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

[newbody]

Do I claim the contractural rate up to todays date or do I only calculate it until the account was closed?

 

I would believe it is up until the date of settlement as the argument is that the bank has borrowed this money from you and havent repaid it therefore the intrest is accuring on it until they settle as it is your money they have borrowed irrelevant of the fact the account is closed

 

 

Please note these are my views and opinions only and i am not a Legal Egale just another user of this site

So if i am wrong please tell me i am

[newbody]

found this on the OFT site Draft guidance on unfair relationships and thought it might be of help in proving unfair contract in the right to claim contractural compound back

Draft guidance on unfair relationships

 

 

29 June 2006

The Consumer Credit Act 2006 introduces the new concept of an unfair relationship. This means that a borrower can challenge a credit agreement in court on the grounds that the relationship between the lender and the borrower in connection with the agreement is unfair to the borrower.

 

Unfair relationships and the circumstances that give rise to them also fall to be dealt with using enforcement powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. These powers cover situations in which businesses infringe their legal obligations and as a result harm the collective interests of consumers.

The 2006 Act requires the Office of Fair Trading to publish guidance indicating how it expects the unfair relationships provisions to interact with Part 8. This is intended principally as advice and information for businesses, their legal advisers or representatives, and consumer organisations.

We are publishing this guidance in draft form, to invite comments from stakeholders and other interested persons. The guidance will be finalised in the light of such comments and discussions with other enforcers. We aim to publish final guidance by 31 December 2006.

Download Unfair relationships: draft guidance - consultation document (pdf 204 kb)

[newbody]

Also are people using the authorised or unauthorised overdraught interest rate as the contractual interest?

 

 

different people different choices some are using the authourised rate and others like myself are using the unauthorised rate it has to be your choice as you will be the one who has to argue the validity of why you are entitled to it

[newbody]

i have vampairesses spreadsheet no 2 if you require it pm me and i'll email it over for you but it is in excel format

[newbody]

link for abbey intrest rates

 

Abbey - Abbey current account - Rates

[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.

[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

[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

[newbody]

Ok as i understand the state of play at the minute it is as follows

 

with no arguments and we all agree you can claim

 

Charges(bounced dd cheques s/o : unauthorised clearing payment charges etc : unauthorised overdraft fees (if charges put you into that postion)) + the interest the bank charged you for these fees (debited interest) at that point in time ( from here on in i will refer to these as the bank charges)

the above has not yet produced any failures for settlement and is what was origionally being claimed

 

now if like some of us you decide the bank has been unfairly enriched by it's charging regime then you can decide to try and claim for additional interest which follows 3 courses non of which are proven to work or not

 

1) is to claim bank charges and Simple interest as of Sec69 8% (this is normall asked for at the time of filing your intial claim at court on the N1 mcol stage as far as i am aware no one has lost with this situation as it is in the courts power to award this )

2) is to claim bank charges and then the banks authorised borrowing rate compounded on top of this (the general concenus on if you are going down this path is to apply for it from the outset i.e in your Prelim letter and Lba. Some have won with this but the sums claimed for have been small so easier for the banks to payout and swallow the cost. )

3) is to cliam bank charges and the banks Unauthorised borrowing rate compounded on top of this (the general concensus again on this is you apply form it from the outset in your prelim and lba letters Yet again some have won with this and i believe it was GlennUk who got to a hearing with the judge and didnt gett awarded this but only Simple interest at 8% but as he said the judge was listening to his arguments but he went to the hearing prepared to argue statute of limitations and was caught out as the bank didnt argue that but the interest side instead read his thread for more information on it )

Ok that the basic ways mentioned now claiming back the BANK CHARGES is not in dispute atall just follow the set out procedures in the step by step guide

 

no disagreements on claiming 1 above as it is within the courts powers

 

Now with claiming 2 or 3 above then this is where the disscussions (and confusion ) have evolved from on here and there is no real guidence or set path or proven arguments for them

 

from thoose of us trying to claim this additional interest the general feeling is that you need to try and keep your claim intact i.e no part payments gestures of goodwill so when you reach court the bank has to argue their charges as well as the interest you are trying to claim

At the moment it is not thought of in general to be in the situation of being in front of a Judge saying the bank has paid me back XX which is the equivelont of my charges but not paying me the interest i want from them as well (there is nothing stopping you trying for this but be warned this area has not been tried yet so you would be trying new ground as most of us going for additional interest are)

If you do get before a judge with your claim intact it is still no garuntee that you will be paid the interest you need to have arguments ready to say why you belive you are entitled to this money and there is alot of different views on this in different threads the main points being mutuality and recipitory - Fairness and balance - Disgorgement - Quasi contract -and misrepresentaion but it will be down to you to argue these points to convince a judge why you should be awarded this rate instead of the simple interest 8%

From this point of view i tend to believe the best interest to cliam for is the unauthorised rate (3 above ) following the philosphy that they did and do it to me so under M&R i am allowed to do it to them as they borrowed my money without permission though i doubt a judge would see it that way under arguing for disgorgemnet and yunjust enrichment but i am working on different angles to support most of the above points to put before a Judge to get my way

On 2 & 3 above i would at the N1/MCOL stage include all 3 as an option for the judge to consider see my thread for more detail on what i mean

 

to re-cap

claiming BANK CHARGES back no arguments - no issues

Claiming BANK CHARGES and Simple 8% sec 69 -at court stage - no issues

Claiming Bank CHARGES and Compound Authorised Rate -Not a proven method and you will have to have arguments ready to say why you entitled to it (some have won with this )

Claiming Bank Charges and compounded Unauthorised Rate - Not a proven method and you will have to have arguments ready to say why you entitled to this (some have won with this)

 

As far as i am aware no one has yet had costs awarded against them whichever track they were on in regards bacnk charges though some have now lost in regards cliams on morgagates so be warned claim for what you are comfortable with dont let bigger figures influence your decision and be prepared to attend court and maybe have the possibility of costs awarded against you

 

For what it's worth I am currently going for the unauthorised rate with Abbey but feel happy to argue my corner but that is my choice after reading alot of the comments for and against on here

[newbody]

If you are refering to my case Westy i agree the 11,700 is no small matter but i didnt refer to it in the successful part of above as i am still cliaming it and am currently at the N1 stage. If not i do apologise for getting the wrong end of the post and a link would be nice thank you

 

The aim of my above post was to just try and clarify alot of the information and confusion in regards Charges Debited interest and CI and what is allowed without argument (proven methods) and then what some of us are trying and the different approaches we are taking towards this end

 

I left off Statute of Limitaions as in taylormandy's case (my prasie and sympathies to her on her claim) as to me this is a seperate issue from the CI issue which this thread was about

[newbody]

removed post due to confusion on what was claimed

[newbody]

Just lookin in.

Just for clarification, Westy, your post no 1519 seems to have credited me with a post made by newbody. This may have been due to the fact that some of the original post she (thnaks but i am a he until abbey payout may have an op afterwards )made was written in blue, which makes it look like they were my own comments added later?

I don't mind either way really, but just wanted to clear that up for anyone might be lookin in.

Hope your both enjoyin this Spring morning, and going to drag yourselves away from your computers at some point today .........(this site is more addictive than Nicotine Agreed) !!

 

just to clear up my gender issues:D

 

Also thanks to all who tipped my scales and added to my reputation points

[newbody]

Removed to avoid confusion on this subject

[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

[newbody]

fiduciary: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

 

Legal Encyclopedia

Library > Legal > Legal Encyclopedia

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

Fiduciary

An individual in whom another has placed the utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect property or money. The relationship wherein one person has an obligation to act for another's benefit.

 

A fiduciary relationship encompasses the idea of faith and confidence and is generally established only when the confidence given by one person is actually accepted by the other person. Mere respect for another individual's judgment or general trust in his or her character is ordinarily insufficient for the creation of a fiduciary relationship. The duties of a fiduciary include loyalty and reasonable care of the assets within custody. All of the fiduciary's actions are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary.

Courts have neither defined the particular circumstances of fiduciary relationships nor set any limitations on circumstances from which such an alliance may arise. Certain relationships are, however, universally regarded as fiduciary. The term embraces legal relationships such as those between attorney and client, broker and principal, principal and agent, trustee and beneficiary, and executors or administrators and the heirs of a decedent's estate.

A fiduciary relationship extends to every possible case in which one side places confidence in the other and such confidence is accepted; this causes dependence by the one individual and influence by the other. Blood relation alone does not automatically bring about a fiduciary relationship. A fiduciary relationship does not necessarily arise between parents and children or brothers and sisters.

The courts stringently examine transactions between people involved in fiduciary relationships toward one another. Particular scrutiny is placed upon any transaction by which a dominant individual obtains any advantage or profit at the expense of the party under his or her influence. Such transaction, in which undue influence of the fiduciary can be established, is void.

 

Real Estate Terms

Library > Business > Real Estate Terms

Fiduciary One who acts, in a legal role, in the best interests of others.

Examples:

• A Broker is a fiduciary for the seller.

• A banker is a fiduciary for the bank's depositors.

• An attorney may be a fiduciary for the client.

• A Trustee is a fiduciary for the Beneficiaries.

[newbody]

Following on contracts barons legal dictionary defines one as

 

Contract A promise, or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. 1 Williston, Contracts §1 (4th ed. 1990). The essentials of a valid contract are "parties competent to contract, a proper subject-matter, consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation," 286 N.W. 844, 846; "a transaction involving two or more individuals whereby each becomes obligated to the other, with reciprocal rights to demand performance of what is promised by each respectively."

 

So yes we agreed to the contracts terms and conditions and expected the banks to charge us no more than was just in administering our defaults in the contract

 

but as they have broke that promise made to us to act lawfuly under english common law then they are lacking in their performance and as such we have reciprocal rights to charge them interest at the same rate

 

If we had envisaged that The banks who we have confidence and trust in to use our money for investment or other profit making ventures (angle to try and prove fiduciary relationship) for their own gain paying us a proportion of this in interest for the authorised use of our money until we require it back (made by withdrawl weather by cheque DD SO or cash) then we would have looked at wanting terms entered into the contract for such a breech by them

[newbody]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newbody

but as they have broke that promise made to us to act lawfuly under english common law then they are lacking in their performance and as such we have reciprocal rights to charge them interest at the same rate

 

How do you come to this conclusion?

 

 

from abbeys terms and conditions

 

25 Governing law

 

These Conditions are governed by the law of the country in the UK (i.e. England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) where you opened your account.

 

they are saying their terms are governed by the law of the land in this case English law which their charges are in breech of thus as i see it making them in breech of the contract which is a set of promises which each party agrees to abide by

 

As for the bank borrowing money from me they do and every person who uses a bank where else do they get it from to invest and carry out their operations as needed it is on an act of faith and trust that we lend them our money on the belief they will return it to us upon our request

 

if the bank were to ask me for additional services cheque book etc then i am sure i would be happy to provide it to them so long as they met my requist criteria if they didnt then i might be able to point them to a competitor who would be more than willing to help them out

 

Silly side thought so if the thought is that the banks have overcharged us on the charges agreed and it is not considered unauthorised borrowing then wouldnt that then make the money taken from us theft.

Though they would claim it was by accident would it not then move this into the field of criminal fraud as someone somewhere whould have to be answerable for the figure to which was choosen by the banks to charge and thus knowing what the true cost is and charging an excessivley over inflated price be open to accusations of obtaing money by deception and by obtaining money by fraudulent means or if more than one person is priviy to the costing and administrating of the costs of transactions and they have kept quiet to the real cost would that not then bring it into a conspiricey to obtain by fraud

[newbody]

I agree it was my breech that caused these charges to be levied and as such agree that as i had insufficent funds in my account and as such borrowed the banks maoney without permission it was entitled to charge me it's unauthorised rate Hence why in my specific claim i have not gone to claim back any interest levied by the bank in regards these breeches weather it was incurred by my drawing on the account or by the banks drawing on it in regards their charges

 

My belief is that the charges the Bank levied on me whilist ridiculous were to cover staffing and administration and as such i was prepaired to swallow the cost of them But scince being pointed in direction of this site and recent media coverage and reading of threads and external links it is my contention that the charges were not just

And as such i wish for it to be rectified and as such recompensed for my loss of use of that money.

Now as wistleblower showed the other night the banks have people working within them that figure out what the cost of every act and action will cost the bank so it knows it's costing

So if the charges are true and just then the banks would just call that employee or a sworn statement from that employee in to prove the charges are lawful and not payout as they have done

The excuse of cost efficentcey doesn't wash as they have sent solicitors and barristers to some hearings only to settle rather than divulge the costs

 

I agree that in the contract their is no provision that says if we the bank borrow your money without authorisation then you can claim XX% interest from us. But then again who expects a bank to take money it is not entitled to also

 

The new 1999 UTCCR introduce an important additional criterion for assessing whether contract term is unfair to consumers. Incidentally, it does not effect, or refer to, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1972 which means that estate agents (along with all other traders and suppliers) must

ensure their contracts and terms of business comply with both the 1972 Act and the new 1999 UTCCR.

 

The most critical new Sections of the UTCCR read:

 

“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.

 

“A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

“Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a

pre-formulated standard contract.”

 

Therefore as i wasnt able to negotiate my contract in person that to me would make the contract unfair and the fact that there is no recipitory action in the contract for breeches by the bank would make its terms unfair

 

Now for the life of me i cant remember at this minute where i read it but i did read that if a contract or condition is unfair then the most favourable option to the claimant shall be used I will edit and insert it when i find it

 

 

 

So therefore as the bank has took money in excess of what it was entitled to i want this money back and i wish to be recompensed for the loss/use of it

 

Thus meaning i start court action seeking restitution

 

The law of restitution is concerned with the award of a generic group of remedies which arise by operation of law and which have one common function, namely to deprive the defendant of a gain rather than to compensate the claimant for loss suffered

 

The award of such restitutionary remedies to the claimant can be justified on the ground that, where the defendant has obtained a benifit at the claimants expense, justice demands that this should be restored to the claimant Moses Vs Macferlan (1760)

 

 

From this you can then delve into the different type of restitionary remedies available Which my understanding of them is to remove any enrichment the defendant may have obtained by the benifit it gained at the claimants expense.

 

which there are many different thoughts on the best way forward the general reasoning behind the usage of the banks own rates as this is what is stated in black and white from the bank.

Due to the fact that you did not authorise them to take the excess amount of money in charges this would deem that that the unauthorised rate would be the one to claim for but depending on what form of restitutionary remedy you are following this may be hard to justify and the authorised borrowing rate maybe easier to argue but these are points that thoose of us who are trying to argue for this Additional money are trying to sort out now

 

End of the day no in the contract it doesnt say you are entitled to this rate

But in the contract it doesnt say we will only let you have XXX of your balance back a day unless you give us XX amount of notice

It also doesnt say in the contract that we as your bank may take money from you that we are not entitled to and if you find us out we will give you 8% statatory interest on it if you file at court

 

At the end of the day if nobody was prepared to challange the banks actions we wouldnt all be here now claiming back our charges in the first place and it is only by open disscussion and debates and people prepared to take a risk and use the arguments that we can push the boundries of what we can and cannot claim back from the banks

 

 

As for the claiming of compound interest in general it hasnt been ruled out as an option in common law or even small claims

 

 

But the supreme court act 1981 does not specifically exclude the award of compound interest in respect of common law claims Rather it recognizes that the court can award simple interest for such claims The equitable jurisdiction to award compound interest is still available in appropriate cases.

In two very strong disseting judgements Lords Goff and Woolf rejected the arguments of the majority They asserted that scince the policy of the law of restitution was to remove benifits from the defendant compound interest should available in respect of all restitutionary claims regardless of wheather they arise at law or in equity This argument can be illustrated by the following example

In the straightforward case where the claimant pays money to the defendant by mistake and the defendant is liable to repay that money, the liability arises from the moment the money is recieved by the defendant who has the use of it and so should pay the claimant for the value of that benifit This was accepted by all the judges in the case The difficulty relates to the valuation of this benifit. If the defendant was to borrow an equivilent amount of money from a financial instituiton he or she would be liable to pay compound interest to that institution It follows that the defendant has saved that amount of money and so this is the value of benifit which the defendant should restore to the claimant, in addition to the value of the money which the defendant recieved in the first place .

If it could be shown that had the defendant borrowed the equivilent amount of money the institution would only have paid simple interest it would be appropriate for the interest awarded to the claimant to be simple rather than compounded. Usually however the interest in commercial transactions will be compounded interest.

 

 

 

So it is at the judges discretion based on your arguments for why you should get it though most will opt for the 8% as it is the easier option

 

At the end of the day it is down to the banks on weather they wish to continue paying out and how much they want to pay out for to stop the pay outs all they need do is disclose the true costs if they dont want to do that then we will continue pursuing them and pushing for what we can get until they are prepared to enter a court room to prove the legality of their charges

 

 

 

To the borrowing money from me i didnt mean that they borrowed it from me in the sense of the charges but that in every instance of someone using a bank weather it is a kids savings account to a high yield investment account every time we pay money in to the bank we are loaning them money to trade and invest as they see fit

[newbody]

Sorry Bong for the additional confusion

 

i was having a toungue in cheeck moment refering to where hagenuk had said in a post refering to mine that i would have to give the banks similar facalities as they gave me that we in a way do lend banks money

[newbody]

key-arguments-against-compound

 

think this summaries the key posts from this thread and some others

[newbody]

A credit card wont list it as authorised and unauthorised rate

 

as it operates in a different manner to banks but for the purpose of CI claims it is generally used as cash advance is the equivelent to unauthorised as it is them advancing you good old hard cash

 

and purchase rate is deemed authorised rate as you dont see the money you just charge it

[newbody]

For thoose of you more used to legal arguments and analysing things reading through a case and saw this extract now to me it reads as if there is a certain duty emposed upon the banks if so do you think this would hold water in proving they have this duty to us

 

75 ) That is the point on which I have found this appeal more difficult than the rest of your Lordships. If this issue affected only banks, I would be slow to conclude that there could never be liability for carelessly failing to comply with a freezing order. Banks are already subject to strict regulation and potential sanctions in connection with money-laundering and similar activities. They are enjoined to know their customers. They become liable for breach of fiduciary duty if they shut their eyes to dishonest dealings by their customers. VAT (and PAYE) collected on behalf of HM Revenue and Customs by trading companies is not trust money, but banks cannot be unaware that VAT (and PAYE) collected in this way is often not properly accounted for, through fraud or mismanagement. There is a public interest in banks responding with particular care, promptness and vigilance to any freezing order obtained by HM Revenue and Customs.

 

 

case : [2006] UKHL 28 on appeal from [2004) EWCA CIV 1555

 

Her Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Respondents)

v.

Barclays Bank plc (Appellants)

[newbody]

CI interest can be a nice value added to your charges claim but it by no means an easy feat or really one for the light hearted as it entails reading alot and preparing arguments that could lead to nothing it is still realativly a new approach to claiming charges back and as such each case bought for CI is a learning curve

 

the easiest way to do reclaim charges are to claim back exactly what was taken from yourself and then claim 8% simple interest if you file court proceedings

 

using a company to me isn't an option as they wouldnt even entertain claiming CI as far as i am aware

 

the choice has to be yours as to what you feel comfortable claiming and being prepared to argue/build a case to support

[newbody]

and read this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/79524-key-arguments-against-compound.html for a summary of the CI arguments

[newbody]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/79524-key-arguments-against-compound.html#post702306

 

is a link to all the summary points both for and against i have seen and links to threads the quotes/points were taken from