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

[tim2718281]

I gather there is some technical difference between how the way the 2 spreadsheets work, which I don't really understand (I think it has to do with something about the monthly rates, and days in the month, and I seem to recall there being some debate on here about this)

 

I have also just done it manualy on a calculator, at an annual rate of 29.8% and get a figure in the same region (In order for me calc to actually get exactly the same figure I would have needed to work it out monthly rather than anually, and could not be bothered, as it would mean doing the same set of calculations 139 times )

 

I've not looked at the forum spreadsheets ... I had assumed that as the compound interest versions were produced after Mindzai's, they would simply copy the correct interest calculations.

 

However, from the numbers posted, it seems the forum spreadsheets are calculating the monthly interest rate as one-twelfth of the annual interest rate.

 

If that is so, then to get the correct figure with the forum spreadsheet, you should enter the annual interest rate as 12 times the monthly rate ... 26.4% rather than 29.8%.

 

By the way, you don't need to use a calculator; you can use a blank spreadsheet and enter in a cell

 

=55*1.298^(140/12)

 

where 140/12 is the number of years

 

Or you can do it monthly:

 

=55*1.022^140

 

This works out slightly more, because 2.2% per month is actually 29.84% per year ... the banks round the APR to one decimal place.

 

Tim

[photoman]

I've not looked at the forum spreadsheets ... I had assumed that as the compound interest versions were produced after Mindzai's, they would simply copy the correct interest calculations.

 

However, from the numbers posted, it seems the forum spreadsheets are calculating the monthly interest rate as one-twelfth of the annual interest rate.

 

If that is so, then to get the correct figure with the forum spreadsheet, you should enter the annual interest rate as 12 times the monthly rate ... 26.4% rather than 29.8%.

 

By the way, you don't need to use a calculator; you can use a blank spreadsheet and enter in a cell

 

=55*1.298^(140/12)

 

where 140/12 is the number of years

 

Or you can do it monthly:

 

=55*1.022^140

 

This works out slightly more, because 2.2% per month is actually 29.84% per year ... the banks round the APR to one decimal place.

 

Tim

 

Thanks Tim (and of course Bill too) for clearing this all up.

Relieved to hear my assumptions were correct, and that us non maths whizz's are in safe hands.

 

 

Regards all the equations you have both posted.

Thanks....However...

... they may seem obvious and straightforward to you guys, but the vast majority of people get confused or lost when you suggest anything more complicated than a straighforward + , -, x etc , ! !

[tim2718281]

Regards all the equations you have both posted.

 

Thanks....However...

... they may seem obvious and straightforward to you guys, but the vast majority of people get confused or lost when you suggest anything more complicated than a straighforward + , -, x etc , ! !

 

Yes ... however, it's only a question of familiarity and practice.

 

Tim

[TANZARELLI]

Thanks Tim (and of course Bill too) for clearing this all up.

Relieved to hear my assumptions were correct, and that us non maths whizz's are in safe hands.

 

 

Regards all the equations you have both posted.

Thanks....However...

... they may seem obvious and straightforward to you guys, but the vast majority of people get confused or lost when you suggest anything more complicated than a straighforward + , -, x etc , ! !

 

Even those confuse me mate. lol

[bill-k]

This guy is the guvnor - Thanks Tim.

 

As Mindzai has also pointed out, I believe - we don't have to worry about all that stuff, as it's programmed into the spready. But sometimes it helps to know exactly what is happening, just so we can feel assured.

 

Agree with T4FF as well, singing from the same sheet would seem more harmonious !!

[lellypea]

Hey folks .....had to go out yest. an clearly missed all the fun......'slapping....* .....+*se...' who'd think a Comp. Cont. Int thread cud hold such cheeky banter!!! ..... CAG's more 'inviting' approach to

to 'horrid accounting'..... I'm liking it!

 

Just gonna take a look...

[lellypea]

Thanks PM, Tim, T4 an Tanz. Lots to take in..... head spinning. Will post shortly

[quietzap]

Bill was kind enough to do a spreadsheet for me as my Mac wasn't happy with the Open Office one I downloaded.

 

The results came up very, very close to the results I got using this compound interest engine COMPOUND INTEREST CALCULATOR which offers various ways of performing individual calculations. (daily, annually, continuos compounding for examples)

 

The banks are just trying to reduce the claims, doubt they care much how we carry out our calculations?

 

I am interested to know if anyone has got to court and found the bank making an offer based on their VARIABLE excess overdraft interest rate ie 14% from such and such a date to so and so, then 18% for the next 198 days etc?

 

If things go on as they are this will surely happen, because it a is a strategy, and they will try everything I would imagine.

 

If I were a pikey banker I would . . . especially if it were my money.

 

(Really generous offers considered)

[bill-k]

I am interested to know if anyone has got to court and found the bank making an offer based on their VARIABLE excess overdraft interest rate ie 14% from such and such a date to so and so, then 18% for the next 198 days etc?

 

If things go on as they are this will surely happen, because it a is a strategy, and they will try everything I would imagine.

 

If I were a pikey banker I would . . . especially if it were my money.

Oh, really, QZ !!! How could you say such a thing !!!

(Really generous offers considered)

I believe Cap One are starting to do this pre-court, by questioning claimants' spready calculations, and trying to wrong-foot them by casting doubt on their claim's veracity.

 

I don't know if this has happened in court, yet, though.

[lellypea]

Hi Bill

 

.........I'm up for more flirting.....hubs is out of way...washing car!!!!

 

Thanks for help. Sorry didn't pick up ur 2nd email on Fri til just now -

wud have taken up the offer on line check!

 

Got 2days 2 new spreadies thanks. I do remember reading on CI thread that

Vamps calculated

higher amnt - an thought Why not? Ur email below confirms my own

sentiments......an doesn't

raise any real negatives. Unless you or anyone suggests otherwise I think I'll go with it. Hardly goin to sneak under the wire anyway.

 

Jus one point............bl***y hell Bill............did you REALLY say in

post 1715 your 'check' confirms my figure of £1,704.03 (at Fri date) ???? I'm truly stunned........Part of me thinks 'Wheeyyy Heeyyyy' ..... like winning lottery........the other half says.....Whhooaa this claim won't get lost in crowd.... 'RatNest' will take out a contract on me!!! (an I don't mean T&C type .....words 'violin case' an 'can't refuse' spring to mind).

 

One last question......bearing in mind Glenn's warning re Multitrack and

'losing all' risk. Wud it be wise to break claim into under 15K chunks??

(or wud that antagonise?) I recall reading that whilst small print isn't

conclusive, the gen. opinion is that total figure relevant to alloc. DOES

include C.I. (tho not statutory int.)

 

Be grateful if u cud jus confirm present spready IS working right (Gasp!!!

Still can't believe it!!) an, yes, I wud appreciate a check when it's

complete - ur a * thanks!

 

Bestest

 

Lel

[lellypea]

Any views, comments or opinions on the above really welcome.

[lellypea]

Any of you experienced peeps I mean ! Ta!

[photoman]

lellypea,

Opinion seems to be a bit divided here?

According to the Court Procedure Rules (CPR) on allocation, it states that interest is NOT included in the calculation....... however it doesn't really expand upon that, ie explain whether that is just Statutory or any interest that is part of the claim itself?

So perhaps one could argue that the Contractual interest portion of your claim should not be included for allocation purposes ?

 

HOWEVER !

In any case, the Court procedure rules are just a guide, and it is at a courts discretion to allocate a case to whichever track it see's most relevant to the case... so even a claim for £100 could be allocated to a higher track if the court feels it more relevant !

 

In any case you should be prepared for this possability.

 

It is also not considered good practice to split claims anyway, as this raises the danger of being regarded as a "vexatious litigant" (ie: abusing the court processes). So this should really be avoided.

 

Here is the relevant Court Procedure Rules (CPR) for track allocation which I have copied from their website:

 

 

Matters relevant to allocation to a track

 

CPR . 26.8

 

(1)

When deciding the track for a claim, the matters to which the court shall have regard include –

(a)the financial value, if any, of the claim;

(b)the nature of the remedy sought;

©the likely complexity of the facts, law or evidence;

(d)the number of parties or likely parties;

(e)the value of any counterclaim or other Part 20 claim and the complexity of any matters relating to it;

(f)the amount of oral evidence which may be required;

(g)the importance of the claim to persons who are not parties to the proceedings;

(h)the views expressed by the parties; and

(i)the circumstances of the parties.

 

 

(2)

It is for the court to assess the financial value of a claim and in doing so it will disregard –

(a)any amount not in dispute;

(b)any claim for interest;

©costs; and

(d)any contributory negligence.

(3)Where –

(a)two or more claimants have started a claim against the same defendant using the same claim form; and

(b)each claimant has a claim against the defendant separate from the other claimants,

 

the court will consider the claim of each claimant separately when it assesses financial value under paragraph (1).

 

 

 

 

 

SO:

 

Part 1(a) would probably override 2(b)

 

 

Then again,

The court does also consider the circumstances of the parties as stated in part 1(i)

.... and we generally hope that a court would look favourably upon us, as litigants in Person, without the same financial means, as the Defendants to pursue a case through a higher track.

There has also been occasions where a court will allocate a case to a higher track BUT still order that Small claims costs rules apply (ie no costs burden upon losing party) to protect the litigant (us).

 

Here is the web -link to the Court procedure part 26 which deals with allocation (you can, after you've read this, go further back in the website and look up other parts of the CPR, so maybe save the link for future reference)

 

PART 26 - CASE MANAGEMENT – PRELIMINARY STAGE

 

 

Do bear in mind that these are just my own opinions, and to check for yourself on their validity before acting upon them (just as you should always do generally on this site).

 

Best regards

[Guest bong]

hi all,

 

have no idea if this is a completely stupid idea or an absolutely brilliant one, or even if it has been discussed in here already, just thought I'd link you to a new post that I've just made over on RedDeath's thread regarding my latest CI brain wave http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/54034-reddeath-lloyds-tsb-5.html#post696843

[tim2718281]

It is also not considered good practice to split claims anyway, as this raises the danger of being regarded as a "vexatious litigant" (ie: abusing the court processes).

 

"Vexatious litigants" are people whose names are listed as such; they cannot initiate court proceedings without the approval of a High Court judge.

 

This restriction followed actions by a small number of people in the 18th/19th centuries, who each initiated dozens of meritless cases, often against the same individual.

 

The essential element of vexatious litigation is that the cases have no merit at all. See

 

Speeches in 2006 - Conference on vexatious litigants 2006

 

"The Future – Access to Justice

1. Vexatious litigation poses a number of threats to the efficient operation of any civil justice system. Those threats stem from the manner in which the vexatious litigant conducts litigation before the courts. Lord Bingham CJ (as he then was), in Attorney-General v Barker, offers perhaps the best description of vexatious litigants, and in doing so lays bare the problems to which they give rise. He said:
    
   “The hallmark [of a vexatious litigant] usually is that the plaintiff sues the same party repeatedly in reliance on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, thereby imposing on defendants the burden of resisting claim after claim; that the claimant relies on essentially the same cause of action, perhaps with minor variations, after it has been ruled upon, in actions against successive parties who if they were to be sued at all should have been joined in the same action; that the claimant automatically challenges every adverse decision on appeal; and that the claimant refuses to take any notice of or give any effect to orders of the court. The essential vice of habitual and persistent litigation is keeping on and on litigating when earlier litigation has been unsuccessful and when on any rational and objective assessment the time has come to stop.”
   

I do not believe that the cases being brought aainst banks could possible be regarded as vexatious litigation; actually, I'd say it's the banks who are guilty of vexatious defence ...

 

Tim

[Glenn UK]

Tim

 

Claims were struck out by Scots Courts for abuse of process due to multiple claims by same consumer.

 

Whether the claimant would be officially branded vexatious is immaterial IMHO.

 

Glenn

[WoriedStudent]

Have any claims been struck out in English courts?

[tim2718281]

Have any claims been struck out in English courts?

 

Dunno, but I have read that you are supposed to put the entire claim in one action.

 

Tim

[lazybones]

Hi All

 

 

 

"£100 placed at 7% interest compounded quarterly for 200 years will increase to more than £100,000,000 - by which time it will be worth nothing." :-

 

I know it's not germain to the thread, but it's an interesting observation.

[firstchoice]

can i claim for late payment fees as well as the interest charged on my creditcard for the last 6 years ?

 

many thanks

firstchoice

[JonCris]

first choice welcome

 

YES YES YES

 

Thats the reason for this & other such sites Please read the FAQ's at the start of the site

[LEECHTHEBREACH]

Bong with regard to your post 1739, I did actually start this off (with ref to photoman,s idea) on post 1632

regards Leech

[mark casey]

I am currently at the stage of taking Tesco to court and I am due to put the claim in tommorow but as of yet I can find nothing as per the templates that will allow me to fill in the N1 Or Mcol , Now I know it would not be difficult to amend the templates for anyone with a good level of undertanding of law and legal speak. But I have neithe rof these qualitys. So any help as to the actual wording of Point 5. in the N1 Template would be of great help. as not sure where to put the Contractual bit .

Any help on this will be greatly appricated as this is the first time to go for contractual interest and I don't want to mess it up

[LEECHTHEBREACH]

Mark first of all read this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html

if you pm me with your e-mail, I,ll send you what I put, its a long one!!

Leech

[mark casey]

Sorry Leech but am no closer to undertanding what wording or what to change on the N1 hard copy to Claim contractual interest

maybee I will do it via mcol first if I can get the proper info in time.

thanks for what you have provided though( not to clear what needs changing though )