Why let your bank keep your money? Calculating your charges claim

[ohoh4312]

Thanks yb - yes the calculations would be automatic, although it may involve copy & paste of formulas depending on the number of entries for each individual case.

 

I thought about the fact that overdraft limits change over time, but I worked on the principle of using the largest applicable amount. The reason being that it would involve a lot more formulas, and become over-complicated if you kept changing the amounts, especially if the figure decreased at some point from a higher rate.

 

It is very difficult to produce a spreadie like this in a "one size fits all" capacity, but hopefully by using the highest applicable rate it gets near to the mark, but other input/suggestions/advice are warmly welcomed.

[BankFodder]

I think it all comes down to the manner in which the charges etc are reimbursed.

 

If the charges etc are allowed to stand then they are reclaimed at the point in time that the case is found. i.e. the balance is correct and an adjustment is made via the payment in refund.

 

If the charges are amended to a prescribed value/ removed, then this is done at the time the charge was applied. This affects the balance at that time.

 

Since the arguement is that the charge be removed at the time it was applied - it would need to be in order to reclaim the charged interest, since amendment after the fact would not impact on the charged interest. Then there is an arguement that to remove the charged interest at the time must result in an alteration of the balance at that time which must affect the paid interest.

 

I am curious why Bankfodder would think otherwise.

 

I'm also new to this discussion and could be talking utter tosh, of course.

Sorry, don't understand this

[AA99]

Sorry, don't understand this

 

 

LOL BF! I got lost half-way through too but was going to keep quiet and keep watching and re-calculating all the time......... I have a full 6 years charges with 8% added that I would dearly love to get off in the post tomorrow. Can I do that with a very severely qualifying hardship letter in the meantime and use a Clause/Sentence summing up an action that would be claimed after the 22nd:???:

[Stubie]

Sorry, don't understand this

 

Since the general opinion is that paid interest, as opposed to charged interest, cannot be claimed, then this is irrelevant.

 

What I was trying to say is that the effect on paid interest would differ depending upon how the charges were paid back. In theory, however, this could also affect charged interest.

 

The question is:

 

Would the refunded charges be credited to the account at the time of judgement or would they be credited to the account at the time of deduction. Would the charges be refunded or amended?

 

I've not had much to do with bank charges claims as I was late starting my claim and got stayed on one claim but have only given notice of intent on another claim. I may be talking rubbish, in which case, be kind to me .

[BankFodder]

Since the general opinion is that paid interest, as opposed to charged interest, cannot be claimed, then this is irrelevant.

 

What I was trying to say is that the effect on paid interest would differ depending upon how the charges were paid back. In theory, however, this could also affect charged interest.

 

The question is:

 

Would the refunded charges be credited to the account at the time of judgement or would they be credited to the account at the time of deduction. Would the charges be refunded or amended?

 

I've not had much to do with bank charges claims as I was late starting my claim and got stayed on one claim but have only given notice of intent on another claim. I may be talking rubbish, in which case, be kind to me .

I very sorry but I still don't understand. I do hope that it is not some important point which I've missed.

What is paid interest as opposed to charged interest?

As for crediting charges to the account, I think that this can only happen if the account is comprised of some legitimate enforceable debt. The refund could then be credited to the account by way of a set-off. Is this what you are referring to?

I don't understand what you mean by the time at which refunds would be made.

As far as amending charges - are you referring to the possiblity of merely refunding the difference between an OFT fair rate and the charge? If so, then I don't see any power under the UTCCR for this to happen.

Once the charge is invalid, it fails completely

[BankFodder]

The bottom line - is simply that if you have suffered unfair charges - then claim them back.

If you have also been charged interest on those charges - whether at the authorised rate or at the unauthorised rate - claim that backtoo.

 

There are very few caculations needed. the interest taken from you will be clearly identified on your statements - probably as overdraft interest.

[Bookworm]

Would the refunded charges be credited to the account at the time of judgement or would they be credited to the account at the time of deduction. Would the charges be refunded or amended?.

Assuming I understood your question correctly (always debatable as soon as maths are involved ), the answer is, wait for it: That depends.

 

For example, in my B/card claim, as my account had been fully paid up and closed by the time I sued them, I added the interest up to the time I had paid the account in full, as anything above that would be in my mind unjustified.

 

For account still live and with an o/draft still ongoing, then my calculations for the interest paid on charges would be updated daily up to the date of settlement.

 

I understand - I think - what you are saying about interest on positive balance: If you get enough charges that they would put you in an o/d situation, then if you hadn't had the charges, you wouldn't have been o/drawn and therefore with an account in credit, you should have been earning interest instead of paying it, is that what you mean? And yes, I can see the logic in that, but I think the calculations would be nigh on impossible to establish. Bear in mind that as it is, our calculations can never be that precise, as for example, someone like me would have paid off their o/d (inc charges + interest) in full many a time in the life of the account, then would have crept back in it, accumulated more charges and therefore more interest, then consolidated, etc, etc... the o/d limit would also have varied through the years, and of course the authrosied rates and unauthorised rates also varied, and the banks changed what they would pay/not pay/charge/not charge, add or remove buffer zones or vary the amounts, the permutations are endless and make it impossible for us to come up with anything much more than a back of the enveloppe calculation, and no doubt one that favours the bankers yet again.

 

My argument always has been when they argued the numbers (especially the interest): "Yes, I know it's unlikely to be the exact figure, but if you want to dispute it, then saying "that's not right" is not going to be enough to sway the judge, so either show your own figures and how you calculated them or shut up and pay up". They have always paid up. In the case of B/card, they caved in literally as we were walking into the court itself, they were still trying to haggle me down whilst waiting to be called in.

 

For those who don't realise how much the interest can add up, the rough figures for my b/card were £367 in charges, but the interest levied on those charges up to closure of the account were worked out at £188 on top, and when added the 8% stat interest (which ran to the date of settlement), the total came to £756. Think about it before you decide not to try because it's too difficult to work out. I did that in my early days and now realise that I let the sods get away with hundreds £££ of MY money.

[Notty]

I claimed charges back from Halifax and added the 8% interest. That was in 2006. I now have more charges on my account and have sent the first two letters and I am about to issue the N1. My question is did I add the correct amount of interest as I didnt really understand the contractual interest so only added the 8% from the spreadsheet and can I add this on to the new claim or is it too late for old claims?

[Stubie]

The bottom line - is simply that if you have suffered unfair charges - then claim them back.

If you have also been charged interest on those charges - whether at the authorised rate or at the unauthorised rate - claim that backtoo.

 

There are very few caculations needed. the interest taken from you will be clearly identified on your statements - probably as overdraft interest.

 

Thanks for your patience on this, as I say, I might be completeley wrong.

 

My account has a £100 OD limit so I have see-sawed back and forth into and out of negative territory. I have both paid interest - interest they paid me - and charged interest - interest deducted.

 

A few assumptions for clarity only.

 

There is no stay on proceedings

The £12 limit on CC's has been applied to current accounts.

 

So, hypothetical example:

 

In April 2006 I exceeded my OD limit and was charged £35

In june 2009 I go to court to recover the excess charge

 

I win and am awarded the difference (£23).

 

Is the £23 credited as a payment to my account in June 2009 or is the original £35 amended to £12 in April 2006. The difference is what happened in 2006.

 

If I am refunded in 2009 then my balance in 2006 remains unchanged. If the charge in 2006 is amended (to £12) then my balance changed in 2006.

 

What you are suggesting is that the charge is amended in 2006 in order to allow for the cumulative affect of the benefit to take me out of unauthorised overdraft in the intervening period. Is this what happens when you win (I don't know, I haven't won yet).

 

I believe that the interest rates - authorised OD interest, unauthorised OD interest and paid interest - are all contractual. As I have a positive balance most of the time but dipped into OD from time to time. Any historic changes to my balance would net paid interest - paid to me - when the account is in credit.

 

I appreciate that the calcs would be a nightmare for paid interest but if the changes are not retrospective then you would not be able to claim OD interest either.

 

Does this help any.

 

On a lighter note, my SAR went off today, for the third time. Hopefully it will get the right response this time.

[HSBCrusher]

I personally think that the credit card £12 is a red herring.

Ignore it.

£12 is just the level that the OFT would take action, that level was not deemed fair. Only a court can decide this.

If a similar limit is set for bank charges then hey ho... we can still argue its too high, and reclaim the lot.

As for positive interest, someone who has had £thousands in charges would have been in the black... and interest would have been paid by the bank.

 

I personally think this is going to be very difficult to calculate. I think interest taken because of charges is much easier. Its much easier to stand up in front of a Judge and say "this is what I have lost" as opposed to "this is what I could have got".

 

Also, by the time interest and charges have been added, working through from the 6 years up it soon becomes the case that you would have not been in the red at all... and all the interest charged is reclaimable.

[Stubie]

I personally think that the credit card £12 is a red herring.

Ignore it.

£12 is just the level that the OFT would take action, that level was not deemed fair. Only a court can decide this.

If a similar limit is set for bank charges then hey ho... we can still argue its too high, and reclaim the lot.

As for positive interest, someone who has had £thousands in charges would have been in the black... and interest would have been paid by the bank.

 

I personally think this is going to be very difficult to calculate. I think interest taken because of charges is much easier. Its much easier to stand up in front of a Judge and say "this is what I have lost" as opposed to "this is what I could have got".

 

Also, by the time interest and charges have been added, working through from the 6 years up it soon becomes the case that you would have not been in the red at all... and all the interest charged is reclaimable.

 

Cheers HSB,

 

I used £12 as an illustration only.

 

What you are saying is that the account is amended historically, which was my question.

 

I take you point about actual losses as opposed opportunity losses.

 

I will leave it there as I am confusing everyone (including myself:D) and diverting the thread from its original intent.

 

Thanks for your patience Guys

 

Stubie

[photoman]

Stubie.

 

Any claim you make is based upon the contention that you should not have incurred the charge at the actual time of the charge. Thus your account balance at that point is amended in any calculations.

 

ie: Any additional interest incurred from that point onwards (and up until the time of your claim) which arose (either at the time or subsequently) as a result of the charge, is recoverable.

 

eg:

Lets say you incurred a charge in 2006 of £35, and this took you £35 overdrawn.

Then, you would have paid overdraft interest upon the sum of £35.

Now, lets say this was £2.

This means that the bank has taken a total of £37 from you.

 

If another 3, 6, 12, 24 or whatever months later your account became £37 overdrawn, (perhaps this time for legitimate over spending on your behalf).

And lets say this time you incurred interest of say £3 on that £37.

 

You contend that the account balance would not have been overdrawn by £37 had you not incurred the earlier charge, and the interest thereon.

Thus, that months interest of £3 is also recoverable.

 

ie: the effect is cumulative.

[Stubie]

Cheers Photoman,

 

Thanks for the clarification, have a green scaly thingy on me.

[BankFodder]

I claimed charges back from Halifax and added the 8% interest. That was in 2006. I now have more charges on my account and have sent the first two letters and I am about to issue the N1. My question is did I add the correct amount of interest as I didnt really understand the contractual interest so only added the 8% from the spreadsheet and can I add this on to the new claim or is it too late for old claims?

 

If you have already claimed back charges but didn't claim back the interest on those charges then there is nothing to stop you going back, calcualting all of the interest which was levied on those charges and starting another claim.

If you had to take it to court, you would add 8% interest to that too.

 

Don't forget. this is interest which they have actually taken from you.

 

We are not talking about interest which you have decided to charge them for the use of your money. That would be something different and it is called "contractual interest".

[HSBCrusher]

 

I will leave it there as I am confusing everyone (including myself:D) and diverting the thread from its original intent.

 

not at all..

 

thats what cag is about IMHO, its about throwing ideas around.

[Notty]

Thanks for that Bankfodder. I think I am slowly understanding it but I will get out all of the old paperwork and look at it but I will probably be back on here asking more dumb questions. My original charges were for nearly £4000 and as I said I did add the 8% interest but they owe me another £600 charges since 2006 so all in all it could be chunky money? Wont they stay any claim that it put in? Its not a problem as I can wait. I have an overdraft with them so I am hoping it will pay this off? I am going to read all of this thread again and try and digest the info. I also claimed for various credit cards and again only added the 8% interest so if we can I will have a go at them too.

[BankFodder]

Yes, claims will be stayed - but if you put them into the County Court, at least they will be earning 8%.

 

Also, once again, a staggering number of people seem not to be bothering about claiming back the interest which they have also paid on the charges which have been taken from them unlawfully.

 

This adds up to a lot of money for the claimant - or a significant benefit for the bank if you don't bother.

 

Go for every penny. you worked for it and it is yours.

 

If you don't claim it, it will only be spend on bonuses, excessive pension deals, fancy executive expenses etc.

Is that what you want?

[noddyaccount]

If you have already claimed back charges but didn't claim back the interest on those charges then there is nothing to stop you going back, calcualting all of the interest which was levied on those charges and starting another claim.

If you had to take it to court, you would add 8% interest to that too.

 

Don't forget. this is interest which they have actually taken from you.

 

We are not talking about interest which you have decided to charge them for the use of your money. That would be something different and it is called "contractual interest".

 

I am about to make a claim , as I have no O/D facility , they defer the charges a couple of weeks so even though they write about an unauthorised O/D rate of 28.8% , because I am in credit I tend to pay off the charges there and then . Can I charge them their unauthorised interest rate in good faith on the charges . it is not through their lack of trying that I happen to be in credit .

[BankFodder]

As long as you have actually paid that money over to them, then yes you can claim it back.

[brown1950]

Bankfodder, and all.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that you should also make claim for the additional interest the bank has applied/deprived you of due to the charges.

 

By also accounting for such interest, you often quite quickly reach a point whereby you can actually see that any subsequent "overdraft excess" or "limit breach" that then later gave rise to charges arose solely due to accumulated earlier charges and the interest upon such.

 

I would even suggest considering going even further.

 

Many people are also forced at some point to take consolidation loans with their banks in order to repay "borrowing".

.... borrowing that is often solely or mostly originally made up of charges and interest upon such !!

 

The calculations are admittedly a bit more involved and difficult to determine, but for anyone who makes the effort the results can be quite an eye opener !!

 

The chain of events would go something like this:

 

1/ You incur bank charges.

 

2/ The bank applies/deprives you of account interest as a result.

 

3/ The bank then puts you under pressure to take out a consolidation loan, to repay your existing borrowing .... but we contend that this existing borrowing consisted either solely or largely of charges and interest upon your original account.

 

4/ The consolidation loan then incurs yet more interest.

 

5/ ALSO...the account you make the loan installments from, then incurs/ is deprived of further interest due to making the monthly loan repayments.

 

6/ As a result, the account that the installments are made from then goes overdrawn..... often due largely to the loan installments... thus incurring even more charges, and interest.

 

........ and the whole cycle starts all over again.

 

 

I am currently working on modifying some of Mindzais sheets to try and create a set of (preferably a single) spreadsheets that would more easily allow the calculation of such a chain of events.

 

I am no mathematician or accountant though, and work on such is slow, so if anyone else more competent is interested in helping me then post up here or get in touch?

 

Such spreadsheets are currently being worked on in "Open Office", which is free to download software from the web, meaning that you wouldn't need to buy any software to use them, and also means they can be universally used on either PC or Mac.

 

PM

 

 

This is very interesting. Have a claim presently 'stayed' relating to charges dating back to 1992. Recently i discovered a copy of a 'consolidated loan' dated Dec 1996 which under pressure from the 'bank' i had to take out in order to pay off the overdraft which included 'charges'

 

Amount of consolidated loan 1085.00 + interest 679.98 (interest rate 29.50%) total amount payable 1764.98. This i think is a perfect example of what is mentioned above. Letters have been sent to the 'bank' claiming return of 1764.98 plus 8% (no replies) however i will now look at the interest rate of 29.50% dating back to 1996 ! Please correct me if i am not on the right track.

[yourbank]

This is very interesting. Have a claim presently 'stayed' relating to charges dating back to 1992. Recently i discovered a copy of a 'consolidated loan' dated Dec 1996 which under pressure from the 'bank' i had to take out in order to pay off the overdraft which included 'charges'

 

Amount of consolidated loan 1085.00 + interest 679.98 (interest rate 29.50%) total amount payable 1764.98. This i think is a perfect example of what is mentioned above. Letters have been sent to the 'bank' claiming return of 1764.98 plus 8% (no replies) however i will now look at the interest rate of 29.50% dating back to 1996 ! Please correct me if i am not on the right track.

 

Ouch, is that not double dipping so to speak. I agree totally on the interest but if it was to pay the charges ie consolidating them are you not now claiming charges twice, ie charges themselves plus consolidation loan principal(excl. interest which is claimable of course).

[Stubie]

I did read about someone with an unenforcible credit agreement who went for statutory and contractual interest, and got it!

 

Have to agree though, I think you are pushing your luck trying for both.

 

Why not claim contractual, and keep the reduction to statutory as a bargaining tool? Who knows, you might end up better off, you can only negotiate one way:)

[yourbank]

Stubie, I didn't mean the interest in Brown's post. I meant he is claiming back bank charges. However he is claiming the full consolidation loan which would have consolidated or paid back charges which is why I was querying the double dipping. If he claims bank bank charges and consolidation loan interest then I don't see and issue with what he is doing.

[brown1950]

Stubie, I didn't mean the interest in Brown's post. I meant he is claiming back bank charges. However he is claiming the full consolidation loan which would have consolidated or paid back charges which is why I was querying the double dipping. If he claims bank bank charges and consolidation loan interest then I don't see and issue with what he is doing.

 

Oki Doki now understand. Have given NastyWest 10 days to pay 1764.98 plus 8% dating back to Dec96. (Total over 3500) No doubt another court claim is required -which will be stayed.

[yourbank]

Oki Doki now understand. Have given NastyWest 10 days to pay 1764.98 plus 8% dating back to Dec96. (Total over 3500) No doubt another court claim is required -which will be stayed.

 

Have you already claimed the charges back over the period prior to the consolidation loan?

What I am getting at is that the consolidation loan was to repay the charges so you would claiming twice for the same charges(does that make sense?).

I think Interest on the consolidation loan is a YES.