RedDeath v LloydsTSB

[newbody]

Red though i agree with your sentiments exactly in making the banks pay for what they have done i am so default ridden now i cant even get a debit card on a bank account

I DO FEEL THAT I HAVE TO REITERATE SOME OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE THAT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO CLAIM FOR IS HIGHLY RISKY AND FROM WHAT I HAVE READ ON THIS THREAD I DONT THINK STANDS A CHANCE IN HELL OF SUCCEEDING . In your claim from what i can see you have alot of unproven area to cover Contractural Interest Charges (why you are entitled to the higher rate of interest over the courts Sec 69 8%) Charges predating 5 years (time span for scotland i believe) so statute of limitations

I believe from reading what you have put the main part i have trouble trying to justify in your cliam is the award of Damages agreed that due to defaults you had to borrow from Sub Prime lenders to make ends and this was bought by concequence of the charges resulting in the defaults.

 

I would personally use these fact to back up the reason for why you are entitled to the higher interest rate back from the banks instead of the standard stat 8%

 

Ie Due to the banks action in taking the charges it resulted in my having to use Sub Prime lenders which resulted in my having to pay alot higher interest rates in regards the purchase of a car which i require to work had it not been for the defaults lodged against me then i may have been able to borrow at a more favourable rate Ie 8% compared to 29%

 

Thus as the banks have acted unlawfully in the removal of more money than what they were entitled to in regards their liquidated Damages I would not have had these defaults lodged and would have had access rate to a more competitive interest rate so i would ask the court to look at this in regards the reason why compund interest should be awarded instead of stat 8%

 

 

Sorry to be a doubting thomas but i wouldnt be able to rest easy within myself without a word of caution. At the end of the day it is your claim and your decision to make as to your best way forward and you have to live with the consequences of your actions yes the figures make it nice and say go for it but can your claim be substantiated in Law is a different matter .

 

My personal thoughts on what i have read on here is

 

Go for the Charges not an issue

 

Claim for compounded interest at the Unauthorised rate (not proven and still needs proving why we are entitled to this rate instead of the 8% sec 69)

 

The Damages aspect i would drop as i cant see how you can prove these are due to the bank charges other than having to use sub prime lenders which the reverse argument ould be well you could have bought a cheaper car etc

 

By no means not saying dont have ago if you want but If it were me i wouldn't

[newbody]

..

[newbody]

Anyway, for the bank to argue against this would they have to disclose their true fees? I mean my arguement is based on an accurate charge from the bank, can they throw this out without getting the bank to disclose their fees?

 

I believe it was CitiBanks who actually did something like this they bought head of accounting in to disclose to the judge behind closed doors in regards the costing and the claimant sort of won as they had the difference refunded between what they were charged and the true cost

 

Also banks have a habit now in CI claims of making GOGW that are equal to the charges and 8% interest and then splitting your claim saying the charges element is settled and only the CI part is left to be pursued

 

Which then weakens your case as you are their trying to argue why you are entitled to money you never had in the first place (something to do with mitigating your costs i think)