Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

+6 years and contractual interest


dj59
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6321 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

I have found all my statements since opening my current account in 1985 (wife is a hoarder thankfully).

 

I have had a quick look and so far I have found £1042.29 taken in charges from June 1985 to December 1993 there are more but I have only entered the above charges into Vampiress contractual interest spreadsheet so far.

 

What has come as a very big suprise is that according to the spreadsheet it has calculated that the contractual intrest (29.8%) comes to a staggering £171,098.25 and I still have another 7 years of statements to go through yet.:o

 

Im was sure I must have done something wrong but I have checked the spreadsheet and all my dates and charges are correct.

 

Not sure how the bank would react to a claim for this amount, if I can claim that far back and add contractual interest at the unauthorised overdraft rate.:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspect that you may be pushing the envelope a tad there, espcially with that rate of interest.

Other problem is the size of the calim rules out Small Claims.

At an interest rate of 10%, the claim falls well within the SMC limit but still provides a substantial amount of additional refund.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL

 

Well all i can say is go for it.

 

Re small claims, funny thing is we cannot find a definitive answer about what impact interest has on the claim value.

 

There is a CPR which says interest is ignored for claim value and allocation pruposes in which case this would be a small claim (notwithstanding the other more recent charges of course) and this might be considered definitve.

 

However, i was told by a judge that my claim, not quite 200K i hasten to add, was multi track based on the interest plus charges.

 

I have also been given the same advice from a retired solicitor, the reasoning is that the CPR was intended to take account of Sec 69 interest, not contractual interest. Contractual interest is part of the claim because you are, in general at least, only applying the terms of the agreement between the two parties. I know this isnt quite the same for us but thats the reasoning.

 

Anyway the point is theres an argument to explore, and i have an allocation hearing in respect of two claims both include contractual interest, one is like yours where the charges are a lot less than the interest, oh how i wish my charges were as old as yours, so you never know we might find out whether the interest is part of the value or not. It might also be possible that it gets to court and we find out whether a court would award contractual interest too at the unauthorised rate.

 

'Not' would be very good for you.

 

Re the rate, the argument for the contractual rate shouldnt be dependant on the resulting value in any way shape or form. The argument is about applying the logic of the contract, if you wish to use the argument for reciprocity and mutuality then imho you should use the argument for unauthorised overdraft rate.

 

As much as it might seem surreal, the point is you have to apply some kind of logic to the claim and resulting figures are in effect incidental and have no bearing on the logic.

 

IMHO there is no point in restricting the rate simply because the interest is so high.

 

Being pragmatic, if it ever got to court i doubt the court would award that amount of interest. But consider this, the money the bank took from you could well have been loaned to other customers at the rate you are using, it may have loaned the money at a lower rate of course and it would be difficult for the bank to show otherwise.

 

Whats clear is that if the charges are ruled unlawful which is of course entirely feasible, then it could be argued that the bank have unjustly enriched themselves and that the money they have made should be rightly yours.

 

I wouldnt get too excited just yet, but i would progress my claim based on applied logic rather than by any sense that the sums are too big or something.

 

I would suggest you process your claim in the normal way with the figures you want to use, as an aside, despite the value of your interest based on contractual, the banks will fight any claim with contractual interest, even a few quid, i argued with a bank over £80 contractual interest as an example.

 

So the value is not the issue per se, they will fight all claims for contractual interest.

 

Finally i would also check my figures several times and maybe check it again.

 

ALL JMHO

 

GLenn

 

PS can i deliver your claim from in personf for you please?

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

dj, I've done some sums and I think your calculation is probably right. I just assumed the £1042 was spread equally through the period you mention. At 29.8% APR, I got £116,056.11. Your £171K is in the same ball park, so the difference will probably just be because your charges weren't spread equally (you would have had more earlier, hence more interest). FWIW at 16.9% (current authorised rate) the interest would be £15,749.55. Still a very high figure, but we are talking an average of 18 years of interest. Surprising how much difference compounding makes.

 

The big question is what you do next because these sorts of figures would get laughed out of court - probably literally. Obvious question is could you really justify 29.8% because that's the unauthorised overdraft rate ? Did your balance change in and out of unauthorised/authorised/credit over time? To take this claim forward, I think you're going to need to take account of your changing balance and therefore different interest rates over time. I haven't gone down that road but I know that Vampiress, Bill-K and Mindzai eat problems like that for breakfast !

 

An alternative would be to go for Statutory (simple) interest (£3206.91 by my calcs).

 

Actually, I think your bigger problem will be the basic principle of claim >6 years issue (although I believe you are correct to try), but then you'd already worked that out for yourself. Regards, Mad Nick

Abbey £8370 settled 17 Apr 07

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The big question is what you do next because these sorts of figures would get laughed out of court - probably literally.

 

Why?

 

I cannot see any logic to this, if contractual interest is reasonable then the amounts reasonable because thats what it comes to.

 

If the amount gets laughed out it will be because contractual interest is unreasonable, irrespective of the amount.

 

This is the reason why the banks are worried about a) the limitations act and b) contractual interest, because it opens them up to claims of this magnitude.

 

This is also the reason why they don't want to get into court, not because of all the six year or less claims which with the best will in the world are small beer, even all of them together will be relatively small bear.

 

We have to remember the amount of money is not the issue, its the legal logic behind the claim which is either accepted by the court or not, if its accepted the final sum is a consequence of that argument.

 

The argument in law has nothing to do with the final sum.

 

Whether the court would award it, will not be based on the amount, but on the principles argued successfully or not.

 

JMHO.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn, I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but the application of a flat 28.9% is inappropriate if DJ's balance was in/out of unauthorised/authorised/credit. If I was Abbey, I'd have a field day if it was. I think the line to take is :

  • they took the charges
  • they levied interest on the charges
  • claim back exactly what charges + interest they took (unlawfully) [especially if the amount is bound to be conspiciously high calculated accurately or otherwise]

Others are clearly successfully claiming interest using flat rate % ("mutuality & reciprocity"), but I didn't think DJ would succeed doing that in these particular circumstances. Personally, I prefer to claim back exactly what they took. "Laughed out of court" was just a euphemism. Hope you see what I was trying to say.

 

Regards, Mad Nick

Abbey £8370 settled 17 Apr 07

Link to post
Share on other sites

s'ok nick

 

thats one of the problems with communication on the net, sometimes you cant see the other persons tongue in their cheek or whatever.

 

I think that there are undeniably problems and for me it has nothing to do with the sums, it really is making a convincing argumentent about the reciprocity and mutuality argument and the rate you choose to apply.

 

I am not confident that if any of my claims go to court that the court will agree, but i do think that it is this principle not the rate that is the problem.

 

Anyway, i hope that no one thinks that i am suggesting that a claim for charges older than six years is a foregone conclusion and neither is contractual interest.

 

But on the other hand whats the worse that could happen if the claim is well constructed?

 

The claimant could claim interest and limit the amount to keep it in fast track ie up to £15K, i suspect the charges will be half or so and interest of seven k wouldn't be bad result.

 

Of course the other issue is that between the OP working all this out and submitting a claim we are talking at least a month possibly more, a lot can happen between now and then or not as the case may be.

 

It may be that something crops up which makes this a goer or not, between now and the claimant getting the claim in.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dj59!

This is SERIOUS money U R talking about here!!!

IMHO

I would seek the advice of a Professional Financial Advisor/Solicitor if I was U.

This is NO disrespect to the CAG Membership.

...But for this amount of money it would need extremely careful handling throughout the Claiming process to ensure success.

No doubt the Bank would pull out ALL the stops.

If the Bank defended and lost...

It could end up being a proven TEST CASE for Bank Charges...Contractual Interest...+ Claiming for more than 6yrs!

If the Bank didn't defend...

dj59 would be quids in and with the possibility of the HUGE publicity the Claim would attract, people would be scouring their Grannies attics for copies of any old Bank Statement!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your responses, some interesting points have been raised. For the time being I will hang fire and watch with interest the pending cases as already mentioned.

 

Glen uk I wait with interest the outcome of your allocation hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...