Do I have to accept their offer that doesn't include interest?

[sm4423]

One of my banks has made another offer - for the return of all the charges from the two accounts - but not including the interest. Great, except as the interest is nearly £1000 it matters to me - but in my very first initial letter I hadn't worked out the interest and just asked for the charges back. Does this mean I have to accept their latest offer? I have written several letters since and enclosed schedules of charges which included the interest, but the banks replies do not mention the interest.

I need to know whether I have to accept the offer - don't want to go to court and find out that I can't claim the interest because my very first letter didn't include it.

 

Anyone help?

[livelylad]

One of my banks has made another offer - for the return of all the charges from the two accounts - but not including the interest. Great, except as the interest is nearly £1000 it matters to me - but in my very first initial letter I hadn't worked out the interest and just asked for the charges back. Does this mean I have to accept their latest offer? I have written several letters since and enclosed schedules of charges which included the interest, but the banks replies do not mention the interest.

I need to know whether I have to accept the offer - don't want to go to court and find out that I can't claim the interest because my very first letter didn't include it.

 

Anyone help?

 

 

You can not claim the interest (8%) if you did not file this claim with the court. If you did then they have to pay you, if not then they dont.

[sm4423]

Oh, I haven't got as far as court yet - their offers have come after my intial letter, my reply to that, and then my LBA! I have given them until 13 Jan before I start a court claim. Are you saying then, that I do not have to accept this offer - I can carry on and take them to court as my subsequent letters included a demand for interest (at 8% as per spreadsheet)?

[livelylad]

Oh, I haven't got as far as court yet - their offers have come after my intial letter, my reply to that, and then my LBA! I have given them until 13 Jan before I start a court claim. Are you saying then, that I do not have to accept this offer - I can carry on and take them to court as my subsequent letters included a demand for interest (at 8% as per spreadsheet)?

 

 

If they have offered you the full amount you are claiming then you have to accept the offer. If it is not the full amount you dont and then just carry on with your timescale.

[sm4423]

Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well -or just being really thick! :?

 

The 'full amount' I have requested in all but my first letter is the charges plus interest. In which case I shall go to court for the whole amount.

 

But in my very first letter I didn't request the interest back - just the charges. So would this be regarded as the 'full amount' in law? If so, does this mean that I have no claim on the interest as I didn't include it in my initial letter, even though I have included it in all my subsequent letters?

 

Basically, I mean have a blown it by not including the 8% interest in my repliminary letter?

[sm4423]

preliminary (!) lol

[dollies01]

Your first letter should of only included the charges

You cannot ask for interest until it goes to court.

If you have been offered a refund of your charges before the court case

this would in effect be a FULL settlement.

[Michael Browne]

You are not entitled to claim s69 8% interest until you actually file a claim at court. Therefore if they have offered to refund all the penalty charges you are obliged to accept. If you don't and then file at court in order to claim the 8% interest, your claim is likely to fail and you'd ghet nothing.

[sm4423]

Thank you - that answers my question! In which case we shall consider this a win for us! Does this mean that banks are getting wise to letting it get as far as maing a court claim? Seems a bit unfair that they get away with not paying back the interest they must've made on our money! Still at least we're getting out charges back. In this case, I'm happy!

 

Thanks so much for your help

[Mad Nick]

Michael is spot on :

You are not entitled to claim s69 8% interest until you actually file a claim at court.

but I reckon you still theoretically have two choices because you said :

I have written several letters since and enclosed schedules of charges which included the interest, but the banks replies do not mention the interest.

. They are therefore not meeting your claim in full if they just offer to repay 100% charges. Your two choices appear to be :

• accept the offer as it stands (ie with no interest) as settlement
  
• accept the offer as partial settlement and pursue the interest via a Court claim.

Before you just accept the Bank's offer, I would do a bit more searching about the alternative - has anyone else been down that road, what are the risks, did it work etc. £1000 interest must be worth a bit more research.

 

Regards, Mad Nick

[Michael Browne]

This would be a very risky stratagey. The bank would maintain (quite rightly) that they have offered your charges in full, (which at this moment in time is all you are entitled to) and you declined to accept. The judge would most likely agree and strike out the claim and you would be left with nothing.

[livelylad]

Both Michael and I have explained to you what you need to do. Accept the offer.

[Mad Nick]

which at this moment in time is all you are entitled to

Not if one was mostly in overdraft and the bank had been charging interest on the unlawful charges. Wouldn't you then be entitled in law to be fully compensated ? Hence the move towards claiming contractual interest ?

[Michael Browne]

Yes, you can claim overdraft interest on your penalty charges, but as I understood it, sm4423 was claiming s69 8% interest which cannot be claimed until you file at court and even then is at the discretion of the court

 

as my subsequent letters included a demand for interest (at 8% as per spreadsheet)?

[sm4423]

We're going to accept the offer. Thank you all for your help. Mad Nick - thanks, I agree that £1000 is worth asking about - hence this thread! But I don't want to risk going to court and the banks winning - couldn't bear to lose the money twice to them (thats what it would feel like). Hey - had no idea we could claim back this money til 6 weeks ago - am chuffed to get the charges back. Thanks - shall donate - and raise awareness and tell everyone I know that they can do it too!

Best wishes

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi sm4423!

 

I am NOT disputing the advice given to U with regards accepting your Bank's offer to agree to pay U all your charges as a FULL and FINAL SETTLEMENT as per your initial claim.

 

However...

 

If...as U say, U have worked out a figure of approx £1k of interest @ 8% APR, then that would mean that your initial claim would be quite a substantial one???

Imagine the amount of interest if U used Contractual Interest instead?!...lol...

 

IMHO I do not think that your position is irretrievable!!!

 

I would think that a simple letter to your Bank admitting your "genuine" numerical mistake in the pursuance of your initial claim.

 

Inform them that U had neglected to add the same DAILY COMPOUNDED UNAUTHORISED O/D CONTRACTUAL % INTEREST RATE as they would have charged U for "borrowing" their money, and that U would accept their present kind offer as a PARTIAL SETTLEMENT only.

 

Enclose a spreadsheet with all the new details and regard this as a new Preliminary Letter and follow the now well established re-claiming proceedure from there!

 

There have been several threads, of successful claims, posted on here supporting the claiming of Contractual Interest rather than s69 Statutory Interest @ 8% APR.

 

There have also been numerous threads in which the general advice posted (...by more knowledgeable CAG members than myself, I might add!), has suggested a re-starting of an individuals Claim, if a mistake has been made in the re-claiming proceedure before it reaches the Filing @ Court stage!

 

Any decisions are your own of course (...I am NOT a financial expert!), but to simply give up on claiming at least £1k in interest, would vindicate your Bank's decision to offer U a settlement prior to U having to take them to Court...Surely?!

[MilkTrayMan]

Hi karnevil!

 

With greatest respect, I disgree with several reasonings that U have mentioned:

 

 

 

If you have asked for an amount, they have offered to pay in full that amount, you cant go back and decide oh I'll have a bit of contractual interest stuck on top please.

 

Why can't U???

 

(Contract Law says that a contract has to have an OFFER and an ACCEPTANCE before a contract is deemed to have been made.)

The Bank had offered a set amount as a FULL and FINAL SETTLEMENT.

sm4423 had yet to ACCEPT that specific OFFER.

 

 

 

If you'd started the claim with contractual then yes you would hold out for it, but you didnt, end of...

 

Not "end of" at all...

 

The Bank's OFFER as a FULL and FINAL SETTLEMENT had yet to be formally ACCEPTED by sm4423 as such.

The advice so often given when offered a derisory sum, is to ACCEPT the Bank's OFFER as a PARTIAL SETTLEMENT and to proceed with the Claim on that basis.

 

 

 

If you refuse and go back to prelim adding contractual interest now I doubt a court would look too favourably on you.

 

Would not the advice to include, in the NEW PL, an appologetic explaination pre-empt this???

 

Indeed...in the following SUCCESSFUL CASE link...It is even suggested by jonni2bad (#12) that a Claim is retrievable by re-starting it, even AFTER it has been Filed @ Court.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/37731-big-fight-nat-west.html?highlight=re-starting+claim

 

I feel that a Court may look sympathetically upon a Claimant who is acting for him/her self against Professional Financial Defendants.

 

That is to say...If the Claim is FULLY DEFENDED to the end!!!

It is well documented that Bank's have shown a stark reluctance to get to the STANDARD DISCLOSURE stage of a Court Hearing!

 

 

 

I do however think its worth asking the bank i your response to the offer, to add the contractual on...

 

Is that not just another way of saying that the Bank's OFFER, as is, is REJECTED???

...and U are looking from the Bank an OFFER that is a FULL and FINAL SETTLEMENT that sm4423 feels that he/she can ACCEPT as such???

 

Would this also not by classed as re-negotiating the Bank's OFFER?

Or for want of a better phrase...

RE-STARTING the CLAIM???

 

 

 

...I don't think starting over is the way to go.

 

But by stating and submitting the NEW CONTRACTUAL INTEREST spreadsheets etc etc...sm4423 would be helping the Bank to produce an OFFER that sm4423 felt that he/she could ACCEPT as a FULL and FINAL SETTLEMENT of the Claim more quickly.

 

To proceed to the Filing @ Court stage BEFORE any amendments to the Claim were made would waste time/underclaim/risk a technical strike out/add unnecessary cost.

 

£1k+ is a considerable amount of money and is certainly NOT worth just-brushing-under-the-carpet for the sake of a little bit of inconvenience!

 

Hope I've helped out?!

 

sm4423's money...sm4423's decision...I have only stated my own honest opinion...I am NOT a financial expert...Take further advice if felt needed.

[MilkTrayMan]

Merry Xmas morning Mad Nick!

 

Not if one was mostly in overdraft and the bank had been charging interest on the unlawful charges. Wouldn't you then be entitled in law to be fully compensated ? Hence the move towards claiming contractual interest ?

 

The argument for adding Contractual Interest to ANY Claim seems to me to be overwhelming!

It can be expressed in a simple summarised version in the following link...(...Of which U are a Patron I believe?...lol):

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/53310-contractual-interest-mutuality-reciprocity.html

 

However...

 

Instead of ONLY claiming Contractual Interest in cases that involve a large degree of negative balance debit transactions (i.e. O/D interest charges) IMHO...I would argue that even if sm4423 had a positive balance throughout any period where unlawfully imposed charges applied, sm4423 would still have suffered a very easily quantifiable consequential loss...

 

That is to say, that if for example sm4423 had had an unlawfully Returned DD Charge of £30 imposed when he/she had a positive account balance of £100 in the black, then the debit of the £30 would have deprived sm4423 of £30s' worth of whatever interest that could have been accrued in the current account had the £30 NOT been unlawfully debited in the first place.

 

Further to this, I would also argue that as well as sm4423 suffering a direct loss of the unlawful charge debit of £30 and the consequential loss of the interest that the £30 may have accrued (...@ the % Rate that the Bank's current account paid).

...There is a premise that sm4423 may well have chose to withdraw the same said £30 him/herself and invested it instead in a high % Rate yielding Deposit Fund.

...Or even use it to repay part of the balance off a High % Rate Credit Card that he/she may or may not have.

 

Because this is all conjecture, it can not be easily proven as to what % Rate sm4423 would have suffered the consequential loss at.

What can be said though, is that it would be quite understandable for a Court to accept sm4423, or any other Claimant for that matter, using the same logical approach, but applying the same % Rate that the defending Bank would charge as its own Unauthorised O/D % Rate (...or if claiming from a Credit Card...its Cash Withdrawal % Rate).

This also ties in nicely with the MUTUALITY-RECIPROCITY of the Bank's contract with sm4423.

 

Therefore to summarise...

 

Claims should ALWAYS consist of the Claimant claiming from the onset...

The Unlawful Charges + any associated O/D Interest Charge

(...plus ALL @ the Daily Compounded Contractual Interest % Rate)

From the date of the unlawful debit until the date the repayment takes place.

This is irrespective of whether the claimant has been Overdrawn or not, as the case might be!!!...IMHO

 

There is nothing whatsoever preventing the Claimant from claiming s69 Statutory Interest @ 8% at the Filing @ Court stage, as an "In the Alternative", for the court to consider, should the argument for the use of Contractual Interest falter.

 

Here's a link to a downloadable and printable spreadsheet (courtesy of Mindzai).

It can be used for the calculations, and also has easy to follow user-friendly instructions:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/51736-excel-contractual-interest-spreadsheet.html

 

I am not yet aware of a Claim that has gone all the way and Contractual Interest has been substantiated.

However, the link below shows numerous other links to CAG Members threads who have had Claims Settled in Full based on using Contractual Interest:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=587922

 

This indicates to me that Banks, when confronted with a thoroughly prepared Claim, will not want to go all the way and contest a Contractual Interest Claim...cos to do so could create a TEST CASE...

Where with STANDARD DISCLOSURE, the full extent of their unlawful charges would be revealed!...IMHO

 

Hope my Xmas pressy is well received by all?!...lol...

[Mad Nick]

MilkTrayMan, My question marks was just me being coy. What I was really thinking was : don't hold back, give 'em both barrels filled with contractual interest. Another mince pie Vicar ?

Mad Nick

[geedels]

I think i'm being very stupid here, but, should I not show my contractual interest calculation on my first request for repayment and wait until court proceedings? Doesn't sound right to me.

[Glenn UK]

Geedels

 

No youre not being stupid, if you are claiming contractual intertest on the charges and interest you paid on those charges, you put it in you prelim letter, lba and in your claim.

 

However, if youre intending to ask for Sec 69 interest instead then you add it to your claim when you file the claim in court.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Claims should ALWAYS consist of the Claimant claiming from the onset...

The Unlawful Charges + any associated O/D Interest Charge

(...plus ALL @ the Daily Compounded Contractual Interest % Rate)

From the date of the unlawful debit until the date the repayment takes place.

This is irrespective of whether the claimant has been Overdrawn or not, as the case might be!!!...IMHO

 

There is nothing whatsoever preventing the Claimant from claiming s69 Statutory Interest @ 8% at the Filing @ Court stage, as an "In the Alternative", for the court to consider, should the argument for the use of Contractual Interest falter.

 

Its funny that you present this as new, this has been advocated for some time, ive used this approach for all of my claims as have others.

 

This indicates to me that Banks, when confronted with a thoroughly prepared Claim, will not want to go all the way and contest a Contractual Interest Claim...cos to do so could create a TEST CASE...

Where with STANDARD DISCLOSURE, the full extent of their unlawful charges would be revealed!...IMHO

 

Hope my Xmas pressy is well received by all?!...lol...

 

 

Its no wonder no one has bothered to try to dispute your 'novel' approach, its not novel and has been used by many on here already.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[MilkTrayMan]

Hello Glenn!

 

???I have not tried to present what U have quoted as being 'novel'???

 

It was typed over the Xmas period when activity on CAG was extremely light (I think that there were only 3 members online Xmas morning!) and with no NEW postings as such, it was an attempt to put into Laymans English, what had been spread over a multitude of other Threads and had been perhaps been more eloquently put elsewhere.

 

It was primarily for the benefit of the OP, if he/she ever logged back into their Thread...which they don't seem to have done for many moons!

 

The paragraphs of the same Post that U haven't quoted have referred in person to the OP.

 

Unfortunately as with ALL posts when viewed in a historical context, they are liable to be held 'old fashioned' and giving the wrong advice, given any NEW developments in the general Re-claiming process.

 

However, as you say, many Claims have been won using the same basic principles I have stated in the Post that U quote.

 

Other individuals may have finely tuned their arguments to suit their own needs, but as a starting point for Claimants who may be unfamiliar with HOW and WHY Contractual Interest is important for them to consider and research further, I don't believe that the Post is misleading at all.

 

When reading other Threads concerning C.I., they are extremely long and winding. For a Newbie, they can often get lost and miss the general basic points amongst all the finer details that get banded about.

 

I think it helps them understand Posters like yourself, if they can understand the basics first don't U think?...without having to ask U to explain things all the time???

 

Try to think of the Post as a "Janet & John"...to encourage them to want to progress onto your "War & Peace"?!...lol...

[Glenn UK]

MTM

 

Points taken

 

Glenn