Could this be the biggest claim on the site?

[photoman]

I have been actively on this site for a month or so, doing masses and masses of reading up, and lots of posting, and I had already gotten together much of what I thought would be my claim..( and probably also a reputation for hounding people) !

But the Christmas break (and lots of mulled wine), have made me think more about this.

Basically, I have two choices:

I can go with the basic tried and tested 6 year claim, which is only the tip of the iceberg, or I can go for the iceberg !

I already have actual statements going right back to 1985. Two personal accounts running until 1997, plus a business account from 1994-2006.

The basic "safe" 6 year claim from 00 to 06 on my business account (sole trader), comes to around £6k. (I already understand that I cannot rely on Consumer regs for this, but having done a lot of reading of similar business threads know the laws I can rely on, and still feel confident of outcome, if I do things properly)

However, if I decide to cite section 32 of Limitations act, I could take the Business claim back to 1994, and this would then come to about £14k. (on all claims I have decided to go for contractual interest, on basis of mutuality, & on the basis that they have made huge sums by their own investments on my money, so I am determined to not let them have profited by these actions)

Also, if I do decide to invoke section 32, then really I should also go for the Personal accounts (85-93, and 93-97).

One the one hand I perhaps I should also do these concurrently rather than awaiting outcome of one, otherwise this could be seen as vexatious, and viewed dimly by a judge.

However, on the other hand, as they are all actually seperate accounts, any claims by the defendent of my deliberately splitting the claim for my benefit, has little basis I feel, as by right each account should still actually be dealt with seperately.

 

My dilemma is this. If I do decide to claim the 2 personal accounts, the 85-93 alone comes in at around £29k with contractual, the 93-97 I have yet to do, but reckon it would be around £12k, so then with the Business a/c 94-06 at around £14k, this would be all in around £55k !

 

This is obviously, VERY large sums !!!

 

(The biggest shock was that the 85-93 claim is actually only around £500 in charges, with the remaining £28.5k being contractual interest. This seems an enormous amount of interest, and made me feel very uneasy at first, that this could be seen as vindictive & greedy. However, I reconciled myself with the arguments about them having invested and loaned out that initial £500 & profited greatly themselves, and do not want them to have profited from AT ALL from having had my money).

 

My questions are these:

1/ If I do go for these, any or all of them could be allocated to a Mercantile court. The implications of losing in such I could not afford to bear. Should I seek proffesional advice on this?

(it is very unfair that the legal system is set up in such a way to discourage us in this way to the advantage of the Banks)

 

2/ If so would I be eligible for legal aid ? (I'm currently on Income support, due to ill health, and my business having failed, both of which I blame largely on the way the Bank has treated me), and would this then safeguard me from liability should I lose?

3/ If I do seek proffesional help, how? Who? Where? And how do I get legal aid? Any suggestions?

 

4/Or should I just stick to the basic 6 years on my Business account, (or maybe go for the whole 14 years on the Business account citing section 32, by sending an amended prelim), then perhaps later tackle the others, staggering them each by account?

 

Are there other any Mods I should contact about this? If so, any ideas who ?

I think this could perhaps even be one for BF ????

 

Best regards

 

(PS: Merry Christmas, and Happy New year) !!!

 

PPS: Personally, if I could, I would rather keep control, and set my own schedules by doing this myself, without legal aid, it's just the Mercantile aspect that concerns me.

 

PPPS: (regardless of approach this wonderful site would still get a hearty donation) !

[callumsgran]

thanks bf x

[stan5131]

This will be interesting to watch! Good luck.

[elsinore]

Hello photoman, good luck with this claim, whatever you decide to do.

 

I'm subscribing because I have a similar claim and am about to pose the same questions in the RBS forum. My charges total £13k+ and, as you have already discovered, the addition of interest (at whatever rate) will make a huge difference to the total.

 

Elsinore

[HSBCrusher]

I was going to point you in the direction of dolfos.... I notice you have found that thread already!

[GaryH]

Good luck Photoman, this one'll be interesting!

 

I'm just subscribing really, but can't help but stick my nose in on a couple of points.

 

With regard to the £500 worth of charges bringing up nearly 30k in interest - JMHO - but for the life of me I just can't see how it could be justified. However compelling the arguement of mutuality, etc, may be, it just seems like its way beyond the realms of whats fair and reasonable. Undue enrichment even? Remember that there is'nt an express provision that allows you to claim their contractual rate and the court would award you interest at the rate it deems just. At worst, perhaps this could even be seen as vexatious? Again its just my opinion, but I think we should be doing our best to maintain the moral high ground over the banks.

 

This has come up a few times recently and its definately well worth debating the issues of contractual interest I think, particularly as there are quite a few claims involving large sums being brought recently. It'll be interesting to hear other views on this, particularly BF's.

 

As I understand it, you are perfectly entitled to file a seperate claim for each seperate contract - ie account. The issue of vexatious litigation only arises if a claim for one account is split down into seperate claims.

[HSBCrusher]

I have to agree with Gary on the interest issue.... I think this will look rather excessive to folks in general and most importantly to a judge.

[stan5131]

I must say, would the banks be as forgiving if we had their money. Look at the interest we pay on our mortgages over the usual 25 years! I can just hear the banks saying "actually Miss S. that seems an awful lot of interest, infact, shameful.... lets knock a good few years off for you".

[HSBCrusher]

I see your point, but I dont think you would pay £29000 interest on £500, thats even beyond the bank's depths!

[stan5131]

Hey HSBC - If they could get away with it..... dont bank on it lol

[GaryH]

I must say, would the banks be as forgiving if we had their money. Look at the interest we pay on our mortgages over the usual 25 years! I can just hear the banks saying "actually Miss S. that seems an awful lot of interest, infact, shameful.... lets knock a good few years off for you".

 

I do take your point, definately. I don't think its quite as simple as that though unfortunately.

 

For a start the lenders hold consumer credit licences. Also, you agree to any interest they are to charge you from the outset and you sign a contract agreeing to it. You can argue the mutuality principle that it should apply both ways, but it's only an implied one - whether the courts will go for it or not remains to be seen.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree that its perfectly justified to claim the contractual rate of interest - I've won 2 claims with it and have another 1 ongoing - all I'm saying is that it needs to be seen to be reasonable, especially by the courts.

[stan5131]

Point taken Gary. However, when the bank took the £500, they didnt give Photoman the opportunity of agreeing interest because he didnt actually know he had loaned it to them, in fact, it was their intention to never repay it, let alone interest! How does one fairly work out the interest on a claim like this? I know its complicated, but surely they should be liable for some compensation.

[MARTIN3030]

There are things to be looked at closely here,and I think it wise for the moment to await BFs observations on this rather than let the thread grow with no conclusive way forward.

[photoman]

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INPUTS !!!

Unfortunatelly (seasonal commitments and all that) I have a busy day tommorow, so wont be able to put in much input or response to your comments so far until early evening tmrw (28th).

However in response so far....... yes I too was shocked at the interest bit...........but you know what, we have all been shocked at the very cleverly worked out and very well disguised interest that they clobber us all with all round, and if the shoe was on the other foot, with 21 years of interest etc, I wouldn't expect much sympathy !

 

This all need a lot of very careful thought, and an absolutely immaculate approach.

I am touched (but not surprised) that this has attracted so much response, and I will respond (hopefully individually), and keep you all posted whatever happens.

It is difficult to see the wood for the trees on this one, weighing up my anger at the way the Banks have ruled our lives, against the rationale of being practical, and reasonable.

I have much thinking to do, but please do keep the posts coming, the more input the better.

Best regards (and seasons best) to all !

 

Photoman

 

PS: VERY honoured that Bankfodder picked up on this one !!

[photoman]

Just reviewed some of the comments about the interest portion. Yes, I agree, It is important for us to hold the Moral high ground against the Banks, and not to be seen as greedy, but :

1/ This is not about a "get rich quick scheme". This is about the all the anger at how they have treated us all, and the effect these charges have had on all our lives. I thoroughly read all the initial posts on the Contractual interest threads, with the rationale regards how they have made money from loaning out and investing ours, and how we "might" have done similarly.........with emphasis on the "might". Yes, we may have just enjoyed a few more beers instead (but not myself, see point 3 below), it is the principle that they have profited and enriched themsleves from these actions that I do not want them to get away with....and acquiring the money is much welcome, but actually secondary.

2/ As often posted here, it is easier to negotiate down rather than up, then once it comes to the melee, I may/should accept another figure, but I would be very guiled if I had gone for a pittance at the outset, only to have that even further ebbed away at, knowing they had stillo in some way still profited from these acts in the end.

3/ YES, the interest on the £500 from 21 years ago seems huge.........but had I had that money to invest in my career (which every spare penny I have always ever had, has always gone towards) I should be earning 100 times that every year by now,..... instead the financial stress I was under, brought about a stress related illness, which very nearly killed me, and ruined my career. So I do not see these deductions as just money that I have failed to retrieve a paltry building society rate of interest on, and that I now want back. Instead, I see it as money that has been sucked from a promising young business, thus ruining my prospects, in order to finance free banking for those that could afford it anyhow !!

[bill-k]

I see you have attracted a certain amount of interest, here, Photoman. Not surprised, considering your claim(s) - and your groundwork. I will be watching here at the very least, as I think I may learn from this. Thanks for starting the thread !!!

[photoman]

Couple of very quick notes to my last posts, before I scoot off>

1/ When I said I was not surprised that I had attracted so much response. I hope you understood that I was not referring to my lack of surprise being bourne out the controversial nature of my claim. I was in fact referring to the good nature of the members of this site.

2/ When I referred to how I may have reached a position in life, possibly earning 100 times the amount, I was reffering to 100 times £500.........not 100 times £29k !! (unless I had been a Football player) !!!

[bill-k]

Couple of very quick notes to my last posts, before I scoot off>

1/ When I said I was not surprised that I had attracted so much response. I hope you understood that I was not referring to my lack of surprise being bourne out the controversial nature of my claim. I was in fact referring to the good nature of the members of this site.

 

Yeah, they're a box of allsorts, but all here for the same reason, eh ? :grin:

 

2/ When I referred to how I may have reached a position in life, possibly earning 100 times the amount, I was reffering to 100 times £500.........not 100 times £29k !! (unless I had been a Football player) !!!

 

Well, you could have been the new David Bailey ("Who's 'e ?") or Lord Lichfield !!

[Guest ian cognito]

how they have made money from loaning out and investing ours

 

Just an observation but it is highly unlikely they would have charged any more then 8-12% for loaning out 'our' money?

[bill-k]

Just an observation but it is highly unlikely they would have charged any more then 8-12% for loaning out 'our' money?

But couldn't we say that, whilst they were lending out OUR money cheaply, and without our permission, WE were forced to borrow it at higher rates (eg credit card, unauth. O/D, etc.) both from them and from other lenders ?

[GaryH]

But does'nt that rather come away from the principles of a claim for interest? That sounds more like consequential losses to me.

[bill-k]

See what you mean, Gary. But this would only be used as a rebuttal of their (Janquinny's) argument if it were actually put forward, and not as an element of the claim itself. It is a closed can of worms until the bank opens it. Doesn't that mean our reasoning can be used in rebuttal ?

[tim2718281]

You can argue the mutuality principle that it should apply both ways, but it's only an implied one - whether the courts will go for it or not remains to be seen.

 

IIRC, one set of Lloyds Ts&Cs I saw said that interest of 29% or so would be charged on unauthorised drawings from the account.

 

It said nothing about who the charge was levied by.

 

So one has a plausible argument that the contractual term applies to unauthorised drawings by the bank as well as unauthorised drawings by the customer ... ie that the contract is saying that if the bank makes unauthorised drawings from the account, the customer will charge them 29%.

 

Of course the judge may disagree, but not without considering the argument.

 

I wouldn't have thought the amount at issue will be a factor in the judge's decision of whether the contractual term means the customer can charge the bank interest.

 

Tim

[tim2718281]

Bear in mind that if the courts were to set a precedent that customers were entitled to contractual interest going back an unlimited number of years, the next day all the banks in England would have to declare themselves insolvent (*) and presumably cease trading.

 

It's expensive enough for the banks being faced with paying contractual interest on claims going back up to six years. But at, say, 12%, the amount owed doubles every siz years, and at 24% every three years.

 

Tim

 

(*) Their assets would not cover their liabilities if they required to repay 50 or so times the 500 million or more in unlawful charges *each year*. My understanding is it is a legal requirement for the directors to announce insolvency when assets do not cover liabilities.

[elsinore]

IIRC, one set of Lloyds Ts&Cs I saw said that interest of 29% or so would be charged on unauthorised drawings from the account.

It said nothing about who the charge was levied by.

 

I like the sound of that, Tim. I'll look through my various T & Cs and see what they say.

 

If there's one thing a judge likes it's a set of T & Cs or a contract that he/she can pick holes in.

 

Elsinore