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

[steven4064]

I don't know whether they do officially but they certainly do morally as it means a position of trust. THe Westduetsche case mentioned above is authority for the following propositions:

 

1. The basis of all trusts is conscience - see Westdeutsche v Islington BC

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability.

Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site

[steven4064]

There is a discussion of this judgement in this thread (from post 273 on) and on this one

[steven4064]

I went on holiday for one week and it's taken ages to find out what's been going on!

[steven4064]

Vampiress' spreadsheets don't seem to be available - I pointes this out last week but no one seems to know where they have gone.

[steven4064]

I would guess that none of your claims reached the court stage and that had they done so you may have fared rather less well!

Absolutely right.

[steven4064]

I've tried to find out and got no answer so far

[steven4064]

That link isn't working either - however, I have a copy of Mindzai's sheet (the one in Celiciaman's link) here

[steven4064]

And thats not mindzias on yours, never seen that one before

CM

You're right - apologies for mental aberation. I have got M's somewhere though - thought that was it. I'll look for it.

[steven4064]

Perhaps this would be a good point for a summary of the story so far.

 

I think it is now firmly establishe that you can (should) claim interest levied on the unlawful charges (so called 'demonstrable interest' or credit interest).

 

The question is, what can you claim on top?

 

Section 69 of the County Court Act allows you to claim 8% simple interest on top.

 

THis seems odd in this day and age and Sempra confirms that. Sempra was awarded Compound Interest on several grounds but for our purposes the simplest and most likely to succeed is on the grounds of unjust enrichment and restitution. The bank used your money (charges and interest levied thereon) over a period of time to make a profit (time value of the money) and they had no right to do so because the charges were unlawful (unjust enrichment). Therefore to put things back as they would have been (restitution), that profit should be taken off them.

 

That is our current understanding of the basis for a claim for compound contractual interest on top of charges and interest levied on the charges.

 

Hope that helps clarify where we have got to.

[steven4064]

In terms of 'undue enrichment and restitution', which case law refers to this?

Sempra (full judgement here, summary here)

[steven4064]

Hadn't realised you were still referring to Sempra. I have this printed out and need to read through thoroughly.

Best of luck - you'll need it

[steven4064]

The majority opinion in Westdeutsche was that there was no need to change practice to allow compound interest except in cases of fraud or breach of trust. The minority opinion was that, in this daya and age, no one uses simple interest for anything and therefore compound interest should be allowed.

 

The majority opinion in Sempra was to uphold the minority view in Westdeutsche - that compound interest is allowable even in cases not involving fraud or breach of trust.

 

Thus Sempra removes the bar on compound interest. Of course, persuadiung a judge to actually award compound interest is a different matter as hagenuk implies.

[steven4064]

The interest rate for any restitutionary claim therefore should be the rate at which you could borrow the relevant amounts you state you have lost in the market at the relevant time. Somewhat far short of the rates that many of these claims are made for and very probably the reason that so many of them are bound to fail.

I agree entirely. I have always advocate using one's ow bank's authorised overdraft rate for these claims on exactly those gruonds.

[steven4064]

If it is a very short timescale that may be right. Where compound interest really takes off is over long periods.

[steven4064]

at 30% APR it roughly doubles every three years - a rule of thumb I use to check the interest is in the right ball park.

[steven4064]

at 20.9% it doubles (approximately) every 3 1/2 years. So the interest on charges in 1994 should be about 16 times the original charge, and so on.

[steven4064]

26/04/94 Late Payment Charge @ £10 123.30

That's right - I just checked it.

[steven4064]

And I've done several at 30% ish as well.

[steven4064]

Sempra

[steven4064]

Was it the spreadsheets here that you tried? If so, what happened when you tried to open them?

[steven4064]

Dad is right

 

You cannot apply for a WoE until after judgement and after the other side has failed to comply