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

[Glenn UK]

Golfscape

 

well i guess it was informative, there isnt a list but it would be a good idea for someone to do one.

 

Someone has to start somewhere, as it was your idea i thought you might like to start one.

 

Have i done somehting wrong?

 

Glenn

[southyorksman]

Hi, Southyorksman

 

"I cannot claim that I could have done something else with that money, say pay off another debt also because if I had I would be back £100 over my O?D limit and eligible to be charged the 2% rate."

 

You weren't o/d until the bank charged you so, yes, there could have been something else you could have done with the money. Your resources have been diverted into paying money that has been taken unlawfully. If you are using your bank account, rather than letting it lie dormant, you will have drifted in and out of o/d as money came in and was paid out. If you are living up to the extent of your income, say, then the effect of those charges will be to reduce your spending power - so you are being denied benefit. As you put money in, it's being used first to pay off those charges. The likelihood is that you will face further charges as your money runs out, incurring further interest, etc.

 

The interest you are being charged is further denial of benefit, and unjust enrichment on the bank's part, to boot.

 

"This is why I can't claim the charges plus interest arising plus the statutory 8%, isn't it?"

 

You can claim everything the bank has unlawfully taken from you - including interest charged - plus recompense for denial of benefit.

 

The logic of your argument is that you can't reclaim anything, because you haven't paid it. The hole in the logic is that the bank expects you to pay it and, if you don't, it will pursue you for it. Even if every penny you win goes to pay off what the bank claims you owe it, you are removing and wiping out an illusory so-called debt.

 

If the court disagrees with you, it will let you know.

 

Hope that helps

 

 

I'm still not convinced by this arguement, the benefit the bank subsequently enjoyed from applying the charges is the interest from the overdraft interest rate (ie the contractual interest). In that by levying the charge they debited the charge from my account, (ie they lent me the money to pay it) whereupon the charge was paid and they then only benefitted by lending the money back to me and charging the contractual interest which they also then lent to me and which I am also claiming back.

 

The court, as I understand it, works on the principle of equity , putting the parties back in the position they would have been in had not the unlawful event happened.

 

Your arguement ssems to be that I should further claim damages (at 8% statutory interest) in compensation for the loss of utility on the money taken in charges and the subsequent resultant interest the bank took unlawfully.

 

Q1.) How the f...heck (changed :o)) do I calculate that on a changing daily amount going back 6 years

 

Q2.) Again surely the bank would rightfully argue that if I had done anything else with the amount of money the bank took from account for charges then my account balance would have been reduced by an equivalent amount and an equivalent amount of interest would still have lawfully been deducted from my bank account. (ie the contractual interest already is the bank's ill gotten gains)

 

IAN:confused:

[quietzap]

I cannot get Vampiress' Neo Office speradsheet to work with Mac OSX, and right now I cannot get it to download it again. I suppose I can work out the simple 8% interest and just do some arithmetic.

[newbody]

I'm still not convinced by this arguement, the benefit the bank subsequently enjoyed from applying the charges is the interest from the overdraft interest rate (ie the contractual interest). In that by levying the charge they debited the charge from my account, (ie they lent me the money to pay it) whereupon the charge was paid and they then only benefitted by lending the money back to me and charging the contractual interest which they also then lent to me and which I am also claiming back.

 

The court, as I understand it, works on the principle of equity , putting the parties back in the position they would have been in had not the unlawful event happened.But they also do not believe that one part should be able to benifit from commiting a wrong as in this case the bank have commited the wrong in taking your money via unlawful charges thus while they have had this money from the date they took it they have been able to benifit from it weather investing it or relending it or paying bills they have had the use of it and thus been benifited from it so to stop people from gaining benifit from an unlawful act the courts have statory interest (sec 69 8%) in place to remove any benifit of this money now the problem is where should this ,money go as to give it back to the defendant means they have been enriched by their actions and to give it to the claiment means they are being enriched but as the courts look at it is as the claiment is not the wrong doer but the victim therefore any enrichment that the defendant has gained should thus be passed on to the claiment for their loss and denial of use of the initial unlawful act

 

Your arguement ssems to be that I should further claim damages (at 8% statutory interest) in compensation for the loss of utility on the money taken in charges and the subsequent resultant interest the bank took unlawfully. It is not an argument it is within the courts power to grant it and is set down in law as a means of disgorging the wrong doer of any benifit they gained from the unlawful act

 

Q1.) How the f...heck (changed :o)) do I calculate that on a changing daily amount going back 6 years Vamps speadsheets

 

Q2.) Again surely the bank would rightfully argue that if I had done anything else with the amount of money the bank took from account for charges then my account balance would have been reduced by an equivalent amount and an equivalent amount of interest would still have lawfully been deducted from my bank account. (ie the contractual interest already is the bank's ill gotten gains) Not if you were in overdraft then you would have been charged less interest on your borrowing also it is not down to the claimant to prove what the banks did with the money the mere fact that the money was taken unlawfully is suffcient to show you were deprived of the money and its benifit(thus unable to get a new game for your kids that week have a haircut whatever ) whilist the banks had your money to lend to someone else abd gain interest back on it and make a profit thus enriching them from the unlawful act

 

IAN:confused:

 

hope this helps

[photoman]

I'm still not convinced by this arguement, the benefit the bank subsequently enjoyed from applying the charges is the interest from the overdraft interest rate (ie the contractual interest). In that by levying the charge they debited the charge from my account, (ie they lent me the money to pay it) whereupon the charge was paid and they then only benefitted by lending the money back to me and charging the contractual interest which they also then lent to me and which I am also claiming back.

 

The court, as I understand it, works on the principle of equity , putting the parties back in the position they would have been in had not the unlawful event happened.

 

Your arguement ssems to be that I should further claim damages (at 8% statutory interest) in compensation for the loss of utility on the money taken in charges and the subsequent resultant interest the bank took unlawfully.

 

Q1.) How the f...heck (changed :o)) do I calculate that on a changing daily amount going back 6 years

 

Q2.) Again surely the bank would rightfully argue that if I had done anything else with the amount of money the bank took from account for charges then my account balance would have been reduced by an equivalent amount and an equivalent amount of interest would still have lawfully been deducted from my bank account. (ie the contractual interest already is the bank's ill gotten gains)

 

IAN:confused:

 

 

I think this whole argument about deprival of benefit from funds perhaps carries a bit more weight when it is applied to Business accounts ?

 

Yes, as a Consumer, you could perhaps have used the money, and put it into a high interest account, or bought a PEP or ISA or Premium Bonds or whatever,...........but it's arguable that you may also have just spent it down the pub (or the shoe shop, if your a girl )

 

However, as a Business account customer,then you are truly being deprived of benefit and it is more readily demonstrable.

In my own case, just getting by was a constant struggle for many years, and the VERY VERY much needed extra resources to expand, buy new equipment, produce promotional material etc was never ever available. I can see, looking back at the figures now, that had I not had the burden of the charges, that money would have been available, and growth would have been more readily possible. Instead I was constantly pleading for extra money for such purposes, but was never loaned it (funny, how they were happy to quickly offer unsecured loans at high commercial rates to repay any borowing though) !!

I also noticed that in some years the Bank actually made more money from my business than I did !!!!

Eventually things became so difficult that I suffered a very serious stress related illness, that i was very very lucky to survive.

[natwesttookmymoney]

"I think this whole argument about deprival of benefit from funds perhaps carries a bit more weight when it is applied to Business accounts ?"

 

It doesn't matter if the injured party is an individual, owner-operated business or body corporate. The bank's behaviour is no different towards any of the three categories - the injury is exactly the same, so the remedy is exactly the same.

 

Statutory interest is at 8% (or whatever the court decides) regardless of prevailing interest rates, whether they're lower than 8%, as now, or higher, as in the early 1990s.

[photoman]

"I think this whole argument about deprival of benefit from funds perhaps carries a bit more weight when it is applied to Business accounts ?"

 

It doesn't matter if the injured party is an individual, owner-operated business or body corporate. The bank's behaviour is no different towards any of the three categories agreed, yes, their actions are the same - the injury is exactly the same, Afraid I disagee here, the injury is not universally the same. Yes you could argue that such charges are depriving a consumer of the same amount, but that is where it stops. It would not then also affect their income.

However, depriving a business customer of the same amount, is also very likely depriving them of their future potential to earn, and so does affect their income, so the injury is twofold. so the remedy is exactly the same.

 

Statutory interest is at 8% (or whatever the court decides) regardless of prevailing interest rates, whether they're lower than 8%, as now, or higher, as in the early 1990s.

 

Westy, I see what you are saying, and to be honest, I am only really throwing personal arguments and grievances around here.

If arguing for Contractual on the grounds of restitution, on what principle should restitution be sought?

On the grounds that the Banks have unjustly gained and certainly more than 8%, so should be taken back to the point before such gains?

Or does one argue restitution on the grounds of the claimants loss? If the latter, I am saying that a Business claimants loss would likely be greater.

 

Regardless of that, to play Devil's advocate for a moment, yes I can see that it is dificult to try to plead any attempt at restitution on the grounds of the Claimants loss, as this is an unquantifiable sum.

However, it is a lot more certain that the Banks would have gained to a much greater extent than a mere 8%, and to my mind correcting that should be the primary objective of restitution. I would even go so far as to say that if all of such sums recovered did not all go to the claimant, I would be happy to see them go to a public body or even the inland Revenue.

[Glenn UK]

i dont see the argument that you may have spent the moeny is viable its argumnetative and carries no weight other than to **** the claimant off if was said in court.

 

As a point of interest, due to my debts i stopped contributing to my personal pension plan, the returns vary but on one of my plans i have achived growth of 30% over a 12 month period, i wouldnt argue i could get this all the time but it is interesting to me at least that the argument that the 8% stat rate is generous is quite obviousely not particualrly generous in investment terms.

 

Glenn

[photoman]

i dont see the argument that you may have spent the moeny is viable its argumnetative and carries no weight other than to **** the claimant off if was said in court.

Glenn,

Yes, we've all had this discussion before, and it seems to be an ever recurring theme on this thread.

Does one argue Contractual interest based upon:

1/ Restitution. Returning both parties to the state they were before the charges. (hard to determine the Defendants gains, and also requires speculation regards the Claimants possible losses)

2/ Disgorgment. Forcing the Defendant to give up their ill gotten gains.

(Hard to determine the defendants gains)

3/ Equity. Pure and simple. The fact that what is fair for one side to do, the other may do by return. (Probably the best and simplest approach, but requires a strong argument for the basis in law to do this)

 

As a point of interest, due to my debts i stopped contributing to my personal pension plan, the returns vary but on one of my plans i have achived growth of 30% over a 12 month period, i wouldnt argue i could get this all the time but it is interesting to me at least that the argument that the 8% stat rate is generous is quite obviousely not particualrly generous in investment terms.

Interesting......and I bet this was because the pension company had stocks in Banks !!

 

 

Glenn

 

Photoman

[Glenn UK]

PM

 

I hoping to sort out my next claims against abbey this weekend im going to use CI plus some other ideas in the laternative and have you heard of the term account of profits?

 

COuld be interesting if the judge takes it up.

 

My last judge thought my arguments common sense but couched in terms of CI he wasnt going to award it.

 

Glenn

[photoman]

Sounds very interesting?

If you've hit on another angle maybe keep your reasonings a bit hush till after the case? Never know who's watchin !!

Interested to throw it about though so, maybe Pm me or any of the other CI stalwarts !!

[BigFatGreedyBanker]

Hello, I posted some questions in a new thread but haven't got the responses needed yet. Could some one help me out please as I would like to get moving asap?

 

This is what I posted:

 

1) In my banks T&C's it states the unauthorised interest rate at 19.9%EAR but next to it its got 18.37%p.a. If I was to claim contractual interest should I use the EAR figure or the p.a. figure?

 

2) Putting the pros and cons of claiming contractual interest aside, is there any reason why I shouldn't put contractual interest in my prelim and then if I decide not to go to court for it, only put statutory in my court claim? I figure that this way I'm "guaranteed" to get interest of some type, either contractual before court or statutory after court claim stage. Is there any reason why I couldn't/shouldn't do it this way?

 

Thanks for the help.

[larry12]

I am trying to use the simple spreed sheet on excel buy how do i get it to add the days up? i know it must be simple but how do i do it

[TANZARELLI]

Hello, I posted some questions in a new thread but haven't got the responses needed yet. Could some one help me out please as I would like to get moving asap?

 

This is what I posted:

 

1) In my banks T&C's it states the unauthorised interest rate at 19.9%EAR but next to it its got 18.37%p.a. If I was to claim contractual interest should I use the EAR figure or the p.a. figure?

 

2) Putting the pros and cons of claiming contractual interest aside, is there any reason why I shouldn't put contractual interest in my prelim and then if I decide not to go to court for it, only put statutory in my court claim? I figure that this way I'm "guaranteed" to get interest of some type, either contractual before court or statutory after court claim stage. Is there any reason why I couldn't/shouldn't do it this way?

 

Thanks for the help.

 

I have used the EAR

[TANZARELLI]

I am trying to use the simple spreed sheet on excel buy how do i get it to add the days up? i know it must be simple but how do i do it

 

PM me your email address and I will send you another better sheet.

 

Tanz

[millymollymoo]

The court, as I understand it, works on the principle of equity , putting the parties back in the position they would have been in had not the unlawful event happened

 

Oh good then I can claim the interest I am paying on my remortgage then from using my equity to repay these penalty charges.

 

The only way I am going to be put back in the same position.

 

Milly X

[TideTurner]

Oh good then I can claim the interest I am paying on my remortgage then from using my equity to repay these penalty charges.

 

The only way I am going to be put back in the same position.

 

Milly X

 

Yes, you have to be returned to the position you were in before any damage was incurred.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Plus interest / damages

[sn00psmum]

Hello, I have this posted elsewhere but haven't any response yet, thought i'd put it here as it's similar topic- sorry if i'm hijacking!

 

I've got a thread for my RBS charges claim but I think this is a different issue, I hope i've posted it in the right place.

 

Due to RBS making sure that we were permanently skint we've had a number of loans over the years from Provident.(stupid, I know!) We always approached the bank first but were always turned down flat and Provident have saved our skin loads of times when the bank wouldn't help, but their interest rates are atrocious, £6150 in loans over the last 5 or so years has resulted in interest of £3852.20!!!

 

I hear that some people have had success claiming interest on loans that they would not have needed if it weren't for the penalty charges they incurred. I also know that we wouldn't have gone near the 'Provi' if we hadn't had to.

 

My question is can we claim this interest back? Our charges claim with RBS is for over £7k making the amount borrowed from Provi almost the same amount.

 

How do I go about getting this started? Are there templates for this purpose? Has anyone any advice or experience on this?

 

Thanks, SM:p

[TideTurner]

Sn00psmum,

 

You need to make a SAR to both organisations (see my thread for the full version or go to the Library). Any charges made by the Provi or the RBS are also subject to interest which you can reclaim. Get the details of these via the SAR then make your claim. In the interim, tell them the account is in dispute, therefore they cannot charge any further interest, send threatening letters or make any phone calls.

 

I would be particularly interested in any charges made by the Provi. How can they do this - does the interest or term of the loan extend?

 

Tide

[sn00psmum]

Hello Tide and thanks for the reply. I don't need to do an SAR for either, I already have an ongoing claim with RBS for charges here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/64019-sn00psmum-dad-rbs.html

 

and the Provident loans are all in a book as they are a doorstep loan company where people go if they can't get credit elsewhere or need an emergency cash loan. They do not charge any penalty fees as such, just extortionate interest, around 60% I think!!

Am I right in thinking then that we have no claim against Provident but that we can claim the interest on the Provi loans back from RBS as it's basically their fault that we had to go to the Provi?

SM:razz:

[TideTurner]

SM,

 

I have had other replies, and where a payment is missed with the Provi, the length of the loan is extended and therefore the amount of interest increases. My Mother used these years ago hence my interest, and the fact that they are doorstep and deal with the vulnerable eg. bereavement - get a Provi for the funeral etc.

 

Regarding RBS, you would need to show that they have put you in a difficult position, and as a result of the position you were in, you incurred a loss.

 

If you were bombarded by charges, and as a result had to take out a loan on the doorstep (as your credit record was damaged) at an extortionate amount of interest as the Provi charge, then this must be considered to be a loss.

 

Can you calculate this loss?

 

Tide

[sn00psmum]

Hi again:)

 

I know exactly how much interest I have been charged by the Provi over the years as it's all here in b&w in my book, it's the figure in my first post above. And you're right, they do prey on the vulnerable & desperate

 

As for RBS, they know exactly what position they have put us in, they have systematically pushed us further and further into debt (along with many others) in order to enrich themselves. We have pointed this out to them on a number of occasions to no avail. They have bounced countless DDs & SOs (including some for their own products- can they do this?)causing default on a few of them including vehicle, life & home insurance. We now have a claim on our home insurance from a neighbour whose house has been damaged due to a leak from our boiler. It's been found in their favour to the tune of over £1100 and we don't know where we stand with it as due to the bank we may not have been covered!! We are paying a ludicrous rate of interest on our mortgage as due to our crappy credit score (thanks RBS!) we are considered high risk. We have temporarily withdrawn our claim for a refund of charges from RBS as I had initially miscalculated the amount. I stated in a letter to them that I would submit a new claim once the necessary amendments had been made. They took this opportunity to sell our debt with them onto Moorcroft Debt Recovery within a couple of days. We now have 7 days to repay the entire debt even though they know very well that the account remains in dispute. This is the fastest reaction I have ever seen from them!! They have all but killed our small business by not understanding basic cashflow issues with small businesses. Sorry to go on but I don't think they realise that the effect of these charges creeps into every aspect of peoples' lives

Anyway, rant over- I feel better now!

SM:p

[TideTurner]

SM, still here, just considering

[BigFatGreedyBanker]

Originally Posted by BigFatGreedyBanker

Hello, I posted some questions in a new thread but haven't got the responses needed yet. Could some one help me out please as I would like to get moving asap?

 

This is what I posted:

 

1) In my banks T&C's it states the unauthorised interest rate at 19.9%EAR but next to it its got 18.37%p.a. If I was to claim contractual interest should I use the EAR figure or the p.a. figure?

 

2) Putting the pros and cons of claiming contractual interest aside, is there any reason why I shouldn't put contractual interest in my prelim and then if I decide not to go to court for it, only put statutory in my court claim? I figure that this way I'm "guaranteed" to get interest of some type, either contractual before court or statutory after court claim stage. Is there any reason why I couldn't/shouldn't do it this way?

 

Thanks for the help.

I have used the EAR

 

Thanks Tanzarelli.

Any idea on item 2 anyone?