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

[WolfCat]

That's because you're pulling up a cached page from your PC, hon. I'll upload the spreadsheet somewhere and post a link here. Can't hurt to have more than one source.

 

 

'Tis done. It can now be found here.

 

I accept flowers, chocolate and red wine as payment.

[moneyhelp]

I'll put a 'stay' on that

 

Thanks for the link

[Celicaman]

'Tis done. It can now be found here.

 

I accept flowers, chocolate and red wine as payment.

 

Its alright for the rest of you, i'll have to pay for them

Do the flowers i got last week count, and the red wine ( i drank that LOL)

 

CM

[chezt]

'Tis done. It can now be found here.

 

I accept flowers, chocolate and red wine as payment.

That's great - Hopefully your link will help some - Thanks (As long as you don't decide to withdraw your copy of course .....

[chezt]

PS - Note that is the sheet for bank accounts only - Not Credit Cards

[WolfCat]

That's great - Hopefully your link will help some - Thanks (As long as you don't decide to withdraw your copy of course .....

 

 

For a small monthly payment of one these I can keep it available as a download ... ok, I guess I'm pushing my luck a bit now.

 

I'll get me coat.

[chezt]

For a small monthly payment of one these I can keep it available as a download ... ok, I guess I'm pushing my luck a bit now.

 

I'll get me coat.

 

Mmmm they do look kinda scrummy ... praps I ought to go work on my own download .......

[phatram]

Hi,

would someone please take a look at my Egg thread and advise me as what to do next ?

Many thanks.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/89967-phatram-egg-3.html

[shazzzaaa]

We claimed the contractual rate against Barclaycard. Barclaycard offered to pay 8% in court. We refused. The judge ordered Barclaycard to come up with a defense/skeleton argument to justify why they should only pay 8% by the 11th of Oct. We had to submit a defense thereafter to argue why we had applied for 24.9%. Long and short of it is that Barclaycard have applied for extension to the court so it's the waiting game. Has anyone gotten this far and already possess a skeleton argument that goes beyond the Sempra case?

[Paintball]

We claimed the contractual rate against Barclaycard. Barclaycard offered to pay 8% in court. We refused. The judge ordered Barclaycard to come up with a defense/skeleton argument to justify why they should only pay 8% by the 11th of Oct. We had to submit a defense thereafter to argue why we had applied for 24.9%. Long and short of it is that Barclaycard have applied for extension to the court so it's the waiting game. Has anyone gotten this far and already possess a skeleton argument that goes beyond the Sempra case?

 

Hello Shazzzaaa

I'm in a similar position, but slightly further behind you. I am preparing my Defence for claiming CCI and will focus mainly on "mutuality and reciprocity": I want back what I have paid out. It is not for Barclays to dictate to the court what rate of interest is paid. They are demonstrating a consistent disregard for the process of the law and, in many cases including my own, breaching Civil Procedure Rules.

 

I am in the process of reading through Sempra and it looks good. Perhaps we should get together on this. I'm hoping a Mod may have some additional thoughts/encouragement on this matter - Zootscoot?

 

Painty x

[hagenuk]

There is simply no such thing as "mutuality and reciprocity" it does not exist and that has been confirmed countless times, in court. There is no legal basis for the "mutuality and reciprocity" argument. It is my opinion that the banks taking these charges and charging interest cannot be interpreted as us lending them money which is the only basis under which this argument makes even the remotest sense.

 

Mutuality of contract is the reciprocal understanding or agreement between parties that is a requirement in the creation of a legally enforceable contract. It means that an obligation must rest on each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other. Neither party is bound unless both are bound. It does not mean that you are entitled to charge the other party just because they are able to charge you. Were that the case then you would also be obliged to provide your bank with chequebooks, credit cards, loans, clearing facilities along with all the other things that we expect from banks.

 

In Bank contracts, the Bank has a right to impose interest at the unauthorised rate. This is what we agree to when we enter into the contract. There is no right in the contract for us to receive interest at anything other than the published rate on credit balances. Any right to interest must be found under the common law.

 

If you simply want back what you have paid out then how can you ask for interest above what the court already allows?

 

CPR 16.3 and 16.4 cover interest and the claiming of it and of course we are entitled to claim interest at any rate, but the claim must have some basis.

 

The fact that Barclays have disregarded legal process and breached CPR is not really for you to comment on. If the judge feels that this has had a detrimental affect on your claim, it will be pointed out and an appropriate sanction may be ordered, but to think that this will make your claim stronger or make a case for contractual interest is folly.

 

If you wish to begin a claim for exemplary damages, then that is another matter altogether - but should you lose, you will lose a great deal more than a few extra pounds in interest. A claim such as this will not be heard on the Small Claims Track, irrespective of the value of the claim.

[Fred_Funk]

hagenuk et al

 

It seems not everyone woulod agree with you. There's an interesting debate on claiming 'time value interest' - which is, essentially, what Paintball refers to as CCI - albeit not on the grounds of mutuality and reciprocity, on the final few pages of the following thread...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/97691-contractual-interest-precedent-lost-21.html

 

It goes without saying, I'd be interested to hear what you guys make of it.

 

Fred_Funk

[Paintball]

hagenuk et al

 

It seems not everyone woulod agree with you. There's an interesting debate on claiming 'time value interest' - which is, essentially, what Paintball refers to as CCI - albeit not on the grounds of mutuality and reciprocity, on the final few pages of the following thread...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/97691-contractual-interest-precedent-lost-21.html

 

It goes without saying, I'd be interested to hear what you guys make of it.

 

Fred_Funk

 

Now that's a much more constructive response Fred. I'll check out the thread ...

[Fred_Funk]

Now that's a much more constructive response Fred. I'll check out the thread ...

 

So, tell us, what do you think?!

[lyns]

I Did!! When I went to court the judge wouldnt allow it! This was with cap 1

[Fred_Funk]

I Did!! When I went to court the judge wouldnt allow it! This was with cap 1

 

Without wishing to be rude, that ain't much help to anyone.

 

It's already been established there are plenty of grounds on which you won't be awarded contractual interest.

 

We need to know on what basis you asked for it - I bet it wasn't Sempra - and why the judge turned it down.

[Paintball]

So, tell us, what do you think?!

 

Hi Fred

 

Work has got in the way of reading the thread until today I found it interesting and begin to see the gist of your argument/s (Tanz's post #407 and your own post #409). I will need to spend serious time investigating further the issues and arguments of CCI/demonstrable plus time delay interest ... It had seemed pretty clear some time ago but this discussion puts the issue in a different perspective

 

Many thanks

Painty x

[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.

[Paintball]

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.

 

Thanks for this Steven, you make the issue abundantly clear for me. You rock

 

I notice that Bookie took this response with Barclaycard recently when they offered to settle, and imagine that the above will form the rest of her claim against that organisation. I think it will be mine also and now need to find out how to address this in my Defence and follow this up in court if and when I get a Hearing date as my POC stated CCI.

 

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

P

[steven4064]

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

Sempra (full judgement here, summary here)

[Paintball]

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

[Paintball]

BTW, hope you'll make it to the Manchester meet ... ?

[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

[Paintball]

Best of luck - you'll need it

 

Oh no!! See that little revolving message in your avatar? That's how I'm feeling now :o

[hagenuk]

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.

 

So, what of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council ([1996] AC 669) and the fact that the courts’ inability to award interest at common law on restitutionary claims is considered settled by this case?

 

In cases of personal restitution the value of the use of money was prima facie the reasonable cost of borrowing the money in question. The time value of money, measured objectively in that way, was to be distinguished from the value of the benefits a defendant actually derived from the use of the money.

 

In the Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another there could be nothing unjust in requiring the Inland Revenue to pay compound interest, by way of restitution, on the huge interest-free loan constituted by the payment of advance corporation tax.

 

But it was pointed out that that may not always be so. For instance, the bank might make no measurable use of your money.

 

In such a case, depending on the circumstances, it might well be most unfair that the Defendant should be out of pocket by having to make an additional payment, whether as compound interest or even simple interest, in respect of the time value of the money he received.

 

Bear in mind also that restitution does not necessarily mean recovery of all gains made by the Defendant. Certain other factors are relevant to the measure of recovery. Where the Defendant made a substantial contribution, to which the Claimant was not entitled, it is conceivable that the Claimant will only recover the value of that which was taken from him or that profits will be apportioned or that the Defendant will receive quantum meruit for his contribution (Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 [32].) For example, the bank will have made profit with or without your money and unless you are George Soros, what money you have in the bank will have made little or no difference to their overall profit.