Jump to content


Changing claim amount from Prelim to LBA


redsue
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5210 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

willowb you must have been reading my mind! I've just been reading through Glenn v Abbey thread making notes regarding CPR 18 - and lo and behold I wander back over here to see if any of my friends are playing out and you've posted the above info.

thanks so much - I've got my laptop, a brew and my small claims court book - bring it on NW!

PLEASE sign this petition to reduce amount of time CRAs hold your data

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA

 

I HATE MBNA :evil::-x:mad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 415
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Been having a wander around. Check out this reply to a RBS defence

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/rbs-bos-successes/49470-contractual-interest-details-case.html?highlight=pursuant+to+CPR+18#post398210

 

granted the case is not exactly the same to me (as well as being in scotland) but its jaw droppingly brilliant - oh yes and they also settled in full

PLEASE sign this petition to reduce amount of time CRAs hold your data

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA

 

I HATE MBNA :evil::-x:mad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find most amazing is that the claimant claims that there is no contract with the defendant and yet still succeeds on a claim for contractual interest!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find most amazing is that the claimant claims that there is no contract with the defendant and yet still succeeds on a claim for contractual interest!

 

You sure can speed-read Bong. I'm just flicking through the pages that have got pictures !

 

That is indeed a clever swing, innit? They appear to me to have divorced the T&C's from any contract, first of all. Presumably, if defendant cannot supply hard-copy signed contract, then they have no right to charge anything !! No need for disclosure of cost breakdown etc. No contract = money was nicked (can I say that ?).

 

Then it seems to me (para 62>) that, having managed to rip their arm off, they bash them over the head with it !! Having trashed the contract, they pick up the T&C's and use them on their own to claim "equity, mutuality & reciprocity" purely on the basis of the principle thereof.

 

It would seem, with my meagre understanding of this stuff, that we now have "An Even Newer Way of Looking at Interest" - "Implied Contractual Interest."

 

As you pointed out to me before, Bong. All things come to those who wait. This looks like it was worth the wait, and worth its' weight !!! :D

 

New thread, please, BF...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem, with my meagre understanding of this stuff, that we now have "An Even Newer Way of Looking at Interest" - "Implied Contractual Interest."

 

Certainly would appear to be a growing momentum, with some notable successes, for contractual interest - implied or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly would appear to be a growing momentum, with some notable successes, for contractual interest - implied or not.

 

Well, there isn't really a defence for not paying it it is there- as demonstrated in redsue's case by the pathetic (non) defence which Nationwide have supplied i.e. "you are not entitled to it because.....er....um....we say so- there you are your honour that is our defence, shall we get our coats now?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK guys, my brain is slightly overloaded with all the reading!!!

I just need to clarify what order to do things in. Firstly I'm going to send them a CPR 18 request for more information. ie a copy of their terms and conditions plus an explantion as to how they arrived at the figure of £545.90 for loss of interest and from what I can gather I send it to them via the court, is this correct?

I then need to ask the judge to strike out their defence as

a) it doesn't actually defend anything (there are no arguments) and

b) it is factually incorrect

Any advice would be gladly welcomed. From what I can gather I seem to be the only person who is not disputing the the claim for charges just disputing the claim for contractual interest - ha ha I knew it would be me!!!

PLEASE sign this petition to reduce amount of time CRAs hold your data

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA

 

I HATE MBNA :evil::-x:mad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Redsue, try asking justwon on the new RBS thread linked above. S/he sounds very knowledgeable about court procedures and should be able to let you know the order of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cheers bong - on a side note - I have to say I've just read one of Glenn uk's threads in which bill-k was telling you a very long joke about a gorilla in the jungle late into the night. LMAO. Bill-k its the way you tell em'

xx

PLEASE sign this petition to reduce amount of time CRAs hold your data

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA

 

I HATE MBNA :evil::-x:mad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't remind me! or him!!! Each time he posted another instalment of the joke I'd think -right is that it then? Am I being thick here? And he'd come back with a bit more. And then when it did eventually get to the end I still thought is that it?!!:D

(Sorry Bill:o )

Link to post
Share on other sites

ha ha - you know with bill-k he's gonna give you a chuckle but bill-k that joke was bad :D Here's my attempt - sorry mods :p

 

A young man walks onto the stage of Stars in their Eyes, on crutches, with a plaster cast from his feet to his hips. Matthew Kelly Introduces him as Simon. 'It's very brave of you to come out here,' says Matthew. 'Please tell the audience what happened?'

'Well' replies Simon 'about a year ago, I was driving with my uncle when we had a really bad accident. Unfortunately my uncle was killed outright but I survived. I was trapped in the car for six hours before I was eventually cut free.' 'The doctors had me in surgery for 12 hours but they couldn't save my legs.'

 

'That's terrible. But I see you have legs now. Are they artificial? asks Matthew.

'No Matthew, while I was in hospital the doctors informed me that my uncle had in fact died, but that his legs were fine and with all the advances in medical science, they could graft the bottom half of his body onto mine.

As you can see the operation was successful. I have been having physiotherapy for six months and hope to be walking fully again by the end of the year.'

 

A huge round of applause erupts from the audience. Kelly responds with: 'That's an unbelievable story. So tonight, who are you going to be?'

 

'Tonight, Matthew, I am going to be Simon and Halfuncle' :D :D :D

 

I apologise now for the groan factor but it did make me chuckle today

Blimey, is that the time.....

PLEASE sign this petition to reduce amount of time CRAs hold your data

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA

 

I HATE MBNA :evil::-x:mad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Redsue, try asking justwon on the new RBS thread linked above. S/he sounds very knowledgeable about court procedures and should be able to let you know the order of things.

 

Also Redsue, I have had to ask GlennUK's advice before and found him very friendly and helpful.

 

I have to go and have a look at Bill's joke now- yours made me giggle

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least I got that one!!:D

Bugger !!

 

Need help here.

 

How the hell am I gonna be able to stand up in court and state my case, if I can't tell a joke effectively ? !!

 

Let's face it - that seems to be a necessary qualification, looking at the scripts being delivered by defendants !!

 

No, Sarah - don't read the joke - please !! It really is crap. I mean crap. Worse than my usual postings.

 

I can hear Chris T now - "Bill-k......You've just LOST 200 reputation points !"

 

Seriously - Glenn's stuff is ace. He will tell you it's only his opinion in the end, but it's an opinion well worth listening to.

 

If it weren't for him pulling me up sharpish when I first stumbled in here, I'd have gone swaggering into court straight away, and found myself later sitting on the steps - still skint, and in tears.

 

Truly a good guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to be the only person who is not disputing the the claim for charges just disputing the claim for contractual interest - ha ha I knew it would be me!!!

 

No your not, I'm with you all the way.

My own thoughts are, having, as per my previous post, by 'implication' admitted their charges are unlawful, we must not divorce the interest from the total claim and we are simply seeking the balance of that claim. Did your N1 total (therefore your claim) include the 24.9%?

 

Would it help to itemise, in the case of your AQ, and mine if it appears, the date, amount and rate of all their interest charges debited to our accounts reinforcing our claim under the implied mutuality and reciprocity clause? Just my thoughts!

 

Interesting the solicitors acting for RBS didn't dispute Justwon's claim for contractual interest - only distress and inconvenience and/or personal injury. Her, and Glenn's arguments for the weakness or otherwise of their defence should also provide you with some ammunition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did your N1 total (therefore your claim) include the 24.9%?

Yes, in a clear and succinct way.

 

Would it help to itemise, in the case of your AQ, and mine if it appears, the date, amount and rate of all their interest charges debited to our accounts reinforcing our claim under the implied mutuality and reciprocity clause? Just my thoughts!

Sorry benforlini if I'm appearing dense :confused: what interest do you mean - they've debited approved overdraft interest which they had no problems in taking from me - ie I agreed to them taking the interest at 7.75% as they had allowed me to use their money.

Therefore - they've unlawfully taken my money so I should therefore use their own unauthorised rate of 24.9%

lightbulb moment! I like it. Thanks for the support I just hope I can win this thing not just for me but for every other bu99er they've charged to the hilt :-)

PLEASE sign this petition to reduce amount of time CRAs hold your data

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA

 

I HATE MBNA :evil::-x:mad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my case I did not have an approved overdraft and so I got both a unauthorised overdraft fee and interest charge. It was that interest charge I meant but because you had an approved overdraft you may not have been subject to the same charge.

 

I think you make a fine job of being our 'trail (or is trial) blazer'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just a trail blazer, but she tells a good joke on the way, too !!

Puts me to shame on both counts !!

 

I am not convinced that we should have to find out what the different rates of interest were throughout the period our claims cover. I've had 3 SAR bundles, and not one of them showed those rates. I don't believe that, as personal litigants, we should be expected to do that. Let the banks work all that out, if they want to argue the point in court. I believe it is quite reasonable to apply the rate of interest in force at the time of the claim. If, say, the prescribed rate for Statutory interest was 6% back in 2002, I don't think we would be expected to know that and apply it to that portion of our claim, and then 8% thereafter. The court applies the current 8% rate to the entire claim, so I believe we may do likewise.

 

If we are claiming back the actual interest charged by the bank on each and every penalty charge they levied, then maybe we should consider the varying rates. But that is a lot of work for very little return in my case, so I haven't bothered to claim that. But that is not claiming contractual interest - that is simply claiming back the money they have charged us in the form of interest.

 

The contractual interest we are claiming is purely the interest that we are now charging them for unlawfully borrowing our money. Had the banks known back then, that we would be charging them now, then they would have kept a detailed record of EXACTLY how much to pay us, now (in the same way that they know EXACTLY how much has been paid or charged when working out mortgage redemption statements). They didn't know, so we shouldn't be expected to have known, either, I reckon.

 

Finally, Benforlini, I agree that we must not divorce the interest from the total claim. The total claim is what it says on the tin. The whole amount claimed, and nothing less. Anything less is simply a partial settlement of the total amount claimed. Even if the defendant shows how they have worked it out, that in itself does not establish the "divorce" between charges & interest as far as your claim is concerned. Until the claim is paid in full or the claimant settles for less, the entire claim stands, I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not convinced that we should have to find out what the different rates of interest were throughout the period our claims cover.

According to my older statements Nationwide's unauthorised overdraft interest rate in the nineties was at 28.3%. I'm sure it will not have been a lot less than the present 24.9% in the interim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent post Bill. love the comparison given with the statutory rates. tried to click your scales but it won't work, just so's you know!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to my older statements Nationwide's unauthorised overdraft interest rate in the nineties was at 28.3%. I'm sure it will not have been a lot less than the present 24.9% in the interim.

Seems to demonstrate that it's fair enough and reasonable to use current rate. Although, if you do have all the details AND the rates were mostly higher then than now, then it might be to your advantage to use all the varying rates. In which case, I'd say go for it, Ben.

 

I just believe that doing so is an option, and not an obligation. But an option worth investigating, as your post suggests, Ben.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bill-k have you recovered yet?

 

You are absolutely right. I'm thinking too much into this - when the matter is simple.

Keep It Simple Stupid - I mean me not you :D

 

I'm catching up with my brill solicitor friend tomorrow to go over the whole case (I have stacks and stacks of paperwork prepared) so I'll keep you all informed ;)

 

tried to click your scales again but apparently I gotta share those clicks around a little

  • Confused 1

PLEASE sign this petition to reduce amount of time CRAs hold your data

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CreditRA

 

I HATE MBNA :evil::-x:mad::-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Redsue - yes I think I'm back to normal. And thanks too for the click attempt. I, too, keep getting that message about going forth and multiplying - it's very frustrating, innit ?

 

However, I'm more than happy with your clever mnemonic, which I will wear on my cheek !! :):cool:

 

You've got some good support here, by the looks of things, and what with your solicitor mate, you're as good as invincible. Your mum would love this, I reckon.

 

Keep at it - but you don't need me to tell you that,

 

Bill.

 

...oh, and X. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...