 

innocent

I would claim at the current rate.

[innocent]

"Thankyou" for your early EARLY response

 

(In one of my all night reading moods)

 

 

Agreed... use current rate??

 

But which one? They are not defined as unauthorised or authorised, but merchandise and cash advance....

 

 

Cheers

 

Innocent